Posted on 09/11/2008 9:55:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Potential alternatives = mutated DNA of a gene that produces a protein that helps overcome the stress.
Outcome = higher mutation rate increases amount of genetic variation that is selected from by environmental pressure; i.e. evolution through natural selection of genetic variation.
The conservative movement poses the biggest threat to the Temple of Darwin because we still have a solid majority who either believe in YEC or Intelligent Design, we are in favor of giving both sides of the debate the freedom to stand or fall on their own merits, and we always have a shot at taking the reigns of political power in any given election. It is therefore no surprise that the Darwiniacs would make infiltrating conservative forums such as Free Republic a top priority.
People make up an absurdity like the earth (or universe!) is only 6,000 years old, they read that into the Bible and push Young Earth as their central doctrine — then the idea that the earth is 6,000 years old is suddenly more important than Moses, Jesus, everything — then they say you have to believe the Earth is 6,000 years old or you are an atheist. And they wonder why so many young people take that at face value and drop out of church.
Dover: eleven parents sued the school district. Georgia stickers: five parents sued the school district. metmom had framed the lawsuits about creationism in the classroom as a denial of parents' wishes; I was just pointing out that the lawsuits were, in fact, expressions of parents' wishes.
And you keep referring us to the Thomas More Law Center. I see that the main item on their Web site is a story about how they successfully filed a lawsuit against a school district on behalf of someone who wanted to mention God in the classroom. Do you have an intellectually consistent explanation for why that suit wasn't HIJACKING the court system, but those other two lawsuits were?
It’s pretty hard to pass yourself off as a conservative when you favor that kind of big government control of education, which is not even its responsibility, and when you favor violations of people’s Constitutional rights of free exercise of religion.
Lawsuits may be an expression of some parents wishes, but what gives them the right to force that on all the other hundreds of parents? So the lawsuits filed back are the expression of other parents wishes. So why are they condemned for fighting back when the parents who file the lawsuits against creation are lauded? If parents have the right to file lawsuits for evo only, then parents have the right to file lawsuits to have both.
Why didn’t they start their own private evo only school? Why didn’t they push for the option of opting out when creation or ID was addressed in the classroom, just like with health classes when the sex ed section comes up. That would have been a much more reasonable alternative.
But they’re not interested in reasonable. They want control otherwise they would not have filed lawsuits to FORCE the majority to capitulate to their selfish demands.
How is it hijacking the system to allow more than one point of view to be discussed? Hijacking is what the liberal/atheist/evo crowd does when it forces out the alternate point of view using the heavy hand of the government.
People are wanting creation BACK in schools. It’s not like evolution was always taught and the Christians and creationists are asking for something new to be done. They are simply resisting being muscled out of the picture.
But like the typical bully when their victim fights back, they go whining and crying about how “it’s not faaaiiirrr”. They want their point of view to have precedence at the expense of all others; not even willing to share the stage. All I see is that others are asking for equal time, something the evos are not willing to grant any other view point. They’re great at dishing it out but terrible about taking it.
I fail to see how someone can justify forcing their own viewpoint on others and complain when someone else wants to allow others simply to be expressed.
ping to 446
I appreciate the civil, measured tone of your last response to me.
Now, at the end of your response you said “why then is God supposedly unable to control the “random processes” that are involved in generating genetic variability, as well as the non random processes whereby this variability is selected for or against?”.
First of all, having genetic VARIABILTY to “select” from is not enough. You need increased genetic FUNCTION. A bacterium “evolving” the ability to digest a synthetic – nylon – adds an extraordinary variety to its diet but how do you get a digestive system to begin with? Genetic changes aren’t enough. How do you get the gene itself? Changes to one’s vision aren’t enough. Do you SEE at all?
As far as God actually controlling all the mutating, if He does, then in this context we’ll need to use some word other than “random”. And the evolutionists will have to change the active ingredient in their story to something like “trillions and trillions of supernatural interventions/miracles – formerly considered to be random mutations acted on by natural selection – were performed over billions of years…” Or, alternatively, “God infused all of nature – both inanimate things (e.g. atoms) and animate things (e.g. bacteria) – with intelligence and will, to the point that they knowingly orchestrated (e.g. your words: “Why would a bacteria under stress INTENTIONALLY increase its mutation rate?”, “Now why again would a bacteria under stress WANT to increase its mutation rate?”) not just neutral changes but increasingly rich systems of information creation, transmission, interpretation and action which build all the astoundingly complex life forms of our planet.”
