Posted on 10/14/2006 11:16:50 AM PDT by lizol
Some folks can even read and understand that some of the SN's are mere expansions of the main ones noted.
But you are aware that different churches expand them differently. The structure of language and poetry would encourage skipping superfluous thou shalt nots.
Love your tagline, Elsie. I've read this common sense thingy before and it's so true. We HAVE lost common sense, at least in politics and schools. Grrrr.
It should be taught as two sides to the story, creationism or ID and Darwin's theory. I don't see how hard that is to figure out, Stultis. Teach them both as theory and let the hearer sort it out. Is that so confusing?
Yes, it's a public school.I don't know exactly how he teaches the subject because I don't go to school anymore, but his public talks are amazing. He discusses different animals, species, etc. and he has a LOT of knowledge about each one. I think even YOU would learn something from him.
Yes, that IS what I've been taught.
As I said, reverse years of mathematical research on chaos theory, win yourself a Fields Medal and probably a Nobel Prize (in physics -- that still means something), and prove there is complete order in that cigarette smoke. Otherwise, you don't have a leg to stand on.
Science does not know the cause of gravity either. Are you spooked yet?
No, it doesn't. And unlike you, it's able to admit it doesn't. Science will keep looking for an answer, while you'll just say it's Gods love pushing everything together or some other untestable tripe.
I myself find it rather strange that a bunch of intellectuals have to come up with a movement as if to promote what is obvious to common sense and has been since the beginning.
According to those of your religion. Other religions have different common sense. The BIG problem with putting religion into science is that every religion will have a different science, a different set of rules for everything. Science is supposed to be outside of religion, and objective view that all can see.
Each time you post you are creating organized matter to perform a specific function, or at least arranging it. The creative part has to to with the manner in which you choose to express yourself.
I finally get it. I am the designer, the creator.
Evolution, despite the protestations of creationists who really don't have any input into the science, is the change in allele frequency within a population due to differential reproductive success. This has been observed many times in the wild.
"Could you give me an example?
Aside from the listing of species which have speciated in the TalkOrigins Macro-evolution article, the most recent example would be the Asian elephant population where the percentage of tuskless (they do not form tusks as they become adults) elephants being born has increased in recent years.
Any discussion of population genetics you find on the WEB should give examples.
Why would you expect an intermediary species to still be alive?
"Why would you expect one not to be? Look, if evolution takes all this time for one species to form into another, by definition there HAS to be intermediate examples!!!
And by the same logic there will also be times when the intermediates have been out competed by the the most recent species and have gone extinct.
It can also be said that all species, unless they are on the road to being extinct before they split into two populations, are intermediates. We see many extant species with what should be called intermediate morphologies. These morphologies are quite evident in both the Sirenians and the Pinnipeds, where we have mammals adapting to aquatic living as the Cetaceans did millions of years ago.
"The basics problem with the TOE is there was NOT enough time!
Why do you say that?
You see. All the work that science has done for the last five centuries was unnecessary. It was all common sense. Newton and all those guy who labored all their lives could have just waited for fester to tell them what they wanted to know.
It's all just common sense.
"Thanks, C.
I appreciate the confidence, but because of my intermittent ability to respond in a timely fashion I may not be the best evo to answer questions.
Besides, in light of all the recent bannings, who knows how long I will be here.
The Bible is not physical evidence.
And there's plenty of fossil evidence for evolution.
What kind of fossil evidence would you expect to find that would support ToE?
. . . the behavior of systems that exhibit chaos appears to be random . . .
I'm not that smart. But I am smart enough to know the difference between philosophy and science, and smart enough to know the words "natural" and "supernatural" are not scientific, but philosophical, arbitrary, and subjective. It is also very apparent to the reason and senses of any sentient being that the universe demonstrates order and consistency even down to the smallest particle. I am not so dense as to think science distills the process and results of combustion as "chaos." Your example, like Dimensio's example of the results of bomb explosion, in no way undermines the theory of intelligent design.
And unlike you, it's able to admit it doesn't.
Oh, I am perfectly will to admit what I myself and science do not know. But unlike you, I do not make use of the legal system to enforce scientific thought and teaching in public schools.
The BIG problem with putting religion into science is that every religion will have a different science . . .
Indeed. It is such a big problem that you would use the force of law to prevent it, even though the law of the land allows it. It is merely your opinion, with little basis in objective reality, that science and religion must have a dividing wall between them. You do not have a scientific reason for asserting as much. I suppose if you were to design a human being you would leave the brain and its functions out, because thoughts and material "do not belong together."
I am the designer, the creator.
Of course not. You are one of many, and by your example demonstrate that intelligent design is scientifically accessible.
Common sense. Sheesh.
(And no. That cartoon is not the same as what was said)
Sheesh. What I ever did to get on your spam radar, please tell me so it does not happen again!
Yes, it appears to be random... and this is called chaotic behaviour.
Well, I did say the randomnness is an appearance, didn't I? Just like your source. Objectivley, however, it is anything but chaos. If it were pure chaos it would be unintelligible.
Appearances can be deceiving. Common things may not make sense unless you know the underlying theory. If you have only 23 people in a room, how can there possibly be a 50% chance that two will have the same birthday?1It sounds like nonsense, counterintuitive. Why do we use "unsharp mask" to sharpen images in Photoshop?2 It sounds contradictory.
1 It has to do with considering unordered pairs of people, which gives you better odds.
2 It's basically applying a gaussian blur to a copy of the image and then masking the original with it, which is in effect subtracting blur, which appears as sharpening.
Of course, philosophically one may attribute the entire universe to chaos having the appearance of order.
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.