That would explain it:
Posted on 01/03/2006 12:12:37 PM PST by PatrickHenry
ROFL! That one's so lame that even Answers In Genesis tells creationists that they should stop using it.
Prove to me humans descended from ape-like creatures.
Okay: Here you go.
But, but, she's a beauty queen.
fellatious?
Wow! You obviously haven't bothered to read the decision by Jones, but that doesn't stop you from posting your fanatasies about it.
No pain, no gain.
It's actually not that bad. I spend a lot of time in the field--a lot of it in the real wilderness--and have even developed a very good recipe for rattlesnake. The problem with them is, unless you get a really big, fat one, they are way too bony to bother with.
But they make a nice hatband on the Stetson.
Dirty? You want dirt? Shower with an archaeologist!
Thank you for the response.
You wrote: "First, human intelligence took the raw materials and, assembled the technology and substance needed to make X-rays. Second, although unseen, all the particles necessary to complete this process and make it repeatable have remained organized and consistent so as to make the application of human intelligence possible. "
Reply:
You seem to have an odd view. Is it your view that X-rays did not exist before Roentgen discovered them?
I cannot fathom what you mean by 'organized matter'. A snow crystal is highly organized. A mammalian blasosphere in utero is highly organized and develops into a fetus, seemingly contrary to the 2nd law. X-rays and gamma rays are evident in the universe beyond earth. I do not understand your point.
I live in the wilderness and spend a lot of time at 12,000+ ft, hauling equipment. You can't do more than a few miles a day with a load at that altitude.
I always tell myself, "No pain, no gain". And after my lab work fizzles I wonder whether there ever will be any gain.
I don't think very many people understand that to be an experimental scientist, you have to be ready to deal with a lot of frustration.
"The humeral fragment from Kanopoi, with a date of about 4.4 million years, could not be distinguished by Patterson and myself in 1967 (or by much more searching and analysis by others since then). We suggest that it might represent Australpithecus because at that time allocation Homo seemed proposterous, although it would be the correct one without the time element".(Bones of Contention, Lubenow, Dec. 1992, pp. 56-57)
The elbow (distal humerous) like KP 271, by itself, is not much good for fine definition. There are a lot of other parts of the body which are much better-teeth are among the best, face and cranium excellent, femur and pelvis excellent. But ribs and a few other of the bones are less diagnostic.
But even with these parts, with a large enough sample you can use multivariate statistics and come up with some good data.
A quick check of the web shows that the KP 271 site has yielded a lot more specimens.
Then that goes beyond ID as I understand it. I am also told that non-Christians hold to ID as well.
I appreciate the discussion. In any case, whether ID is religious or not makes little difference to me. The debate is in and of itself religious, as evolution which is atheistic is taught as fact in 100% of public schools in America. All other theories are banned with a fervor that goes beyond science.
Consider the intensely personal tone of the ID threads on FR. I've seen some incredibly nasty posts by evolutionists on this forum. Perhaps others have engaged in that as well, I don't know.
That would explain it:
You posted: "Thomas you should read Rehnquits dissent in Wallace v Jaffree for a primer on estabishment clause jurisprudence and original intent. You're lost in a lost world."
Reply: A dissent is just what it is--a minority opinion that lost.
I am familiar with the majority opinons in McCollum, Torcasso, Engel, Schempp, Lemon, Lee, etc. Have you ever read even one of them?
I confess to being a blind man blindfolded in a dark room on a moonless night, but evolution makes sense to me, and ID does not.
OK Zack. I thank you for your civility.
I agree that many non-Christians support ID. I'd say a big percentage of Muslims would fall into that category.
I am afraid that you are being a little dishonest when you say "all other theories are banned....". Other than Evolution what other scientific theories are there for the origin a species? A religious concept cannot be a scientific concept, by definition. I don't want to see religion in the science classroom, but I have no problem with it in other subjects.
Perhaps you should read the comments of the CR/IDers more carefully. I've been called a "beast that will rot in Hell", an "atheistic, communistic fag", a "baby-killer" and "Nazi" so many times I've lost count.
Mostly I try to avoid name calling, but even I have slipped a few times.
Have a good evening.
Some kind of a louse, shadowed and viewed with a SEM?
You wrote: "then the government would only be prevented from prohibiting the free exercise of "state religion" or of a national church. But this construction is (one would hope) obviously absurd."
Reply:
Why is this absurd?
Churches have always tried to capture the power of government to promote their self-interests (tax-exemption, for one).
Is there a single word or phrase in the Constitution that says government has a positive obligation to promote religion? Obviously, there is not such a phrase. Religious beliefs and church affiliations were obviously meant to be left to the private sphere, the family and individual conscience, and not to public displays of religiosity and pretended piety.
Which brings up the question ...
Which one of Noah, Shem, Ham or Japheth had the crabs?
"Intelligent design" is just another attempt to prove that a God exists. When stripped of all its verbiage about "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity", it comes down to "I don't understand it and you can't make me understand it." 10-yr olds have this reaction to fractions, too.
At the core of ID is a circular argument: to whit, " I believe in a God that makes life. I see life and this proves my god exists. I cannot imagine another god or naturalistic way to explain life. Therefore evolution is false and my belief is correct. My god-faith shows that evolution is false. Therefore god exists."
26-23 in triple OT
You posted: "Your post wrongly assumes and concludes that it is impossible for a creationist, or non-evolutionist, to make scientific contributions. They have and will continue to do so.
How do the evolutionary faith-based assumed conclusions (HOX gene mutations as biological mechanisms for evolution from fish to land mammal, false feathered dinosaurs like ,Sinosauropteryx, and etc.)help us to actually observe the world around us in a manner that leads to scientific contributions?"
Reply:
I remain curious. Has any creationist or IDist ever discovered a new species? Has any creationist or IDist ever contributed to any taxanomic classification? Has any creationist or IDist ever made a contribution to medical science? I would like to know.
I mean, most of us do not go to witch doctors when we have an ailment. Most of us go to people who have a good basis in biology and science, and although they are mensch and fallible, they are better than astrologers, palm readers, and witch doctors.
I ask, what is the difference between ID and witch doctors? Both claim that a god is in control and He must be propitiated. In your view, where is there a place for cause and effect?
"Cause and effect" works very well for naturalistic, materialistic science, and for conservative values. You want to throw this overboard for relativistic morals? Just because you can't understand evolution?
16-16-16? Sounds kind of...cubic, if you ask me :)
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.