Posted on 07/05/2003 4:12:52 PM PDT by chance33_98
'Monkey trial' continues in Roseville
ROSEVILLE (AP) - Nearly a century has passed since the famous Scopes "monkey trial," but Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is still being tested - most recently before the Roseville Joint High School District.
At issue was how high school students should be taught evolution and if competing ideas about man's place in nature should also be included in a science textbook. But after a lengthy debate from dozens of residents and parents, board trustees approved a new science book that presented only Darwin's side of the story. School officials said there is no book on the mainstream market that presents what some call the "intelligent design" theory of evolution - a belief that life did not evolve randomly but instead progressed according to a plan or design. Officials said the book selected is readable and provides material that students will be tested on by the state.
Of course it proves ID. Can't you see they use the word "program" not once but several times? What else could that possibly mean? </g3kmode>
LMAO!
How do you prove and falsify evolution?
How do you prove and falsify the Big Bang?
How do you prove and falsify abiogenesis?
How do you prove and falisfy the emergence of information in living beings by natural means?
How do you prove and falsify irreducible complexity arising from chance mutations?
How do you prove and falsify the anthropic principle?
How do you prove and falsify love?
How do you prove and falsify the mind?
There are a lot of things that are true, that exist, which you cannot explain with the evolution model of origins. The existence of information, alone, is a mind boggler. Information exists apart from any medium. If you write a number on a piece of paper, type it on a computer, or etch it in stone, does the information communicated through that number disappear if you erase the paper, delete the computer file, or crush the stone into dust? No - it continues to exist. And if it exists apart from matter, where does the information come from? DNA carries an amazing amount of information, but the DNA is not the information, it is only the bearer of the information. Bottom line: information comes from a mental process. The existence of information in the universe necessarily leads one to an ultimate mind - give me an alternate explanation to the existence of God.
It was particularly amazing when a certain poster on that one admitted in full view of everyone that he/she's sole purpose on these threads is to disrupt them.
And sure enough wherever he/she goes, the thread gets pulled!
By the time it happens, it tends to be not much loss.
*Prayers* for your MIL and daughter's continued health.
Nope, seems you folk really need to learn to read. It is not because we do not know that life had to be intelligently designed, it is because of what we do now.
There is a tremendous amount of proof against abiogenesis. First of all is Pasteur's proof that life does not come from inert matter (and this was of course at one time the prediction of materialists). Then came the discovery of DNA and the chemical basis of organisms. This poses a totally insurmountable problem to abiogenesis. The smallest living cells has a DNA string of some one million base pairs long and some 600 genes, even cutting this number by a quarter as the smallest possible living cell would give us a string of some 250,000 base pairs of DNA. It is important to note here that DNA can be arranged in any of the four basic codes equally well, there is no chemical or other necessity to the sequence. The chances of such an arrangement arising are therefore 4^250,000. Now the number of atoms in the universe is said to be about 4^250. I would therefore call 4^250,000 an almost infinitely impossible chance (note that the supposition advanced that perhaps it was RNA that produced the first life has this same problem).
The problem though is even worse than that. Not only do you need two (2) strings of DNA perfectly matched to have life, but you also need a cell so that the DNA code can get the material to sustain that life. It is therefore a chicken and egg problem, you cannot have life without DNA (or RNA if one wants to be generous) but one also has to have the cell itself to provide the nutrients for the sustenance of the first life. Add to this problem that for the first life to have been the progenitor of all life on earth, it necessarily needs to have been pretty much the same as all life now on earth is, otherwise it could not have been the source of the life we know.
DNA dealt a third blow at abiogenesis, a deadly one. DNA is a code, a symbolic code which in sets of threes defines which of the 20 odd amino acids used in life RNA should use at each step in making a protein. All 64 possible variations of the code are used in describing the 20 amino acids plus a stop. RNA has no chemical reason to understand which of these 64 possible codes pertains to each amino acid. DNA like all codes is symbolic and the understanding by RNA of the DNA code can only be ascribed to an intelligent designer. Given all these considerations, yes, abiogenesis is impossible.
An OBSERVED instance of a species transforming itself into a more complex species would disprove intelligent designed.
Maybe evolutionists should concentrate more on scientific facts than on rhetoric. Care to try to refute my statements as to why evolution cannot be science on post#66 or are you going to run away from the facts like all your friends?
Oh good grief. I know about Steven Hawkings.
a PROGRAM. Only a non-scientist (or a very ignorant person, or a very dishonest one) would deny that programs are intelligently designed.
Sigh! You need to read the context that the word is used in.
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.