Posted on 02/01/2006 6:32:25 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Ancestry did not cause the rejection. Present immunology and differences in genetics caused it.
UCD might prove useful in helping to familiarize a doctor with similarities and differences between diverse life forms, but this is not an indication that UCD caused these differences and similarities. I can organize words alphabetically, but that has no bearing on how the words actually originated.
Common ancestry does not necessarily make rejection less likely. Take blood transfusion. A close relative will not necessarily be a better donor candidate than an unrelated stranger. What matters here is the characteristics of what is donated, not how closely related the donor actually is to the recipient.
Plain Talk...I really cannot figure out what is wrong with you....what Ichneumon posts is not spam, but rather valuable information, which I, along with many others, do appreciate...if you dont like it, just dont read it...just scroll right past it, like an adult, instead of whining and complaining so much...
The creationists often like to post reams and reams of Scriptures...that is also fine, if they feel that it boosts their own particular beliefs....
Everyone posts in their own way, and unless Jim Robinson comes aboard the thread, and tells someone to stop posting lengthy posts, I would say this issue is really none of your business...
If anyone, Ichneumon, or lets say Elsie(taking posters from both sides of the issue), wants to post lengthy posts, then so be it...many will read what they post, and contemplate and learn and think...and many will scroll right past what they posted and not read a single word...
So why dont you just stop beating a dead horse on this matter, and you post like you want, and let other posters post in the manner they wish...and stop whining so much, you remind me of a little baby, who wants his way, and will not stop acting up until he gets it...
You are incorrect.
It is not impossible to "know what happened 100 million years ago", it's just not possible to know what happened with video tape resolution.
It's possible to determine ancient riverbeds and ocean coasts. It's possible to read fossils for what species existed, and chart the changes caused by evolution.
Your other big mistake is lumping evolution, continental drift and the big bang into the same "impossible to know" pile. Of the three, evolution is by far the most confirmed, with multiple cross verifications.
I believe the big bang is the the most speculative, with multiple layers of guesswork piled on one another, and with no resolution between competing views of physics like quantum mechanics vs. relativity. Physicists don't even understand how gravity works yet.
As for continental drift, it's not rocket science to match up sediment layers in various places, and correlate current movement with RTK-GPS systems. Continents do drift, because the real time GPS demonstrates it, the only question is how far they've drifted, from where, and for how long, and the sediment matching tells us.
The bottom line is you believe that historical science is not valid, and you are wrong about that. The different forms of historical science have different reliabilities and accuracies, but they are genuine science. Which is more than Genesis is.
No, an instruction that is for every generation that deals with those who try to use science and learning to reject their Creator.(Rom.1:20-22)
from the article:
A month later, the board mandated that starting in January 2005, ninth-grade biology teachers would be required to read to their students a four-paragraph statement encouraging students to look into alternatives to Darwin and suggesting Of Pandas and People (available in the school library) as a good place to start. Even though the new policy did not include active teaching of intelligent-design theory, Discovery Institute fellows issued a warning that the policy went too far and might, in fact, damage the cause rather than further it.
So, first they encourage "teach the controversy" but when the Dover board tries to do just that, DI gets nervous and wants them to chicken out.
Does DI want the controversy taught or was that just a clever but empty slogan designed to promote themselves instead of the so-called new theory?
Any meaningful debate is done. The Iders lost, got caught lying, and thanks to Behe and other experts ie- guys with books to sell, the notion that ID was a valid scientific theory ended up with egg on it's face.
That's not what TOE says at all. As I have seen many many times in my short time here a good number of Freepers, not to mention Catholics, are devout Christians who also recognize the TOE as being the best explanation for how God created.
We will delight in the weeping and lamentations of their women. lol
"Beware the man of one book" placemark
IOW, ID was a con game; its creators knew it, and its true believers will continue to refuse to accept this fact.
You might also point out the role of common descent in picking out suitable test subjects for certain medical or clinical experiments and trials.
Ah, but what a totally ignominious defeat! Intentionally and falsely trying to pass off Pandas as a science book is a far bigger and far more outrageous fraud, and will do more to destroy the ID charlatans at the DI, than a whole army of Piltdown Men.
As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards [Edwards v. Aguillard], which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE's [FTE = the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, the publisher of Pandas] argument that by merely disregarding the words "creation" and "creationism," FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas. In early pre-Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term "creation" was defined as "various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc," the very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published versions.Source: Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al..
From now on -- thanks to the geniuses at DI -- when the creationists raise the phony issue of Piltdown Man, or Nebraska Man, or Peppered Moths, or Haeckel's Embryos, none of which amounts to anything anyway, the rational side of the argument has been given the all-time slam-dunk response -- Pandas!
Yes, their defense of evolution certainly isn't based on science and there is NO evidence to support their hypothesis.
The inherent fuzziness in the concept is due principally to the appellate review process, by which parties to a lawsuit decide whether a higher court will review a trial court decision, and by which an appellate court is constrained in its review by principles of deference to the trial court judge and jury. This often necessitates the use of trial (or district) court opinions as precedential vehicles, since a great many decisions (and consequently a great many fact patterns and practical applications of law to fact) remain either unreviewed by a higher court or reviewed in only a limited way.
Note that the Dover decision itself was not appealed.
Over 400 Scientists Convinced by New Scientific Evidence That Darwinian Evolution is Deficient
It's still Fantasyland stuff which utterly ignores what happened in the trial in favor of the poster's fond hopes.
You can post however you wish. And if it is the result of a voluminous copy and paste function I can point out that it is spam and childish.
I can't stop hearing some of them in my mind. Urban soccer moms reading with aching slowness from a seminar handout card in their sad parody of a trailer park redneck drawl.
Me an' mah huzbin been Repullicans fur thurty years, but no mower. Kin Starr has gone too far. They don' keer about mah hayulth keer or a wommin's raht to chews. All they thank about is sex, sex, sex! Gonna be Dimmacrats all the way from now on!No other event has pointed up to me as those days did that there are people willing to lie about who they are and what they believe in order to influence others in a certain way. The shill in the crowd. Quite often not that hard to spot.
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.