Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
New Mexico Changes Creation / Evolution Policy
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [QB] Sol: OK, first, my interpretation of the US Constitution. I see the constitution as a contract between the states and the national government. When a territory ratifies the constitution and becomes a state, it effectively says "We will send representatives, pay taxes, and do everything the constitution says we must. We will also agree not to do what the constitution say we can not, such as make a treaty with another nation. If an ammendment is ratified by 2/3 of the states, we agree to accept it as part of this contract, whether we ratified it or not." The US government, which, by its very nature, must hold to the terms of the contract, says "OK, we'll provide for your defence, and all the other things the constitution says we must do, and we won't do anything the constitution tells us not to do." The problem with all these programs I don't like is a clause in this contract saying that the national government has no power not granted it in the constitution. The states agreed to do what the national government said WITHIN THE LIMITS of the constitution, and the US government, by virtue of the tenth ammendment's very existance, agrees to the same thing. Thus the national government should have no power not explicitly granted in the constitution. I believe all the examples of specitation you gave are hybrids of pre-existing species, correct? That doesn't constitution evolution in my book. No new genetic material, just a recombination of old material into a new pattern. As for the randomness of chromosome origin, I don't think you understood me. I was refering to the original formation of the first cell. Even if it only had one chromosome, the amount of data stored in that one would still be enormous. There would only be a certain number of DNA patterns that would make the cell a self-sustaining organism (say, 1,000,000,000; probably a gross overestimate, but I'll be nice). There are so many possible permutations of DNA in that one chromosome that the chances of hitting on any one of those billion by any random process are not significantly different from zero. What do you mean, Evolution isn't random? Something is tried, and if it doesn't work, something else is tried. Sounds random to me. You're right. Your analogy is unwieldy. The Haulocaust happened. There is physical evidence to back it up. There are pictures. There are survivors still alive today. Evolution has no physical evidence that isn't misinterpreted. There are no witnesses. N concievable test can be performed to show it to be true. My idea for teaching religion in optional classes relates to things that are scientificly unproovable. "Calling for equal time for creationism in school is the same as calling for equal time for Holocaust denial in history classes, or hollow earth theories in geology class, or crystal sphere theories in astronomy class." Again, evidence in favor of Holocaust, solid Earth, and Heliocentrism, and against denial, hollow Earth, and crystal sphere. Evolution has no evidence for it, and much evidence against it. Creation has none either way. Neither should be taught as absolute fact. "At any rate, there is evidence that undeniably points towards such an event [as the big bang]." Such as? I've heard none that can't be explained as something else. "What Baloo is talking about is rather blindingly obvious. There is an entire universe of evidence out there indicating that things have been around for quite some time. Now either that evidence has been purposefully designed to trick us, which certainly doesn't match up with the idea of a benevolent God, or that evidence is what it is, and our beliefs must take that fact into account." How many times do I have to point out that it's possible that the supposed evidence is being misinterpreted, and that you may just be wrong!? This is, what, the third time? Can you just not admit the possibility that what you're being told is WRONG? "And evolution meets up with all the qualifications of a scientific theory. Please explain how it does not." I already did. "A good theory would explain everything that can be observed pertaining to it, not just some things. It would also make predictions that can be tested. Evolution does neither of these." I'm not anti-government. I'm anti-government-expanding-beyond-the-boundries-stated-in-the-constitution. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3