Posted on 08/13/2008 9:44:45 AM PDT by Sopater
A federal judge has ruled the University of California can deny course credit to Christian high school graduates who have been taught with textbooks that reject evolution and declare the Bible infallible, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles ruled Friday that the school's review committees did not discriminate against Christians because of religious viewpoints when it denied credit to those taught with certain religious textbooks, but instead made a legitimate claim that the texts failed to teach critical thinking and omitted important science and history topics.
Charles Robinson, the university's vice president for legal affairs, told the Chronicle that the ruling "confirms that UC may apply the same admissions standards to all students and to all high schools without regard to their religious affiliations."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Which is exactly why my point from the beginning was, "Unless you identify which biological systems you believe spontaneously generated themselves, you are committing the fallacy of exclusion."
I even addressed this specifically TO YOU when I said, "It all depends on what you define as a 'first life form' and what biological systems that alleged life form would have that were spontaneously generated without evolution. If any selection is involved in the appearance of this first 'life form', then evolution was involved and the fallacy of exclusion applies." That was posed TO YOU way back in post 658.
Now you seem to have forgotten all about it. What is it about evolution that makes it's adherents unable to follow a train of thought?
No, you admitted that the experiment can be done, but you believe that ill-defined factors override controllable inputs. You also claim that those ill-defined inputs are impossible to control. That's a completely different thing than saying that the experiment 'can't be done'.
The experiment can be done. You make the claim that the easily repeatable results are invalid for unfalsifiable reasons.
That is a fallacy.
Logic. any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound.
Nice dodge.
The story of creation is allegory, and confusing Exodus and the later books of the with Genisis is rather amusing as well. You are correct much of the bible tells historical lineages. However to extrapolate that the story of exodus is historical and literal that the story of creation is also literal is a giant leap of nonsense.
God created the universe and all that is in it, then this creator created us, and while we are told we are the chosen of God, we are certainly not God, and we are told the story of creation, you believe that the story would not need to be insanely simplified to be comprehended by a man who had no more knowledge of this universe at the time than what he could see with his naked eye? This is nonsensical.
Man has walked the earth for 10s of thousands of years, our understanding of the natural world is far beyond that of those at the time of the writing of the Bible and through all still could not remotely understand the creation of the universe if God were to speak to us in human form today.
Do you even know how the Bible came to be the Bible? God did not plop it down written and complete, man wrote the words of the Old Testament, and a communion of men chose which texts would be included and which would not. Since its original conclusion of the included texts, break offs have decided to remove texts from their versions, and add others, etc etc etc.
The fact that later books in the bible reference Genesis as proof of historical fact is interesting, if disingenuous. Pleanty of references back to known literature occur throughout time, does that mean the works referenced prior are not allegory or fiction? I do not say Genesis is fiction, but the creation story it is allegory.
The earth did not appear out of nothing instantly within a few dozen hours, cooled, vegitated, supporting life as we know it, covered in water. The moon did not appear within a few hours either. Those that claim literal interpretation of every word of the Bible, rather than recognizing where allegory are clearly being used do no service to God or man.
You presume that to recognize allegory is to call God a liar, when no such charge has been made. You presume to know God’s will to say that he would not use such a device to commune with his creation.. and that’s a bit too hubris to believe.
If you want to put it that way, then I'll put it this way: The results of the experiment would be meaningless, because of the inability to control the outside inputs.
As for "ill-defined," let me define what cannot be controlled: Everything a person has experienced before entering into the experiment. Everything a person experiences during the experiment that is not a direct result of the inputs of the experiment.
“you believe that the story would not need to be insanely simplified to be comprehended by a man who had no more knowledge of this universe at the time than what he could see with his naked eye?”
I think it is tremendously simplified. Did the Lord tell us how He created all this universe, out of nothing? No. He simply tells us he did it. He tells us when, and in what order, and describes some of the creation. It is a drop in the ocean of simplicity. He does actually simplify it to what we could see with our naked eye!
“Do you even know how the Bible came to be the Bible? God did not plop it down written and complete, man wrote the words of the Old Testament,”
Yes, I know the first five books of Moses, known as the Pentateuch, or, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, were given to Moses by God on Mt Sinai, with the exception of the last several verses of Deuteronomy, written after Moses’ death. There were no eyewitnesses to creation. Obviously, not even Adam was there until the sixth day. So God told Moses what happened, and gave all of early history until Moses’ day, directly to Moses, who wrote it down.
