is there NOTHING that they WON'T compair to the NAZI's???
Posted on 10/10/2005 4:59:55 PM PDT by gobucks
is there NOTHING that they WON'T compair to the NAZI's???
compair=compare
Thanks for your opinion. I'll file it with all those others I don't value.
Q. What does the Ku Klux Klan do when a Unitarian moves to town?
A. They burn a question mark on his lawn.
What we know scientifically is that the genetic material in species that look alike is similar. We know you can count the differences in DNA sequences and assume some reasonable mutation rate, that makes the species seem to be arranged in plausible trees of evolution.
The big problem with Evolution as preached today is that the only way anyone has been able to make new species has been by splicing entire sets of genes into chromosomes. In other words, we only have scientific evidence that it requires a purposeful intelligence to make a new species.
That is pretty strong scientific evidence that Intelligent Design is a more likely scientific theory that the Random Mutation doctrine of Evolution.
A old friend of mine, who was raised Unitarian, explains that Unitarians believe in at most one God.
"That is pretty strong scientific evidence that Intelligent Design is a more likely scientific theory that the Random Mutation doctrine of Evolution."
Show me.
My friend, Intelligent design, is nothing more than theology masquerading as objective (measurable) reality. Evolution is happening today, and if there is an intelligent designer floating about, we'd eventually catch him in the act, because he would have to cheat the observed (and predictive) laws of nature. Don't tell me he can't be caught. The almighty himself was caught once and got nailed to a tree for his trouble.
Now God may or may not have a sense of humor, but I can't believe he'd mess with our heads by making a fake fossil record, fake random mutations in DNA, etc.
"Intelligent Design" belongs in the Sunday school from whence it came.
C.W.
What do you mean by "random"? Do you mean random mutation or random selective pressures? If you mean random mutation, then yes, new species have indeed arisen out of other species. There are several of examples here including fruit flies that have evolved into new species of fruit flies.
The big problem with Evolution as preached today is that the only way anyone has been able to make new species has been by splicing entire sets of genes into chromosomes.
Nope. This isn't true. See the link above. Random mutation has indeed created new species.
Darwin's original theory was a theodicy, an attempt to understand God and evil.
And not to rock the boat but the concept of Intelligent design does leave room for the devil to have a hand in design also. Job got boils from the devil. Some of the designs of inimical organisms or mechanisms are degenerate forms of other beneficial structures.
The real problem we have is that the government runs the public schools. Since they run the schools and since the country by decree of the USSC has sharply separated church and state Parents are not happy. Society is not happy. Power has been taken from the people. Sending your children to school is mandated by the government, everyone is taxed to support these schools that many are unhappy with. The problem can be solved with a good dose of democracy. Let vouchers flourish. Let partents have back to power to choose where to send their children to school or to homeschool. Let schoold of many types develop and lets the parents choose. The church state line should be drawn with the parents with said voucher in their hands. The system as it is now is unfair. The rich can choose religious schools for their children. The rich liberals can send their children to red diaper baby schools that are still open. The every day person does not have the same choice.
This is so ridiculous. All of the examples provided in your post are hybridization experiments. In other words, "intelligent designers" (which I will cautiously refer to as "scientists") mechanically combine genetic pairs to create an unexpected result which is then labelled as a successful mutation --many of which are sterile?!
I think intelligent design may be flawed theory but thus far, most attacks, like this one make no sense.
We are dutifully informed that intelligent design is not subject to scientific testing yet this is precisely the kind of testing that science continually does. Forensics science examines apparently accidental or random events and attempts to assess whether they could have been "intentional." Many scientific studies are dedicated to showing how events are not random but in fact causal. Mathematics provides many useful tools for showing that various events are unlikely to be random.
How is it that evolutionary theorists can so readily assert that randomness is a rule? There is no comparable rationale within science. Though no random mutations have been observed-- as we discover in your post-- we are continually assured that the infintesimal possibililty of such a change multiplied by ":billions of years" must have obviously created the incredible diversity of life forms on earth.
That might be correct but I find it highly suspicious that even the discussion of alternatives to such a view is deemed intolerable.
