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 ...
Does the killing of the outsider benefit your society by wiping out a threat to it, or endanger it by bringing the force of the other society to bear against your's? In this we see that societies exist in "super" societies (societies of societies), and an individual's actions on this scale will affect whole societies.
I read what you said perfectly. That's why I made the post. Your statement is an illogical construction, that portrays falsehood. Seems you have a problem understanding Free will. God is not an authoritarian as you seem to prefer, or would you just prefer puppets and robots?
" As for Man being in God's image, does God have a tail bone for a tail he no longer has too? :)
Yes.
Indeed. I was talking about killing one individual occasionally. Someone hunts for pleasure & crosses over the border to recreate.
Does the killing of the outsider benefit your society by wiping out a threat to it, or endanger it by bringing the force of the other society to bear against your's?
My recreation hunter only targets the other society's useless eaters, people like unattached bums or the overly greedy, those who have amassed an unfair share of a societies resources. The other society ascribes to the same morality & benefits your society in the same way...
In this we see that societies exist in "super" societies (societies of societies), and an individual's actions on this scale will affect whole societies.
No doubt.
Only people with no imagination find Free Will to be a trouble free concept. As for God being a totalitarian, this is an irrelevant concept when applied to an entitity capable of creating an existence of which he knows everything, past, present and future. The concept of time for such an entity would not be in any way equivalent to ours. And having created the past, present and future, it is all his.
"I read what you said perfectly. That's why I made the post. Your statement is an illogical construction, that portrays falsehood."
Show how it's false; saying so doesn't cut it. God is omnipotent and omniscient. God created us imperfect, knowing that many would go to hell BECAUSE he made us imperfect. That is evil.
"" As for Man being in God's image, does God have a tail bone for a tail he no longer has too? :)"
Why is that evil? Most instances of hell in the Bible can better be translated as "grave", the big ol' eternal dirt nap.
God gets to do what He wants. He's just awesome that way.
The word was chosen by someone else, but it refers to portrayal.
"The garden of Eden has been allegorized by some in order to avoid controversy between evolution and creation, although other problems arise with this tactic."
The figures are not fictional, but the events of the parable are. The garden itself is simply the stage of the parable, the tree of life represents the possibility of a fast track to eternal life in paradise, by theft.
The fast track itself to eternal life was never to be given. There was no physical tree of life, the garden was not in Iraq and neither is the cherubim waving the flaming sword barring the way back to the garden.
Matt 13:10-17
The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"
1He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables:
"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.'[Isaiah 6:9-10]
But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.
Matthew 13:34
"Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable."
Jesus is the God of the OT. He is the One in the garden.
Boring, eh?
Come up with something of substance and we will address it. Trying to throw out a load of pseudoscience babble disguised as a legitimate critique, however, won't fool anyone.
"Where to begin? First, how about if you stop trying to re frame the issue: From the original post:"
Where is anyone trying to re-frame an issue? If anyone is trying to use redirection it is you; instead of supplying an argument of any substance you insist on using your 'rules' in an obvious attempt to link communism, as a representative of extremism, to those on the evo side of the debate. The link you are attempting to make is irrelevant to the subject of evolution.
"There is generally not a problem with evolution as offered to explain a mechanism for adaption within a specific biologic range. However,the problem with the "evolution" you push is that it is not evolution, it is evothiesm; which is a political-based agenda indistinguishable in effect from an extremist religion.
This is simply an assertion. Let's see some concrete evidence of this.
As far as your 'rules' go, you will have to prove that their use is limited to extremists. You will also have to prove the existence of an extremist philosophy of evotheism. Once you've done that, then it is up to you show where, when and by whom this extremism is being invoked.
"Second, was this premise which proved true:
"It is anticipated that the evotheisits who do respond will attempt misdirection, straw man, ad homin attacks and will attempt to re-frame the issue.
This 'premise' can also be applied to you original post, as it can to many creationist posts, and many ID posts. I hope you are not trying to use this as proof of extremism.
