Posted on 05/30/2002 7:40:53 AM PDT by Gladwin
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:34 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Two House Republicans are citing landmark education reform legislation in pressing for the adoption of a school science curriculum in their home state of Ohio that includes the teaching of an alternative to evolution.
In what both sides of the debate say is the first attempt of its kind, Reps. John A. Boehner and Steve Chabot have urged the Ohio Board of Education to consider the language in a conference report that accompanied the major education law enacted earlier this year.....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I don't make assumptions like that. I've never met God; have you?
Again, sorry for the double posts and what not. I'll report the problem to RedHat tommorrow. It'd definitely a RedHat/KDE/LINUX problem and not an ursine problem of any sort
Evolutionists work overtime trying to keep abiogenesis and evolution separate. The idea is that if you get good enough with the ad hominems, you might could avoid having to defend two assinine ideological doctrines at the same time.
All rational observers view abiogenesis as impossible. In any rational scheme of things, intelligence has to arise first and create biology, and this original intelligence in the universe is indistinguishable from the notion of God. The idea of having biology arise from nothing via combinations of random events and then create intelligence is clearly unworkable.
Once you already have life forms on the Earth, i.e. once you are past the problem of abiogenesis, you do not need God to get more of them. In fact, there is no reasonable way to picture God having to go through 100 kinds of horses to get to the three or four he wanted. Clearly something else was at work in past ages on this planet.
I do not have an explaination for the precise mechanism which was being used, but I do have an explaination for where the raw compute power for that sort of thing came from.
Evolutionists work overtime trying to keep abiogenesis and evolution separate. The idea is that if you get good enough with the ad hominems, you might could avoid having to defend two assinine ideological doctrines at the same time.
All rational observers view abiogenesis as impossible. In any rational scheme of things, intelligence has to arise first and create biology, and this original intelligence in the universe is indistinguishable from the notion of God. The idea of having biology arise from nothing via combinations of random events and then create intelligence is clearly unworkable.
Once you already have life forms on the Earth, i.e. once you are past the problem of abiogenesis, you do not need God to get more of them. In fact, there is no reasonable way to picture God having to go through 100 kinds of horses to get to the three or four he wanted. Clearly something else was at work in past ages on this planet.
I do not have an explaination for the precise mechanism which was being used, but I do have an explaination for where the raw compute power for that sort of thing came from.
Johnson works with the theory of evolution that states that species adapt to changes in their environment through gradual genetic mutation that makes them fitter to survive in that environment than their competitors. This mutation over time turns a species into an entire new species and then into another and into another and on and on. It follows that the fossil record, writes Johnson, should look like the frames of a movie, with very subtle differences. And even if many frames were lost, one should still find sufficient frames to demonstrate the gradualness, the great, glacial-like slowness of the changing of one species into another. Yet, after nearly 200 years of searching, Man has yet to find a single fossil record demonstrating such gradual change.
Johnson then goes on to note that the phrase so important to the Darwinists "survival of the fittest" is a mere tautology, or circular reasoning. If the animal survived, it was fittest. If it was fittest, it survived. When in fact, many species much more fit to survive on earth than those that now exist may have come and gone without our notice for any number of reasons. And there may be many species alive that have never been the fittest to survive. Obviously, every gene pool would have tended toward the same form had there been a form that was fittest to survive. So the phrase means nothing.
All Johnson does is demonstrate that evolutionists must believe in great leaps in the evolutionary process that are unrelated to the environment and that occur on at least the scale of two, male and female, at a time and within a distance that they can find each other. And to believe this, that the Salamander gave birth to the frog in one giant leap of evolution while her neighboring salamander gave birth to a female frog within a near distance and time frame requires faith, like a religion.
To anyone that wants to know the true state of the evolution debate, I strongly suggest Phillip Johnson's, "Darwin on Trial," which is very readable and soundly strips bare the theory of gradual adaptation with the writings of the evolutionists themselves. They admit that their theory is flawed, but don't want anybody to find out until they can resolve the flaw. And resolving the flaw may well be something they cannot do. This is why it is time to start making sure that students are exposed to both the apologists for evolution and its critics. I think creationism is BS, so I am not urging that it be taught, but certainly Johnson should be taught along with Darwin. And finally, it is interesting to read Darwin himself, who foresaw many of the problems that have developed with his theory and discussed them at length. He knew his theory was incomplete, and could only be sustained if a complete fossil record in minutia detail could ultimately be found.
What Jesus had to say did not hinge on Earthly perfection.
On the other hand, you could teach;
That the world is so full of living things that after a few thousand years those highly trained and dedicated multitudes have been unable to count them all.
And that even the simplest of these living things is so staggeringly complex that all of our own wonderful intelligence has not come anywhere close to being able to understand it, let alone duplicate it.
And, that the odds of such an inconceivably large number of unimaginably complex things having occured due to random processes is so far out of the bounds of probability, that it is very difficult to express just how far out of bounds they are. The numbers are so large, there is nothing in the universe to compare them to. Not even the number of sub atomic particles in the entire universe.
And, that the number of people who have personally experienced the truth of a Creator in there own lives number in the Billions, and spans many thousands of years.
And, that a large majority of the most respected intellects in history are counted among them, scientists and all, to this very day.
And, that because of all of this, their (the students) own lifes actually do have meaning and purpose.
So, when life get really hard, as it does at times for all, they have a means available to cope with it other than absolute hopeless, meaningless anguish.
And, that contrary to what Hollywood and liberals would have them believe, people of faith have done immeasurably more good for humanity than harm.
You made a mistake using your brain. Having made such a mistake your brain is not perfect. Therefore your logic is not perfect. Having imperfect logic means that you are illogical.(just using your argument on you) But of course we knew that already you argued with yourself and lost. I deny your implied contention that a perfect being cannot make by design things that appear imperfect to imperfect beings. No matter how many times and in how many ways you try to make that contention. And by the way, when you limit the alternatives, that is a very good indication that you are using the logical fallacy of the excluded middle. I don't play your games. I told you what it meant to me not what you wanted me to say.
Somebody who put his mind to it might could devise a proof that the odds against evolutionism are uncountable, as opposed to merely infinite.
I do. You have been trying and failing to get me to play your game. I have refused to do that. You have essentially put words into my mouth and created a straw man to beat up. You brought up broken timepieces and argued using them. I have not answered that. You then contend to medved that someone is asserting something with those broken timepieces. Who is that? I told you what imperfect things implied to me. You don't accept that. Fine. Now buzz off.
I told you I don't play your games, but if you can name the person you refer to in the following citation I'll think better of you.
|
We've got one guy who thinks he can provide evidence for the existence of God by collecting broken watches. 347 posted on 5/30/02 9:58 PM Central by ConsistentLibertarian |
I surmised that, but those people you are so eager to educate will see your answer and know something of you. I won't play your games.
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.