Biology textbook hearings prompt science disputes [Texas]

Knight Ridder Newspapers ^ | 08 July 2003 | MATT FRAZIER

[Junior]

Showing that any theory has sufficient evidence to support it is not a valid argument that all other theories must also have sufficient evidence to support them.

As a theory is a hypothesis with supporting evidence, you'd be hard-pressed to make your case.

With the BB, one must assume that the physical laws and constants came about by chance...

That's a bit of a non-sequitur, as no such assumption is made.

[Long Cut]

They never do quit trying to get that camel's nose under the tent, do they? Why, oh why, must religious people continually attempt to use the non-parochial government schools to prosletyze?

I see that this thread lasted until post #38 before the usual suspects began crawling over it. I do believe they keep a rotating watch here, and the one with "the duty" pings the others when ANY pro-science thread pops up.

[RightWhale]

Come now a Barbie Doll is alive?

There are more of them all the time, and they are showing greater variety as time goes by.

[f.Christian]

Killer science !

Bait - switch science - evolution ...

give them propaganda - ideology ---

denigrate God and conservatism !

Here's the result ...

Communism w /o the physical appearances - methods ---

just do it mentally // internally via lies !

[exmarine]

I don't think that's required by Big Bang theory at all. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

What other way is there in the absence of God? One has to assume that order came from chaos (which is what explosions are).

[AndrewC]

I do believe they keep a rotating watch here, and the one with "the duty" pings the others when ANY pro-science thread pops up.

What do you suppose post 2 is all about?

[js1138]

Teaching principles consistent with a religion is tantamount to teaching the relion.

How is science inconsistent with religion?

[Junior]

Thank you. It appears to be a creationist apologetics site. I am bookmarking it for future reference, however, and it will probably join AiG and ICR on TUCvER, if I ever get around to producing another version.

[AndrewC]

There are more of them all the time, and they are showing greater variety as time goes by.

You have a point there.

[exmarine]

As a theory is a hypothesis with supporting evidence, you'd be hard-pressed to make your case.

It's all subjective. Evidence can be interpreted in a hundred different ways, as you well know that the observer is never objective. :)

[Junior]

Technically, sexual critters do no "self replicate" either, as neither sex is capable of reproduction on its own. Might not this case be made for virii?

[Onelifetogive]

Every science starts at step 2 or higher.

You make a good point, but I don't think the examples you give are good analogies. It would make more sense to say that what initially created cows doesn't affect the operation of the beef industry.

How life initially came about does affect the science of evolution. If a single life for became all life forms is a very different scenario than if twenty five different initial life forms formed all life forms.

[f.Christian]

fc...

"The nice thing about economic and intellectual freedom is ...

when people do it for themselves they are apt to do it wisely ---

when others choose to do it for others ---

it becomes corrupted by their own egos that which they fail to even admit (( bias )) or recognize !"


als ...

Perfectly put. It is the essence of why we don't want marxist/darwinist theories shoved down our children's throats in schools.

[js1138]

Barbie dolls are definitely a parasitic infection, influencing their hosts, through a complex, interconnected matrix of variables, to produce replicas of themselves. Interestingly, only flawed replicas having divergent soft exoskeletal parameters seem to survive.

[atlaw]

Oh. Well, I agree that a host is necessary for replication, but this still seems like a fine line. For example, a double stranded DNA virus such as a herpesvirus or a poxvirus certainly seems to mimic otherwise common place parasitic behavior (hence, I suppose, the question about whether tapeworms are alive). The mere necessity of a host as an integral aspect of replication doesn't seem to me (until persuaded otherwise of course) to be the demarcation line for life.

[AndrewC]

Technically, sexual critters do no "self replicate" either,

A point except that they are made up of living cells that do self-replicate.

[f.Christian]

I exist (( reality )) ... therefore I evolved (( proof ))--- isn't that STUPID ?

[Long Cut]

The poster of the thread pinged those with whom he wanted to discuss the posted story.

He posted the thread; he pinged who he wanted. That's different from waiting in the wings to attack ANY thread which discusses evolution, using arguments and tactics which have been THOROUGHLY debunked.

[Junior]

Firstly, the Big Bang is mute on the existence or non-existence of God. Secondly, and I'm sure you've been privy to this information before, but I may be wrong, the Big Bang was not an explosion, it was a sudden inflation of space-time from a singularity.

[AndrewC]

The mere necessity of a host as an integral aspect of replication doesn't seem to me (until persuaded otherwise of course) to be the demarcation line for life.

You can believe what you wish. You can even characterize a dead parrot as merely sleeping or stunned if you wish.