I am aware of the settling of the canon in New Testament times, and I am aware that the Jews already has the Old Testament set and approved. It started when Moses came down from Mt. Sinai, and continued throughout their history, as prophets were recognized and confirmed.
“The earth did not appear out of nothing instantly within a few dozen hours, cooled, vegitated, supporting life as we know it, covered in water. The moon did not appear within a few hours either. Those that claim literal interpretation of every word of the Bible, rather than recognizing where allegory are clearly being used do no service to God or man.”
Did Elijah enter heaven on a chariot of fire? Did Daniel survive the lions’ den and walk with his friends through the fiery furnace that incinerated the men who delivered them there? Did Jesus walk on water? Did the Red Sea part? Were the waters turned to blood? Did Jesus rise again from the dead?
Or do you discount all of this history because you can not recreate it in your lab?
They don't know that yet. You'll have to be more patient.
Show me that the information did not exist in the original organism.
No, that's your job. You're the one maintaining it was always there; you're the one who needs to find it.
ah, ah, ah!!
You’re asserting the addition of information. You prove it.
Otherwise, your theory has no more validity than someone else’s interpretation of the observation,
though you’ll try to assert that it does, based on your assumptions,
ie, CIRCULAR REASONING.
I haven't forgotten about it. I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate why identifying the first life forms and how they got here is relevant to what happened after they were here. You keep saying it is, but you don't offer any support.
That's why I called it the simplest explanation. You have 12 populations of bacteria. One of them, after quite some time, suddenly displays a new ability that the others do not. One explanation: they acquired that ability. Another explanation: they always had that ability. The former explains the observation with a single factor. The latter, though, requires you to not only explain why the latent ability suddenly got expressed in that one population, but why, under identical conditions, it didn't get expressed in the other 11.
You might be right, of course. The proponents of the former explanation are busy looking for exactly how and when the new ability was acquired, as they should. If they find out, they will presumably be able to show that the whatever-it-is does not exist in the other populations. Meanwhile, proponents of the latter explanation should be expected to look for where that ability was located before.
Which is exactly why my point from the beginning was, "Unless you identify which biological systems you believe spontaneously generated themselves, you are committing the fallacy of exclusion."
I even addressed this specifically TO YOU when I said, "It all depends on what you define as a 'first life form' and what biological systems that alleged life form would have that were spontaneously generated without evolution. If any selection is involved in the appearance of this first 'life form', then evolution was involved and the fallacy of exclusion applies." That was posed TO YOU way back in post 658.
No, you are just trying different ways to move the argument into unfalsifiability and keep it there. You need the argument to be unfalsifiable to maintain your mental paradigm. You continue to claim that 'experiences' are equivalent to facts in the experiment because you need the argument to be unfalsifiable. I reject that because 'experiences' are not facts of the argument.
"As for "ill-defined," let me define what cannot be controlled: Everything a person has experienced before entering into the experiment. Everything a person experiences during the experiment that is not a direct result of the inputs of the experiment."
Irrelevant. The only inputs that are relevant are the facts. 'Experiences' are not facts of the argument.
A response worthy of the point.
And you presume that God is unable to communicate his ability to create ex nihilo and that you are able to speak for him. You're no different. Just a different set of presumptions.
True hubris is claiming that God can't communicate what he did without someone like you to explain it all away.
Since that has never, ever happened before, don't you think it just a wee bit optimistic to think that this will be the very first time?
Repeating yourself isn't helping. I think you must be making a point that you consider so self-evident that you can't figure out how to explain it. Walk me through it:
You claim that evolutionary scientists commit the fallacy of exclusion if they don't address the origin and nature of whatever preexisted self-replicating life forms. Is that correct?
For that to be a fallacy of exclusion, information about that "whatever" must be relevant to the evolutionary behavior of self-replicating life forms. Do you agree?
If you agree, can you explain the relevance?
Repeated denials isn't helping.
Which is exactly why my point from the beginning was, "Unless you identify which biological systems you believe spontaneously generated themselves, you are committing the fallacy of exclusion."
I even addressed this specifically TO YOU when I said, "It all depends on what you define as a 'first life form' and what biological systems that alleged life form would have that were spontaneously generated without evolution. If any selection is involved in the appearance of this first 'life form', then evolution was involved and the fallacy of exclusion applies." That was posed TO YOU way back in post 658.
Hasn't happened yet.
But, you would have to understand the difference between conjecture and science.
Clearly you don't.
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.