"Third, the issue was stated as:
"The issue here, however, is the fact that certain aspects of astrophysics and quantum mechanics conflict with major premises of the "science" of evotheisim.Astrophysics and quantum mechanics are by their nature more credible then evothiesm and its proponents.
Your response?
My response is that this is an assertion and has no substance. If you want a response, back you assertion up with specifics and evidence. So far you have done neither. Where and how does Astrophics and quantum mechanics conflict with evotheism (which still needs to be proved, btw).
"Fourth, in a classic rope-a-dope tactic, the original post intentionally baited those trained in the Marxist political sciences to respond:
In other words you are trying to minimise the impact of your own use of the 'rules'.
"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.
An attempt to poison the well. Nice debate tactic, too bad it's so transparent.
"The original 25 rules of disinformation were - coincidently - authored and distributed by Marxists for Marxists. Also coincidentally, all of the "we" responses to the original post here appear to be have been and continue to be merely knee-jerk Marxist political science debate tactics. Thus, at least circumstantially, the anticipated responses have shown at minimum a Marxist influence involved in the arguments related to the expansion of the evolution into the political agenda driven evothiesm.
Since you've shown that you have the ability to and do use those 'rules' this same argument can be applied to you, as well as the creationists and IDers. Either the 'rules' are used by everybody during arguments, therebye making your use of them as proof of 'Communist extremeism' invalid, or virtually everyone on the forum is a Marxist trained in the use of the '25 rules of disinformation. This is unprovable without your 'rules' and a tautological argument, therefore your argument is invalid.
"Fifth, your response here was nothing more than misdirection, straw man, ad homin attacks and [an] attempt to re-frame the issue.
There has to be an issue to be re-framed. You made an assertion with nothing to back it up, making your issue into a non-issue. Had you been specific, and at least shown some examples with definitions, the responders would have had something to respond to.
"When you can provide a response sufficient to survive a Daubert challenge, then you can claim some authority and credibility.
Why is that a necessity, other than your demand for it to be so?
You are aware that there are many posters here who are experts in one or more related fields of evolution?
Cite the chapter & verse where it says we are punished for God's mistakes.
He was the one who made us susceptible to sin, even though he knew what would happen to each of us and he could have done something about it.
He forgives us for our sins if we repent. It is up to each of us to choose to repent & experience the reward of eternal life with Him. If we had no choice in it, what would justify giving us that reward?
That is the epitome of evil.
Your complaint seems to be that of a child, "I didn't ask to be born".
I told you htat your construction was illogical.
Gen 1:26-27
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
John 10:33-39
"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'[Psalm 82:6]? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.
"LOL He descended from an ape like us?"
He peed in the bushes too.
Your problem still lies in comprehending Free will, having to work at your choices and responsibility. Folks were given the powers of God to make these decisions.
Childlike even.
"Childlike even."
More childish than childlike.
There's no such thing. You have to atleast understand the words.
He can.
Before he made Man, he knew that Man would not be able to do what he commanded, that he would be weak.
He knew man wouldn't, not that he couldn't. God trusts man more than you do.
If this is denied, then God is not omniscient.
You see anyone denying it?
God, knowing that Man was destined for sin, made him that way anyway.
Yes, He did. Again, "I didn't ask to be born".
If God had no choice, then he is not omnipotent.
He had a choice. You have a choice too & you don't need to be omnipotent to have it.
God choose to make us imperfect and had the nerve to judge us for the mistakes we made because God screwed up our nature.
He made us perfect. We had other ideas about it, because we thought it would make us His equal.
That is evil.
By who's measure, yours?
The concept of original sin is evil. The idea that a baby is born with sin is evil.
We all sinned before we were born into this life.
When does he get to repent for his sins?
He hasn't sinned & has nothing for which to repent.
I am in agreement with Einstein, who said it better than I could have,
""I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism."
That is it in a nutshell. You can't imagine God in any way, other than the way in which you make Him. Talk about a ridiculous egotism.
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.