Posted on 12/21/2004 7:59:02 PM PST by postitnews.com
HARRISBURG, PA-The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and attorneys with Pepper Hamilton LLP filed a federal lawsuit today on behalf of 11 parents who say that presenting "intelligent design" in public school science classrooms violates their religious liberty by promoting particular religious beliefs to their children under the guise of science education.
"Teaching students about religion's role in world history and culture is proper, but disguising a particular religious belief as science is not," said ACLU of Pennsylvania Legal Director Witold Walczak. "Intelligent design is a Trojan Horse for bringing religious creationism back into public school science classes."
The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United Executive Director, added, "Public schools are not Sunday schools, and we must resist any efforts to make them so. There is an evolving attack under way on sound science...Read More
(Excerpt) Read more at postitnews.com ...
One thing an evolutionist cannot answer is if their idea of a "big bang" theory is really an admission the universe is an Immaculate Conception...
DNA is the singularity that evolutionists rely upon by belief to support their theory. This is no different than the Big Bang - - just another Immaculate Conception...
What a lot of people forget when they promote such NONSENSE is the Aristotelian categorical model and scientific method...
I often remind the eco-fascist veggie nazis who say humans weren't "designed" or "meant" to eat meat, that inherent in their statement is the premise there is a designer or some sacred meaning to human existence. Logic often diffuses theory into a foundation of belief...
It also looks too like he's serializing the whole thing when there is often a massive parallelism of alleles, a sizeable genetic diversity, within a species. This is true even in humans although we are a misleadingly un-diverse species as a result of one or more recent bottlenecks.
(Note to creationists: I mean "recent" as in "Ice Age," about 150K years ago, and not as in "Noah's Flood," purportedly 5-7K years ago.)
WELL SAID.
THX.
You're welcome, captain... Vulcans no longer need this emotional debate, we have simply accepted that there is no logic in theorizing something that only leads back to what we intend to disprove without investigating that first...
oh. . . . . rahhhhht.
wheeee.
Actually, I can answer that. MY idea is not such an admission.
DNA is the singularity that evolutionists rely upon by belief to support their theory. This is no different than the Big Bang - - just another Immaculate Conception...
You're seeing IC everywhere. Typical ID-er!
What a lot of people forget when they promote such NONSENSE is the Aristotelian categorical model and scientific method...
You've lost me, but I imagine that to be the idea.
I often remind the eco-fascist veggie nazis who say humans weren't "designed" or "meant" to eat meat, that inherent in their statement is the premise there is a designer or some sacred meaning to human existence. Logic often diffuses theory into a foundation of belief...
They could as easily say "Human's haven't evolved to eat meat" and they would be just as wrong. Bring me flesh and bring me wine! (Sorry!)
He visibly waffles on this point in the already-linked debate, at points seeming to cede it and elsewhere seeming to reaffirm it. It's not important to my point just what Spetner insists on and where he gives ground.
His models are bad, reflecting his ignorance of biology. He gets clobbered for that among other systematic failings whenever he is reviewed or debated by those who do understand the process Spetner is alleging impossible. His answers to these objections are mere wave-aways.
If you're going to prove in the face of all evidence that a bumblebee can't fly, you don't do it by proving it isn't a B-52.
Faith may have something to do with it.
Then why didn't you just say that you were ignorant of the subject. You made several absolute claims like "no probabilistic calculation whatsoever."
The ignorance of the creationist is the weapon of the creationist. Sad little "science!"
Well, where's the beef?
You've lost me, but I imagine that to be the idea....
You lost yourself...
'Fantasy is the medium of infinitization...'
Imagination is nothing more than a creation of the maker, a phantasm of the brain, a fantastical image no more real than those things that seem to appear before us in a dream... there is nothing real in them, as you have shown me in your previous response...
No, you seem to be attempting to snipe from the cover of a blizzard of drug-dream ravings. I bet you can't make the obscurity of your words my problem.
But not as well as creationism. In fact, evolution has to deny some of the observed facts such as unbroken "overthrusts" larger than 2 square miles are physically impossible, rock layers that took supposedly millions of years fail to show erosion which most certainly would have taken place, lack of transitional forms (no half-legs, half-wings, 3.5-chambered hearts), and on and on.Therefore evolutionism, like creationism is an interpretation of the evidence.
(b) it makes numerous successful predictions
And what would just one of those successful predictions be? Abrupt appearances fully formed? Millions of years of man but no written language before the last 6k years? (c) numerous possible falsifications exist but none has been demonstrated
So far, every contradiction for evolution, every disproof, every falsification has been greeted by "It ain't over until we say it's over." Scientists who become creationists are declared non-scientists by fiat. Evolution is a closed community that attempts to silence critics through the courts with the help of the ACLU.
(d) no simpler natural theory has been that satisfies (a) and (b) and (c) has been proposed
I see that you are after a natural theory rather than the truth. As long as you are making restrictions, why not make it an American natural theory? Then you don't have to worry about competition from Europeans.
You are begging the question which is a classic fallacy.
Thread degenerated into complete absurdity and tinfoil wackiness placemarker.
Evolution does not cover the beginning of life. Strike II.
There are more than 29 evidences for evolution. Strike III. Please get back to me when you actually learn something about the Theory of Evolution.
Sorry! Should have pinged you to 914 as well. :-)
All of them rely on the singularity of DNA... Without evidence that there is life without DNA, they are all based on fallacies... Every living thing we have encountered has DNA...
Did you not read the article. Of course not! That would have taken you more time than it took to post your reply. Until you learn something about the theory, it might be best to stop talking about it. You come across as an ignorant conspiracy nut otherwise.
It has been wryly suggested to me that I'm not giving the opposition adequate time to absorb the materials presented as evidence against its position. I have to wonder if the humor was intentional.
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.