Posted on 01/20/2005 10:22:21 AM PST by Tamar1973
I'd be perfectly happy to discuss the pros and cons of raising children to be good Communists. What would be really objectionable would be to leave the "con" side undefended and (perhaps worse) to not understand your own assumptions.
Indeed. Artificial intelligence is going to stump those with a firm idea of the definition of life, as will nanotechnology.
Precisely. And yet, don't those examples just prove my point: that it would be scientifically irresponsible to flatly rule out the possibility of intelligent agents playing a role in the development of life, however defined?
A perfect example of MICRO-evolution. Congratulations are in order. The next thing you know, you will tell us that some dogs have different physical characteristics than others. Postively monumental.
Huh? I'm not quite catching your drift, unless you are suggesting that the burden of proof is on me, not the evolutionist. That would be absurd. The evolutionist is the one making the claims of evolution, not me. It's up to the evolutionist to show me the proof. If I claim that I have dinner with Bigfoot once a week, does it mean that it's a FACT if you can't prove I'm lying? Hardly-har-har.
> don't those examples just prove my point: that it would be scientifically irresponsible to flatly rule out the possibility of intelligent agents playing a role in the development of life
Depends on the life. JUst as there's a difference between a rock that happens to look like a human face and a rock *shaped* to look like a huamn face, some forms of life will be the result of natural forces, and some *may* be the result of somebody tinkering. One has to look at the evidence to judge. All the evidence to date screams convincingly that life on earth is the result of natural forces.
Because the order of creation in Genesis can't be reconciled with the evolutionary spin on cosmology.
In Genesis, the order of creation is (roughly):
Water, Light, Sky, Seas and dry land, plants, Sun, Moon and other stars/planets, water creatures, land creatures,mankind.
In evolutionary cosmology, it's nearly opposite, especially at the very beginning. Again, this is a rough outline at best but makes the point:
singularity,gases expand, gases re-coalese into stars, planets, etc., the stars produce light. As things coalese further, planets form atmospheres and oceans and then life forms from there into sea,land and go from there.
This is why evolutionary cosmology and evolution in general doesn't fit into Genesis; each uses an opposing timeline and an opposing order of creation to explain the origins of the universe. That's why it is intellectually dishonest and biblically dishonest to try to combine the two.
True science has NOTHING to do with evolution. A creationsist discovered Natural Selection, a creationist discovered gravity. Evolution had NOTHING to do with the techonological advancements of the last century of so such as the invention of the airplane, MRI, cell phone, space shuttle, etc. The discovery of vaccinations, germ theory, planets, etc. also had NOTHING to do with evolution. So the idea than one MUST believe in evolution to be a good scientist and inventor is preposterous.
it would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations and whose providential aides can supply every human defect; that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes; and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good
April 30, 1789, George Washington delivered his famous Inaugural Address to both Houses of Congress.
Huh, I guess He had no idea what he was talking about?
Maybe just old fashioned? The old fashioned protection of the Constitution still seems o.k. though doesn't it?
I am picking up on His radical opposition to involvement of Religion in Government. Yea, I see how the Justices make that leap.
I can see how being stuck in the middle, not caring either way could make you feel the pain you share. It could upset you as it does, because getting upset is free, taking your frustrations out when you have no stake is free.
Maybe being luke warm gives you this profound view you share? Try taking one side or the other, your headache will go away.
Then why did He create eyes with blind spots, a digestive system with a useless appendix that could burst and kill you and a genetic deficiency that prevents humans from synthesizing vitamin C? And those are just flaws in human beings. If you look at other organisms, you'll find other design flaws.
So if your child's school board issues a policy that all children in that district must adhere to Muslim beliefs and Sharia law, that would be constitutional? After all, Congress didn't pass a law...
When we know the effects of something without knowing how it works, we have a LAW for that phenomenon. Laws are statements of regularities in nature. When we have an explanation as to how something works, that's a theory. We have a theory of gravity because Einstein showed that gravity can be explained by the warping of the geometry of space-time by matter. We can't prove that this explanation is true. However, this explanation made some unexpected predictions. For example, it predicted that because a warped space-time would affect the path taken by light, stars should appear to be in a different location when viewed near the sun during a total solar eclipse than they appear to be when viewed at night. It predicted that the perhelion of the orbit of Mercury should process at a rate double that which is predicted by Newton's law. It predicted that a stable universe must either be expanding or contracting (although Einstein originally added a fudge factor called the cosmological constant to prevent the theory from predicting this because he believed in a static universe.) All of these predictions have been borne out. That's why we think that general relativity has merit. Similarly evolution as a theory that explains the diversity of species makes predictions that have been and continue to be borne out. For example, evolution predicts that all species will share the same genetic material. If you find a new species that doesn't use polynucleotides as a genetic material, then evolution is wrong. You can't prove evolution correct any more than you can prove any other theory correct. However it is a defining characteristic of a scientific theory that you CAN prove that it is wrong. ID and creationism both lack this characteristic. That's why they are not and should not be taught as science. They are not scientific ideas. That's also why evolution should be taught. It is the only SCIENTIFIC theory that explains the diversity of species on earth. No matter how much ID proponents try to make ID scientific, replacing an all-powerful God with a designer whose limitations and characteristics are completely unknown doesn't do the trick.
What predictions does ID make? How could you hypothetically prove that ID is wrong?
"For example, evolution predicts that all species will share the same genetic material.""
Actually, that is how creationists see it too. Same designer, same planet, etc.
Just like most Fords share a lot of parts, since the same designer designed everything on the planet to survive on this planet, one would expect the same genetic material.
Everything in a leggo villiage is made out of leggos. It doesn't mean that they must have all evolved from the original leggo microbe.
And Einsteins theory is being re-scrutinized, especially considering the FACT that the Pioneer spacecraft are not as far away as they should be. And this can be explained if gravity PUSHES instead of PULLS. Hmmmm...
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.