Of course, both of the above positions would be statements of faith, not of science, since we’ve never seen God nor have we observed the “miraculous” origination of animate things from inanimate things nor the origination of one kind of animate thing from another kind (e.g. Mitochondria evolving from bacteria). And we haven’t managed to get any interviews with any atoms or bacteria where they could tell us what their plans are and why.
I take as a matter of faith that God allows randomness in some processes. Truly random in the sense of being undirected and unpredictable. In a certain sense, “free”. Kind of like my belief in mankind’s God-given free will. I believe God KNOWS beforehand how we’ll exercise our will, but He DOESN’T CONTROL our will. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be FREE, and we’d be pre-programmed robots and what’s the point? No, WE never know for sure what human beings will do, but we sure have DESIGNED some incredible things with our God-given INTELLIGENCE. However, I take as a matter of faith that atoms and bacteria and bacterial mutations (and the “Mother Nature” that “selects” the mutational “winners”) do NOT have intelligence. And without that intelligence, a mutational process, although “free”/UNcontrolled/random, will never result in any higher forms of life.
And nothing in the realm of scientific discovery to date has led me to doubt this faith.
Either teach both, teach neither or allow parents to apply their educational tax dollars to the school of their choice. My sympathies lie with the latter. But it is clear that political force will need to be employed to achieve any of the options listed above.
Anyone who believes in God thinks God knows the outcome. We have Free will, but God knows the future. Gambling and mutation is random, but God knows the outcome.
For myself I do not suppose that when God commanded the Oceans the bring forth life that God was limited to supernatural means to accomplish this task. And if some scientist someday shows the formation of primitive life from unliving precursors it will do nothing but increase my awe at the intricacies of this amazing creation granted to us by God.
Thanks for keeping it civil as well.
You are either loose with the truth or have a complete lack of self-awareness. You backed out of the debate once it became clear you would be debating REAL SCIENTISTS. Then you tried to salvage your image by agreeing to “discuss the data” with ME, the layman, the novice—the less threatening alternative. But as I said before, if you’re really serious about debating my scientists, then write an apology to them for backing out of the previous debate, and I will humbly request that they overlook your fickle and irresponsible behavior. Once I have your apology letter in hand, I will immediately begin the process of setting up and scheduling the new debate.
This question is for you and all other pro-ID, pro-creationists ant-evolution folks out there. I mean no offense.
The future of out great country could be at stake with this next election. Many critical issues need to be resolved.
Do you view this debate as critical (evo v. ID)? Or to put it very simply: Would you vote for someone who is 100% behind evolution and thinks ID/Creationism is solely a religous issue and doesn’t belong in the classroom?
Of course the opposite applies for evo fans. Would they vote for someone who rejects evolution and wants ID/Creationism taught in public school?
In the interest of full-disclosure I’m firmly in the Darwin camp and conservative as the day is long. If McCain/Palin came out firmly on the teach ID/Creationism in school as an alternative theory, I will be very dissapointed, but I will still vote for them as the other stakes are too high.
Twice now you have said your post got no response, yet the last post of mine on the subject of a debate was ‘present the data and i will engage it’.
My setting up of the ground rule that the debate was to be about Scientific interpretation not conspiracy theory was in no way backing out, unless it is your admission that conspiracy theory was all your “pedigreed” Scientist was going to engage in. There is no point in debating the Scientific evidence with someones whose a priori position is that those who conducted the study are engaged in fraud.
How can I debate or apologize to someone who is not now and has never been on FR, the site where this debate was supposed to take place?
Did you suppose I was supposed to inform Dr. Deuesburg what FR was and get him signed on? Did your work in “setting up” the debate consist only of forwarding your e-mail from Dr. Duesburg of him asking ‘what is this FR thing?’ and posting to me the snail mail address of some Creationist in Australia?
That was you “setting up a debate”? Sending me a Australian postal address and forwarding the excerpt of an e-mail from Dr. Duesburg asking ‘what is this FR thing?’. Wow. So much work you did!
Maybe I should apologize for not finding Dr. Duesburg’s e-mail or writing to the Creationist in Australia, answering their questions about FR, getting them signed on and debating them. Oh wait, but that would be ME setting up the debates.
You never set up a debate. I never backed out of one. Your lies to the contrary notwithstanding.
