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] "Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever." -- The Baron Munchausen I'll have to remember this one. I like it. "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?" Point taken. I probably should have said "that I have a problem with." And you're right. I've never thought about even NASA not being provided for. Thus, to stay consistant, NASA shouldn't exist. You could probably find a loophole somewhere by placing NASA under indirect military control, and thus part of the national defence clause? I believe that is how it started. Or maybe, just maybe, if people want congress to do all these things that the constitution doesn't say that say they can do or create, they can pass an ammendment saying that the federal government can, in fact, do these things. I doubt many people would be opposed to an ammendment allowing for interstates, so it wouldn't be too much trouble to pass. "Furthermore, I am curious as to the source of the presumption that smaller government leads to an increase in personal freedom." Simple. Less government programs, less government regulations for those programs, more freedom. Another idea of mine: Say welfare shut down on a national level and was picked up by most of the states. (I'm assuming that there would be one or two that didn't like welfare for some reason.) Each state would probably have different programs. If one state's failed, that state could try a program that another state is using. Eventually, all the states would end up using the best possible welfare system found for their own well-being. As it is, you've only got one governing body, and one country to try things in. One petri dish and sceintist instead of fifty pairs. "Please point out some examples of small governments providing more freedom historically." Early US, maybe? Basically, the idea is that big governments that control everything are invariably opressive. Thus smaller government. "First of all, no[, they weren't all hybrids]." Ah. So can you describe the ones that weren't, please? "Second of all, changing your definitions every ten seconds doesn't exactly make for a very convincing position." Evolution can refer to many different things. You've pointed out one definition, I've used at least two others. I don't consider the combination of two existing species into a third Evolution because the two original species could reproduce to begin with, and would thus have to be scientifically classified as the same species. "Where does the idea that the structure of a chromosome sprang whole from Zeus' thigh come from?" Because I've never heard anyone give any better ideas, including you. What other possible explination could there be, by your theory? The only one I can think of is that billions and trillions of cells were, in fact, formed, but that only one or two had the proper DNA sequence to stay alive. Only that could offset the improbability of hitting the right combination. The problem here is that no one has any idea under what circumstances a single cell could form by itself, much less trillions of them. "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?" Yes, actually. Do these people have a website? I'd like to actually look at their supposed evidence, and then decide. But first, assuming that they are, in fact, wrong, the problem here is that I could easily use the same analogy relating to you. They're trying to proove something, and when presented with evidence that their methods are flawed, they ignore it and keep going. So, yeah, I'd say it does sound familiar. "Could you perhaps calm down?" Sorry. My dad's got something like 40% hearing, and my brother is deaf in one ear (on top of being somewhat learning-impaired and responding to anything anyone says to him with "huh", or "wha?"), so I have to repeat things alot around here. Get's kind of annoying. Of course, if my dad didn't have bad hearing, he probably would have been sent to Vietnam and shot, and if my brother hadn't caught meningitis when he was two, I probably never have been born, so I guess I should count my blessings. Again, my apologies. "I'm saying that multiple independant studies all indicate that life has evolved from more primitive ancestors." Not all. I'm saying that multiple independant studies indicate that life did NOT evolve from more primitive ancestors. The only reason you accept the ones that say "Evolution" is because that's what you personally believe. Same with me. No one can be said to be objective. I, though, listen to the evidence and do my best to refute yours. Quite a bit of mine has been ignored. In the end, what our previous argument boiled down to was the fact that all the evidence you had was Archaeopteryx, which has been irrefutably shown to be false, and the skeletons from China, of which I know nothing, and thus can't say what they are. Tell me: what dating method was used to determine the age of archaeopteryx? As for your points: "1) Evolution offends your religious beliefs" No. The teaching of Evolution as absolute fact in schools with no mention of other theories offends my sense of reason. You can believe what you want without affecting me, just don't try to shove it off on someone elses kids. "2) There were no witnesses, hence nothing can be determined" Ah, no. Nothing can be PROOVEN. Newton could assume that Earth's gravity affected the moon, and his assumption would have been logical and rational based on what he knew. If, however, there was something he didn't know or didn't take into account, he would have assumed something to be true, when it was in fact false. The only way to proove something outside mathematics is to see and measure it for yourself, and even then, your instruments can be out of calibration, your test-tubes could be dirty, or any number of other things. There's no way to truely PROOVE anything scientifically. "3.) Every bit of evidence ever produced in favor of evolution is a lie" Again, I've never said that. In fact, that's what I was ranting about in my last post. I've said that every bit of evidence ever produced in favor of evolution is being misinterpreted. "Classical mechanics cannot explain the actions of every object in the universe. Does this mean Newton was in on some bizarre calculus conspiricy?" What is it with you, anyway? Just because he didn't take something into account doesn't mean that he was part of a huge conspiracy. He just didn't know about what he wasn't taking into account. You say that if all evidence in favor of Evolution is misinterpreted, then there must be a huge conspiracy. It's possible that the evidence is simply being misinterpreted because people don't like to admit that they're wrong, and some will accept anything they're told if it lets them keep their theory. Even scientists can be wrong now and again, you know. "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." But even the fundamentals don't explain everything pertaning to them. My theory (spontaneous creation, decreasing c, hydroplate, flood, liquefication, etc.) does. It fits the evidence, and it makes predictions that can be tested. Yours does neither. [/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