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.
It is probably beyond the ability of most schoolkids to get all aspects of the controversy. Even the reading list-o-links is more than most have time for.
My my, stop dancing and answer the question: Do you think giraffe's necks are too short?
:-} Right. Of course you never asked me how or if design can be detected, you asked me how intelligent design as a mechanism to change allel frequency can be TESTED. I told you how, you obviously didn't like the answer because you went home to the barn and got out the design detection strawman.
But FWIW, Monsanto uses markers.
Some of them can simultaneously move the goalposts and dance around the issue.
"Do you have an opinion on why natural selection left the giraffes neck too short other than God forgot to cross the t?"
Too short for what?
Whine on!
Surly you know you're being trolled.
From RD's first link:
In 1924, the Russian plant biochemist and evolutionary biologist Aleksandr I. Oparin questioned Haeckels scheme. Oparin could not reconcile his Darwinian viewthat simple organisms had gradually evolved into more complex oneswith the prevalent belief that life had suddenly appeared on Earth with a self-sustaining metabolism. So he proposed an alternative scenario. He posited that a long period of abiotic synthesis on early Earth had caused organic compounds to accumulate in a prebiotic soup, which had preceded life.
"LOL. You made crap up, you got called on it and now you're whining like a Dixie Chick."
I made nothing up. I merely posted the implications of your illogical position. YOU did make things up though. You scolded someone who only reposted YOUR words saying the giraffe was poorly designed and then you took him for task for allegedly not giving the designer the ability to do whatever he wanted.
You set the game up as "heads I win, tails you lose".
What's worse is your inability to admit it was YOU who called the giraffe's design into question.
Quick, quick, ping the list!
Or not.
"Surly you know you're being trolled."
Yes I do, and don't call me Shirley.
If they could only troll WELL it would be more fun.
IBTP? IBTZ?
I imply, you infer, Your inference had no basis in fact, thus crap out of whole cloth. Integrity? LOL.
You want it both ways. It doesn't work that way.
No I want it one way. I want you to state your opinion and me to state mine. When you state yours and mine it is very unseemly.
I suggest you go play your guitar, you're not doing very well here.
Live and learn. So the demarcation between science and non-science below the hierarchial structure of the theory is not falsifiabilty?
Wow!
Yes it did. You have been critiquing the design of the giraffe while chastising people for pointing this out, saying since we never designed anything who are we to say what the designer could or couldn't do (even though it was YOU who were do just that). That means that bad design is still, in your world, evidence of a designer. It is not much of a stretch to infer you also think good design is evidence for a designer as well. Do you deny you find good design in nature to be evidence of a designer? My statement was the logical conclusion of your position.
Now, I see you STILL won't own up it was YOU who was criticizing the design of the giraffe, further demonstrating you lack of integrity.
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.