I know. Rather than fight to get Christian theology and philosophy presented by making it a part of a required philosopy curriculum and focusing on things like the Ten Commandments and the life of Jesus, they try to force the acceptance of the Book of Genesis as an authoritative science and history text.
A presidential contender's personal opinion on the subject is just that. The president is really limited in just what he personally can do about issues. Aside from appointing Supreme Court justices, the way the system of government is set up, precludes one man from taking power and enforcing his agenda. He may push for it, but that still doesn't mean it's going to happen.
As a practical matter, I really don't think that scenario is going to come up. From what I've seen, most candidates are not either/or as far as only creation or only evolution; Sarah Palin being a case in point. Her faith and conservative Christian position are well known and yet even she doesn't advocate only one or the other. She's for allowing both.
As is the case for most creationists that I know of. The problem is it seems like the evo camp is the one most often championing for only one; that is evolution. About everyone else is for allowing ID/creation also, not instead of. I have no doubt that there are creationists who would like to see only creation taught in schools, but if you follow the debates, most of the push is for both.
I noticed an interesting thing about your questions. That is that you asked ....
Do you view this debate as critical (evo v. ID)? Or to put it very simply: Would you vote for someone who is 100% behind evolution and thinks ID/Creationism is solely a religous issue and doesn’t belong in the classroom?
Of course the opposite applies for evo fans. Would they vote for someone who rejects evolution and wants ID/Creationism taught in public school?
It seems like you asked two different questions. Did you mean in the second question whether they would vote for someone who only wants creation/ID taught in the classroom and thinks that evolution should not be taught? Or did you mean to ask if either side would be willing to accept all three (evo,ID,creation) being taught?
So how'd we get from allowing creation to be taught in schools again as it had been for decades until it was forced out by litigation, to forcing everyone to accept the whole book of Genesis as an authoritative science and history text? Hyperbole much?
The hysteria about what the "other side" is doing is amusing at best.
I guess if you can't present your point of view and let it stand on it's own merits, then the only thing left to do is misrepresent the creationist position and make things up about them and try to snow others into believing it.
OMG!!! They're LITERALISTS! They want to impose a theocracy on us! They want to send us back to the Dark Ages! The sky is falling! OMG!!!
Ooops, better strike the OMG part. They don't want Him in the picture.
Certainly no less than the "evolutionists hate God" arguments.
Sorry, that should have been ‘no more than the “evolutionists hate God”’ arguments.
The Constitution, unfortunately for you. If you file a lawsuit because you feel your rights are being trampled, and you win, it doesn't matter how many people are on the other side. They have to behave in a way that doesn't violate your rights.
If parents have the right to file lawsuits for evo only, then parents have the right to file lawsuits to have both.
Did anyone say otherwise? Please, go ahead and file a lawsuit to force creation back into the curriculum. The case should be entertaining.
==You are ridiculous and a repeated liar.
Next time, look in the mirror and say that, and suddenly your attack will make sense.
==Twice now you have said your post got no response, yet the last post of mine on the subject of a debate was ‘present the data and i will engage it’.
Here is my last reply to you. It immediately follows your lame attempt to weasel out of the debate (”I am not interested in debating a conspiracy theorist”).
To: allmendream
I offered a debate between you and one of the thousands of scientists who officially question the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. The debate was going to be focused on the science of AIDS alone. You accepted the debate and then backed out. Furthermore, I cited paper after paper, written by your fellow evos, every one of which stated that there are indeed codes upon codes. Your issue is with them, not me. And in this connection, I also floated a debate between you and a creation scientist. As per usual, you failed to rise to the challenge. Thus, it is you who are running away, not me.
And finally, I must take exception to your misrepresentation of my views re: raw food, the free market, coffee enemas, etc. I do not advocated raw food, I am not anti-corporation, nor do I advocate coffee enemas. All your deliberate misrepresentations really underscore is your dishonest nature and your desperate attempt to distract attention away from the science that refutes your materialist fantasies.
In short, put up or shut up. But if it is your intention to cling to your world of fantasy, perhaps shutting up would be the better option.
164 posted on Sunday, January 06, 2008 9:03:52 AM by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941583/posts?q=1&;page=164#164
Notice that I “remind” you that the debate was ALWAYS supposed to be about the science. Also notice that the two lines of my reply challenges you to “PUT UP OR SHUT UP.” Seeing how YOU DECIDED NOT TO REPLY, it is obvious you chose the latter option. Just admit that you lost your nerve, and we can be done with this stupid tail-chasing exercise.
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.