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 ...
What is the mass of the average chunk of pyrite in the earth's surface? I bet it's closer to 1 gram than 5,020,000 grams.
No. I understand grain elevator explosions.
We're in the Archaean. What longer period?
You have real trouble with English. Think macro v. micro evolution. It is the same principle, that is why I referred to you. And we are not in the Archaean we are in the present.
There goes your Nobel for discrediting the Miller-Urey experiment.
Wrong, a designer would want everything to work together. However, that is besides the point. Point is that for new adaptations to become gradually integrated you need the new traits to coevolve with the supporting system required for them, otherwise they will be useless (and according to evolution, the whole purpose of new traits is to give a species greater viability). Even very simple things take a very large support system. One example is the lacrimal glands. First you need the gene for the glands. However a gene is just a possible function. It only becomes an actual function when certain cells are assigned to perform the function. Now the cells assigned need to have a certain composition for the function to work, so the creation of these cells needs to have also been assigned during the course of the organism's development. Of course, tears would be useless if they had nowhere to go. So you need ducts for these tears to go through. In addition to which you need to have a mechanism to tell the glands when and how many tears to produce. For this you need a connection between the eye itself and the lacrimary glands telling them when and how much to produce. So you need a message system specific to this purpose.
As can be plainly seen from the discussion above, even a very simple system such as this requires the cooperation of the rest of the organism in performing its functions. It is therefore impossible for it to have arisen as a result of either gradual or non gradual evolution because it would have required the coevolution of many things at random.
A condition of falsification must always be part of a theory. A theory cannot be said to be falsified by the discovery of evidence for some other theory.
The falsification is indeed part of the theory. If it can be shown that new traits, new abilities, new systems can arise without design as evolution posits then the theory of Intelligent Design would be falsified.
As I pointed out in post#627 the latest scientific findings completely support the theory of intelligent design and disprove the theory of evolution. Every single function of an organism requires way more than a single change to be effected. Every single function needs the cooperation of the rest of the organism. Therefore, the new functions which evolution says were created by chance (helped by necessity) could not have arisen that way. You would need many things to have coevolved at once for it to have occurred. According to Darwin himself such a requirement would destroy his theory because it would make gradual evolution impossible.
Wrong, Dumbo. Each such chunk is considerably smaller than that, but we're looking at a fair amount of surface area in the aggregate.
In your opinion. Since I do not believe in any deity, there is no god/spirit/ghost/system to which i can measure my accomplishments or see myself as better than.
Fine. However, that makes your attack on God for the evil in the world kinda ridiculous is it not? How can you blame something that does not exist for evil? And that is the reason why these attacks on religion by evolutionists have nothing to do with the subject at hand. All that they show is that evolution is part of (and I would say the basis of) an atheistic/materialistic ideology.
You are right about that. The parents try to teach the children morals and the schools teach them immorality. Parents try to teach their children religion and the schools teach them evolution and atheism. It is time that the schools stopped medling in what is none of their business. Evolution is not needed for anything in science. In fact, because it is an ideology it is anti-science. It seeks to find proof of itself instead of looking at the evidence for what it is worth. All the recent momentous advances in biology have been contradictions of evolutionary theory. That alone is sufficient reason to take it out of the classrooms.
Christ taught the above also. So my question to you is - why are you so opposed to Christianity and so friendly towards Budhism?
It appears to me that they are completely unrelated subjects. Others have made the same point time and again in the previous posts.
It is evolutionists that started this by attacking Christianity. Now that you folk are being shown that Christianity does have a value, does have a reason why people should believe in a higher being, you say it does not matter. It is the evolutionists which always try to justify their theory by attacking religion, a totally irrelevant sideshow to take away discussion from the problems with their theory which they know is scientifically untenable.
So why do evolutionists keep constantly attacking religion on these threads if the subject is irrelevant? Seems that evolutionists always cry irrelevant when they have been proven wrong.
The Miller-Urey experiment was nonsense even when it was made. No one got a Nobel Prize for it. Only atheists hold it as anything significant. You can make all the amino acids you want, you can make all the proteins you want. You can boil them, electrocute them, radiate them, pound them with a hammer or whatever else you can think of - you still will not get a single strand of replicating DNA. The whole experiment shows the absolutely backwards thinking of materialists. It is DNA that codes amino acids to make proteins, not the other way around.
Evolution isn't the cause of all ails. It isn't the cause of anything, much less all life on earth.
Seperation from God, however, IS the cause of all ails. Accepting Evolution as truth is simply one of many, many things which contributes to that condition.
Oooooh goodie! Are you pushing for the major teachings of Buddhism to become part of our curriculum? How bout asceticism? I hear that such practices are really uplifting and can lead you to the path of spiritual completeness. You're really on to something!!!!!
Well, that would be a little better than whats currently being taught. But not much. Belief in God isn't goal. It is however, a good first step.
But the subject was "Intellegent Design", not religion.
Why would that garner such an honor? First, I can't find Miller in the science category on the Nobel Prize site. Second, it is not my work that has done anything. Third what has been discredited is not the Miller-Urey experiment but the extrapolation to the early earth. You can play word games but the science demolishes a methane, ammonia, and hydrogen early atmosphere for the Earth.
By the way, I have not used the discredit word previously on this thread except by citation of you. You have.
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.