Yep, and it's resposnible for killing George Washington with it's success - bleeding him to cure his disease.. The proud always gloat in the hopes that no one paid attention to their ills. Evolutionists have done two things - stood on the shoulders of those who "proved" science while at the same time shouting that scientific theory cannot be proven. Who proved the theory of flight? Hint, it was a pair of brothers at Kittyhawk. We're supposed to carve such trivialities from our minds in order to bolster the concept that Evolutionists should be required to prove their drivol. Evolution isn't gravity. Evolution is a religion pretending at science and attempting to hide behind lame disclaimers that they are under no obligation to prove themselves.. you are just obliged to believe them. Where else but in a cult does one expect to hear such notions. Where else but from charlatans has one heard such sales pitches.
Polystrait fossils were argued by christians to be evidence of flooding for a long time. The damage presented by the 1980s eruption of Mt. St. Helens proved to science what Christians had been saying all along. St. Helens at once explained coal formation, rapid sedimentation, rapid carving of canyons, etc. One relatively small scale natural disaster destroyed many evolutionist fairytales about "millions of years". It isn't the notion that non-science is overtaking science that bothers them. It's that the truth is overtaking propaganda and evolution is quickly approaching it's demise as mock science and is headed for the ash-heap of history. It cannot withstand many more Mout St. Helens like events which expose the lack of candidness or truthfulness on behalf of the evolution crowd. Truth matters. Proof matters. We are, afterall, discussing what is supposed to be observeable. And life and it's properties are observeable lest we be treated to some thesis on how superstrings are not directly observeable.
As regards superstrings, gravity and other phenomina, we have to interject a bit of common sense when discussing these things. They are not terms which lept to life out of the ether. They are terms applied to things science observed and couldn't understand. Evolution, contrarwise, is something Science has theorized and never seen. It didn't arise out of an observation that couldn't be explained, it arose as a theoretical possibility that they have been chasing proofs for since.. to no avail. What's more, Evolution is not a single theory. It is a set of theories that are discarded and replaced under the umbrella of a religious idea. The idea never dies, it just invents new theories when the old ones are disproven. And, yes, lest we allow them to get away with saying science isn't about proof, we must note that they disprove their own ideas and discard them, then noting the damage done, replace the old set of theories with new ones - thusly remaining a constantly moving target. Observations like those surrounding the investigations after Mt. St. Helens have served to pin them down bits at a time. The more this happens, the more nervous their side gets. Like it or not, that is the nature of things being attempted to be hidden from truthful and candid conversation in the public. The danger on the horizon is what to do when the faithful no longer have this theory to believe in and science has to answer for the long fraud... Screaching and gnashing of teeth aren't quit apt impressions; but, are close. Think of liberals losing power and you'll be pretty close. We have examples of that sideshow daily.
YEC INTREP
I have a friend who was raised in the UU, and he told me a story about someone in his congregation asking their UU minister "why don't you just meet on Wednesdays, and call it 'bowling night'?"
The answer back? "Because we find most members have Sunday open on their calendars"
Not government, Congress -- i.e. the federal legislature (and sure as hell not the federal judiciary). This "enlightened", "rational" man seems to want to obfuscate the difference. Is he a constitutional ignoramus like most of the left, or is he doing it on purpose? I'm not sure, but he sure looks like a fool to those of us who really are rational.
True.
True enough. But science and biology are not the sole way to pursue truth. Matter of fact, evolution gets too be less and less a science the further you go back -- I'm inclined to think evolution happened although the origin of life through evolution remains a working model more the a testable theory -- like intelligent design is.
As for intelligent design, I know it happened, but not through the scientific method. I also know my daughter loves me. No science there either. Matter of fact I know 2+2 is 4. No science there either, just a conventional model.
Depends on the kind of thing. Science is great for some things, but doesn't work well with others. It is just one of the ways honest rational people try to determine what is true. To limit oneself to science alone is just sad.
I think Barry Lynn is/was in the UCC - United Church of Christ (descendents of the Congregational Church, mostly)
As a recent "scientific" convert to ID, the most that evolution can possibly explain, by the evidence, is the gradual change of a single species that has been around a very long time.
What it cannot explain is all the creatures the theory projects as required to have existed in the transitions from long gone species to the species we have today. There are fossils for the long gone species and very old fossils for species alive today. There are no fossils for the transitions. In each case, it's as if there used to be X and now there is Y, but Y had to have something else because the precurors for too many of its attributes do not exist in X. Evolution posits that there must be/have been transitionary creatures, yet for the tons of species that should have them, there are no fossils for them.
So, with no transitionary figure by which a long evolutionary slog of cause and affect slowly changed the DNA, how did present species come to acquire their DNA?
Who is it that believes in magic?
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.