Posted on 08/21/2005 1:18:04 AM PDT by MRMEAN
Compared with fields like genetics and neuroscience and cosmology, botany comes up a bit short in the charisma department. But when scientists announced last week that they had figured out how plants grow, one had to take note, not only because of the cleverness required to crack a puzzle that dates to 1885, but because of what it says about controversy and certainty in science -- and about the evolution debate.
In 1885, scientists discovered a plant-growth hormone and called it auxin. Ever since, its mechanism of action had been a black box, with scientists divided into warring camps about precisely how the hormone works. Then last week, in a study in Nature, biologist Mark Estelle of Indiana University, Bloomington, and colleagues reported that auxin links up with a plant protein called TIR1, and together the pair binds to a third protein that silences growth-promoting genes. The auxin acts like a homing beacon for enzymes that munch on the silencer. Result: The enzymes devour the silencer, allowing growth genes to turn on.
Yet biology classes don't mention the Auxin Wars. Again and again, impressionable young people are told that auxin promotes plant growth, when the reality is more complex and there has been raging controversy over how it does so.
Which brings us to evolution. Advocates of teaching creationism (or its twin, intelligent design) have adopted the slogan, "Teach the controversy." That sounds eminently sensible. But it is disingenuous. For as the auxin saga shows, virtually no area of science is free of doubt or debate or gaps in understanding.
(Excerpt) Read more at american-buddha.com ...
Marxist evotheism? You've got to be kidding!
Catchy ain't it?
I think we are confusing a term here. "Unalienable" doesn't mean that you rights can't be abridged by a legitimate government. Unalienable means they can't be sold.
Which is another way of saying that you cannot sell yourself into slavery, even voluntarily.
In England, land was unalienable, which meant it belonged to you and your heirs, and could not be sold, even to pay debts.
This is one of those "If you have to ask the question, you won't understand the answer" things
But what you posted was gibberish. There was no substance to possibly address.
It's an odd question, coming from a FReeper. I think he'[s having problems asserting that religion is responsible for personal freedom, and at the same time looking at the sorry history of governments having established religions.
He might have killed someone, but hell, I could do that. I can also take away someone's rights to life and liberty. Does that make me God?
No, it is not illogical. The framers were men. If a right is inalienable, it is not something subject to giving or taking. It exists as is.
If God does, in fact, exist then He created our frame of reference. We could not know "good" or "evil" apart from Him.
We certainly could. We know that murder is evil, regardless whether God tells us so or not.
Only a junior god!
But, science does know what the answer isn't...
We can also know that slavery is evil, even if God gives us detailed instructions on how to beat a slave to death and get away with it.
But what you posted was gibberish. There was no substance to possibly address.
Your response was a classic example of Rule 9 of the Rules of Disinformation which states:
No. 9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
Congratulations! I can see that you have really mastered that one.
Rule No. 5, Side-track opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left- wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
In your post #107 you wrote:
The major problem with evothiesm is that both its message and many of its messengers lack credibility. The message source appears to be originally from Marxists, communists, atheists, civilization parasites, nihilists, politicians with agendas, the lawyers representing them, etc.
LOL you couldn't make this up. Come on admit it, your posts are some kind of parody surely.
If there are limits to the powers of an intelligent designer, what could they be?
How about the Intelligent Designer's inability to create a truly intelligent species that is not prone to self destruction.
Some examples, from Scripture, of man's moral judgment, apparently independent of God's:
Genesis:
18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
18:21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.
18:22 And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.
18:23 And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?
18:24 Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?
18:25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
18:26 And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.
[The negotiations continue ...]Exodus
32:8 They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
32:9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:
32:10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.
32:11 And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?
32:12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.
32:13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.
32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
Obviously a lawyer. Sigh! Is no website sacred?
"You're the one doing the "what if"s."
I dare say your "what if" tops mine. Douche.
Many people preach this, but few practice it. I don't. But I do respect those who do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.