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 Sol System: [QB] "Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever." -- The Baron Munchausen "They're like two positively charged ions!" -- Milhouse I'd like to start out with another amusing anecdote, but I'm afraid my mind is preoccupied with thoughts of schoolwork, love, poetry, and other things that would ban me from the city of New York. So, are we doing the five minutes or the full half-hour? I couldn't help but notice this tidbit pop out at me from the section regarding the Constitution. "The problem with all these programs [i]I don't like[/i]..." (Emphasis mine.) But the Federal programs you do like, those can spend all the money in the world, eh? Screw the space program, unless it's building Star Wars? This is, of course, a fundamental problem with the partisan mentality as a whole. No one ever has any real solution. My grandfather will spend hours detailing the horrible liberal plot to destroy private business and turn the nation into the socialist home of the Antichrist. But by God, those drug companies charge too much! There should be a law! True solutions to our problems can only come when we begin to recognize the value of good ideas, regardless of their source. Furthermore, I am curious as to the source of the presumption that smaller government leads to an increase in personal freedom. It is personal freedom that is our goal, yes? Because states' rights for the sake of states' rights is a silly thing indeed. Please point out some examples of small governments providing more freedom historically. As I've said before, I'll take the independant Federal Marshall over the "old boys' network" Sheriff any day. "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." First of all, no. Second of all, changing your definitions every ten seconds doesn't exactly make for a very convincing position. "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." Well, that's the problem, then. What exactly are you getting this from? Where does the idea that the structure of a chromosome sprang whole from Zeus' thigh come from? Again, you aren't actually bothering to address what evolution [i]really[/i] says. Merely what you want it to say in order to advance your own position. I'm afraid my Holocaust analogy is perfectly accurate. There is plenty of evidence confirming it, yes. However, Holocaust deniers construct arcane methods to deny every bit of it. Gas traces in the ground? False readings. Eyewitness accounts? Poorly remembered wartime events. Does this pattern sound at all familiar to you? "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?" Could you perhaps calm down? First of all, I would burst out laughing if I didn't break down crying first. I'm saying that multiple independant studies all indicate that life has evolved from more primitive ancestors. You're saying that a magical book told you that everything appeared in a week a few years before the foundation of Egyptian civilization. And I'm the one who cannot admit that I might be wrong? Science is [b]based[/b] on the principle that things can be disproved. I have over the course of this argument had to conceed several points, almost always due to mistakes I made while researching. You, on the other hand, simply ignore things, or change the nature of the subject. Your argument against evolution seems to boil down to three or four basic points. 1.) Evolution offends your religious beliefs: For this, I am deeply and honestly sorry. But some things don't go away when you stop believing in them. Darwin should present no more of a threat to your beliefs than Copernicus. 2.) There were no witnesses, hence nothing can be determined: Clearly wrong, given just a basic understanding of how science works. It's called interpolation and extrapolation. Remarkably useful tools. It's how Newton could say beyond a reasonable doubt that gravity effects the moon in the same way it does an apple, even though he had never been to the moon and had no way of observing its motion completely. If you honestly want to judge science in this way, you must cast ALL of it out. Every textbook, every theory...everything. Because the very nature of science demands that nothing can be known for certain. It can merely be confirmed to the point where to withhold agreement would be foolish based on the evidence. 3.) Every bit of evidence ever produced in favor of evolution is a lie: I'm tempted to trot out Mr. Sagan's famous quote regarding extraordinary claims. Not one scientist believes in God? Not one scientist is antagonistic enough to his fellows to want to find holes in their theory? I think an honest examination of evolutionary theory clearly shows that it has been hotly debated by the scientific community since its introduction. Scientists still don't agree on all of the mechanisms. But the fact that it does indeed happen is confirmed beyond reasonable doubt by uncountable numbers of independant inquiries. Oh, and your definition of a theory is only partially correct. Classical mechanics cannot explain the actions of every object in the universe. Does this mean Newton was in on some bizarre calculus conspiricy? No. It simply means that over time our understanding has grown to include things the original theory could not. Classical mechanics works for the everyday universe. Relativity works for things traveling very fast, and for the rest of the of the macroscopic universe. Quantum mechanics works for the microscopic universe. Someday quantum gravity will likely tie all those together. Does that mean that our old equation of F=MA is false? Of course not. It simply doesn't hold true for every possibility. Is evolutionary theory the be all and end all on the subject? No. It seems very likely that our understanding will continue to grow on this topic here too. But the fundamentals stay the same. [/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