Posted on 06/27/2006 3:41:53 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
When the New York State Assembly's legislative session ended on June 23, 2006, Assembly Bill 8036 died in committee. If enacted, the bill would have required that "all pupils in grades kindergarten through twelve in all public schools in the state ... receive instruction in all aspects of the controversy surrounding evolution and the origins of man." A later provision specified that such instruction would include information about "intelligent design and information effectively challenging the theory of evolution."
The bill was never expected to succeed; its sponsor, Assemblyman Daniel L. Hooker (R-District 127), was reported as explaining that his intention was more to spark discussion than to pass the bill, and as acknowledging that the bill was "religion-based." Moreover, Hooker is not planning on seeking a third term in the Assembly due to his military commitments: he is expected to be on active duty with the Marine Corps until at least early 2007.
Until we come to one wyattearp. Now the designer who preordained natures laws and elements has managed in one fell swoop to design a universe that actually works with all that entails.
But Wyatt thinks the designer is stupid because the giraffes neck is too short. The logical question is of course, what has Wyatt ever designed that approaches the complexity of even one element or microbe in the universe. Undoubtedly the answer is nothing, nada, zippo.
So, you'll understand if I take your criticism of the designer with amusement rather than taking it seriously.
Trying to find flaws in scientific theories and hypotheses is called science.
"So, you'll understand if I take your criticism of the designer with amusement rather than taking it seriously."
It was you who implied faulty design when you said,
"The notion that the giraffes neck and leg dimensions were naturally selected is one that is rather dubious if one has ever seen a giraffe drink water."
You can't have it both ways. You can't say that an example of excellent design is evidence for a designer and on the other hand an example of lousy design is also evidence for a designer.
You can't make crap up out of whole cloth.
Comprende'?
I was wondering why you said this, since I don't think it's neck is too short, but from later posts it appears you do, so the answer is obviously, "Because God made it wrong."
it's = its
Now's your chance Mr Guitarman. You get to show where I stated that "an example of excellent design is evidence for a designer" and that "an example of lousy design is also evidence for a designer".
But you can't because you made it up out of whole cloth. Now if you consider that lying that's fine with me but I never used the word. :-} :-} :-}
It doesn't. A giraffe is a giraffe. Maybe God wanted a giraffe with a neck too short, maybe He didn't. Neither you nor I can ever know that. Now I can live with that but you can't. Being a methodological naturlist I assume, you should be able to offer some explanation for why the giraffes neck is too long, too short or just right. Choose your medicine and give it a shot.
I get to do whatever I please here at FR until I am asked to leave. And right now it pleases me to make you eat your words. Salt and pepper?
You're a strange one. . . Why are you talking to me about giraffes? Why did you imply that a giraffe's neck is the wrong length and then deny it? Are you another pinata-whalloper, just whacking at whatever's in range?
"Trying to find flaws in scientific theories and hypotheses is called science."
Exactly. However trying to punch those holes with a bible isn't anything that needs to be in the science classroom.
I gather you're not interested in giraffes? Oh well, such is life. Do you have an opinion on why natural selection left the giraffes neck too short other than God forgot to cross the t?
Why do you think it's too short, and if it is, why are you letting God off the hook for screwing up like that?
The Bible is not a science book, I grant you that. But making an enemies list out of those who "punch holes" in scientific theories does not advance the search for knowledge.
What about those who make a lot of noise about ounching holes without having anything to back it up?
"But making an enemies list out of those who "punch holes" in scientific theories"
Not sure if I know what you are talking about, but if it has anything to do with a religious source trying to do any "science", I would say YIKES and run away.
Exactly. However trying to punch those holes with a bible isn't anything that needs to be in the science classroom.
Almost by definition science and its theories progress and changes as our understanding of the world deepens and folks step forward to challenge accepted truths. Conversely, belief is static. Religion does not take challenges to belief well.
Those who are fighting to have belief taught as science will very quickly find themselves outraged over what they feel are attacks on their belief systems.
:-} You tried that already, it didn't work the first time, it's even worse the second time. If you know nothing about the adaptation of giraffes that's no big deal. Simply say "I don't know" and move on to another thread posting childish "God off the hook" nonsense.
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.