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.
Jim Jones is an example of a Christian, eh? Ooooooooookay, then.
I stand by posts of 111 and 220, and I believe an open minded person looking at them would conclude they are examples of evolutionists trying to explain the origins of life.
You can think that if you like; I believe people with an open mind will read all of those articles by evolutionists and come out with a different conclusion. :)
What I think doesn't matter. Your argument is a non-sequitur and logically invalid. And your citing what an 'open minded' person reading them would conclude is hilarious. Apparently you think 'open minded' people are stupid and illogical.
"I get was something like "ignore that man behind the screen, Evolution doesn't try to explain the origin of life..."Laugh out loud hilarious."
Explain how evolution explains the origin of life. I'll help you. Write "Origins of life" on your left hand. Then write "changes over time" on the other hand. Turn your hands over. Realize you have ink all over your hands and you have learned nothing. Go wash your hands and go to bed.
Do they have a Democrats Anonymous (DA) meeting in your town?
So the argument that evolution doesn't try to explain the origin of life is a distinction without a difference. B'sides, my goal isn't to persuade the people who are slavishly devoted to evolution.
And you aren't going to persuade me by suggesting I'm a closet liberal. :) You have no compelling evidence for that.
Just like...well, you know!
At last, we agree!
Dave, you're becoming a real comedian.
"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," - Dumbski
"Father's [Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me to enter a PhD program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle." - Jon Wells.
These people arent Christians? ID doesnt have a religious agenda?
These people arent fooling anyone (except you).
I am hearing extremely loud and shrill bagpipes.
Perhaps Cantor could count the things Dave doesn't get.
I've looked them over, and I conclude that you're extremely confused, and have trouble with basic reading comprehension.
You owe CarolinaGuitarman a large apology.
Your material in no way contradicts what CarolinaGuitarman actually said. It only contradicts what you MISUNDERSTOOD him to say.
He said, correctly, that evolution does not address the origin of life. He's right, it doesn't. Nowhere does he say what you falsely claim he said -- he never said that evolutionists don't attempt to explain the origins of life.
It's not a difficult distinction, but you seem to be having enormous trouble grasping it.
Evolution is, in a nutshell, the process of descent with variation, and the interactions which affect that. Without "descent" -- i.e. without reproduction -- no evolution occurs. Rocks don't evolve, because they don't reproduce. And whatever process(es) brought about the first living thing(s) (whether involving any "designers" or not), it didn't involve evolution, because evolution could not occur *until* a thing came into existence that could reproduce. Thus, evolution doesn't deal with how life came about -- life came about by other kinds of processes, of a non-evolutionary kind.
Nor does "evolution" as a field of science address the origin of life, because it studies, not surprisingly, evolutionary processes, and again the origin of life is outside of these processes.
CarolinaGuitarman spoke correctly when he wrote,
"Evolution does not try to explain the origin of life."He was as clear as could possibly be, and you STILL misunderstood him."None of which supports your claim that the ToE includes the origins of life. They are separate, as the links you provided showed."
"Evolutionary theory doesn't include the origins of life, as your posts showed. Evolutionary theory cannot say anything about pre-life that is not an imperfect self-replicator."
"Just because someone accepts evolution doesn't mean everything they study is evolutionary biology. The origins of life are not included in the ToE, and have never been."
"It was an explanation for the origins AND the early evolution of life. They were separated, as they are separate fields undertaken by different people using different techniques and different theoretical models."
"It showed scientists studying the origins of life using something OTHER than the ToE to do so. They are using biochemistry, not Darwin."
"And nothing on that list shows anybody using the ToE to investigate the origins of life."
He's saying, correctly, that the ToE (Theory of Evolution) doesn't, and can't address the processes which led to the original formation of life. Other fields (most nobably biochemistry) are engaged in order to study those processes.
YOU, on the other hand, kept prancing around like a silly goose, over the unremarkable fact that scientists who are interested in evolutionary processes are also often interested in the separate processes by which life first formed. This is hardly surprising, and it in no way contradicts anything CarolinaGuitarman said -- it doesn't magically turn the field of biogenesis into being the same as the field of evolutionary biology, because they aren't.
Again, you owe him an apology.
The *only* thing he wrote that might reasonably be able to be misconstrued was, "Evolutionary biologists don't study the origins of life, biochemists do", but this comment was not written in isolation -- in context with all of his other remarks, it's entirely clear to anyone with working reading comprehension that he was saying that while biologists who have an interest in evolution (or may even study in the field of evolutionary biology) may also sometimes study the origin of life, they don't use the field of evolutionary biology to do it -- they use biochemistry, because that's the field that addresses the processes at work before the first reproducing living things were finally in place, as he made clear when he wrote, "It was an explanation for the origins AND the early evolution of life. They were separated, as they are separate fields undertaken by different people using different techniques and different theoretical models."
...and yet still you misunderstood it, and used your misunderstanding as a cheap excuse to prance and ridicule and insult and point and laugh like a schoolgirl.
Again, you owe CarolinaGuitarman a large apology. Are you honorable enough to do it?
Ping to post #253
I can guess.
That's because they are examples of *that*, but unfortunately that doesn't help your cheap and baseless attacks on CarolinaGuitarman, because that doesn't contradict what he *actually* said -- it only contradicts what you MISUNDERSTOOD him to say.
So far five open-minded persons have looked at your silly posts and *ALL* have concluded that you're off the rails: CarolinaGuitarman, ml1954, js1138, SaveUS, and Ichneumon. Getting a clue yet?
Ready to apologize to him yet?
So the argument that evolution doesn't try to explain the origin of life is a distinction without a difference.
Again you completely misunderstand what is being said to you. It is a distinction with a difference, and the fact that some scientists choose to study BOTH doesn't change that in the least.
Your comment is as inane and flawed as trying to claim that electric cars and diesel locomotives are "a distinction without a difference" just because many engineers study or write about both topics. Do you realize how goofy that sounds?
"Again, you owe CarolinaGuitarman a large apology. Are you honorable enough to do it?"
Makes me want to apologize and I didn't even do anything. Well written.
Maybe Recovering_Democrat is having a relapse.
Postmodern depression.
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.