Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
I don't believe that was the original argument, but here is what you asked for in the cited sentence. Note: The suit was not to mandate the teaching of human evolution only to permit it. The teaching of human evolution was prohibited by the Arkansas law.
Susan EPPERSON et al., Appellants, v. ARKANSAS.
Like I said you have no proof. You are using circular reasoning. You say since evolution is true, and evolution says dinosaurs did not have mammary glands therefore dinosaurs did not have mammary glands. That is proof of nothing. Circular reasoning proves nothing except either lack of analytic powers or firm adherence to an irrational ideology.
Therefore as I said, paleontology is bunk. It cannot answer the questions which it proclaims to be able to answer. Since the development of mammals and mammalian features is one of the most important evolutionary events and it cannot give proof of it in any way - paleontology is bunk.
The pantless Wells responds with a full "moon".
Gishlick and other defenders of Darwinian evolution should take no comfort from my mistake. In light of the UCSD researchers’ actual results, their claim to have discovered a "general mechanism for producing major leaps in evolutionary change" is even more exaggerated than I originally thought.
"Shrimp is the fruit of the sea. You kin barbecue it, boil it, broil it, bake it, sauté it, - but you cain't turn it into a fruit fly."
- with apologies to Bubba in "Forrest Gump"
No. You have not been reading my statements. There are many problems with the creation of new genes and creation of additional "space" is a very small part. What is essential is:
1. finding the correct size of the gene for the faculty which needs to be developed.
2. finding the correct way in which the new gene will interface with the thousands of other genes and trillions of other cells in the body.
3. getting the other thousands of genes and trillions of cells in the body to interface properly with the new gene.
4. achieving a series of random mutations on the genetic material of the correct length and with the correct amino acids.
5. achieving a long series of mutations, a large proportion of which will be deadly to the organism without destroying the "gene under construction".
6. even after this fantastic gene is developed, it needs to be spread over a large population with each reproduction cutting the chances of its spreading in half until a large amount of the population has acquired at least one copy of it.
7. for the above to have happened over 20,000 times in man and its ancestors and a similar amount of times in the millions of diferent species, genus, orders, and phylums of known dead and alive species which have populated the earth.
How then can you have any expectation of convincing anyone of the value of the now incalculable result?
The different subspecies are close enough that most scientists do not think they should be classed as different species. Because one person thinks they should be different species is not enough to make it a new species, the scientific community at large must be convinced of it, that has not happened yet. Regardless, it is not an example of macro evolution. They do not show sufficient new complexity, new features and new (not altered genes) to qualify as proof of macro-evolution.
Evolutionists do the same thing. They just blindly copy one article and post it verbatim in several supposedly "scientific" sites. On the internet - everything gets posted more than once.
Yes many people do not realize that if one plays the lottery and the chance of winning is 1 in 50 million, the next lottery they play the chance of winning will still be 1 in 50 million. This is the reason many gamblers lose their shirts. They think that a run of bad luck means that the next time they bet their odds will be better because of all the losses. Not correct, they are the same as the first time they lost.
This is the problem with random mutations also. If the chance of a particular series of mutations occurring is 1 chance in 10 to the power of 100 (a 1 with a hundred zeros behind it) the chances of it occurring after 1 to the power of 50 is still 1 to the power of 100. That is why such a chance is called astronomical odds and why many scientists consider anything that has such a small likelihood of occurring as "impossible".
Actually, and I hate to say it, but you are only half right on the above. Evolutionally speaking what Clinton did with Monica was correct and perfectly moral. He got his Lewinsky and kept his job. So he showed "survival of the fittest" quite explicitly and he demonstrated the corrolary of it that "might makes right".
Supreme Court Decisions var yviContents='http://us.toto.geo.yahoo.com/toto?s=76001084&l=NE&b=1&t=993785023'; yviR='us';yfiEA(0);
Edwards vs. Aguillard The U.S. supreme court in 1987 ruled unconstitutional a 1981 Louisiana "balanced treatment" law requiring the teaching of creation "science" in public schools whenever evolution is taught.
McLean vs. Arkansas U.S. District Court Judge William Overton in 1982 ruled unconstitutional an Arkansas "balanced treatment" law requiring the teaching of creation "science" in public schools whenever evolution is taught.
Webster vs. New Lenox U.S. Supreme Court upholds a District Court ruling that Mr. Webster did not have a First Amendment right to teach creation science in a public school.
Epperson vs. Arkansas The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1968 that a 1929 Arkansas statute prohibiting the teaching of evolution was unconstitutional.
Peloza vs. Capistrano In 1994, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court finding that a teacher's First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is not violated by a school district's requirement that evolution be taught in biology classes.
Segraves vs. California In 1981, the Court found that the California State Board of Education's Science Framework, as written and as qualified by its anti-dogmatism policy, gave sufficient accommodation to the views of Segraves, contrary to his contention that class discussion of evolution prohibited his and his childrem's free exercise of religion.
Well, it sucks, that's what's wrong. I found this on the same page.
The moral of this story is that you must be very careful when dealing with combined probabilities.:-)
Hardly a scientific question, eh? Certainly you agree that in the realm of science the assumption of naturalism has been very fruitful? It seems to me that supernaturalism will have to establish a similar track record to displace it.
Dunno. You ought to take that one up with the makers of X-Ray machines, telescopes, LI and IR gear, microscopes ...
First off, there is no such thing as a "higher species;" species are either successful or they are not. Secondly it is not the size of the skull, but the size of the brain case in relation to the size of the body that paleontologists andzoologists use to deternime the relative intelligence of the critter in question. For instance, your average raptor (velociraptor, utahraptor, etc.) was a highly intelligent critter compared to other dinosaurs. It would've come across as a freakin' moron next to an ostrich, though.
It is interesting that in an attempt to bash me, you contradict the basis of your evolutionary theory with a silly semantic argument. According to evolution there is. Darwinists are great tree drawers and the latest species they call the higher species since they appear higher in their trees. Also evolution claims that complexity arose slowly with each succeeding species adding something.
Indeed it does! Proving that the cannard thrown against me by several in this thread is absolutely false. I did answer. Whether you like the answer or not, I could care less. It has nothing to do with the present discussion except that evolutionists always try to to attack the messenger and divert the thread when they cannot refute the evidence presented against their theory.
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.