|
Author
|
Topic: Alas, poor Ohio .... EvC related news
|
berberry
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 106 of 179 (115291)
06-15-2004 5:38 AM
|
Reply to: Message 105 by Rrhain
06-15-2004 4:42 AM
|
|
Re: Rrhain's quotes
Rrhain writes:
quote:
It is the tradition of this great country to keep religion out of government.
Is it really? I would agree with you that it is the law of this great country to keep religion out of government, but there is plenty of tradition behind mixing the two. School prayer, to name just one example, was quite traditional. Once the practice of school prayer was tested in the courts, it was found to be unconstitutional notwithstanding the tradition.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 105 by Rrhain, posted 06-15-2004 4:42 AM | | Rrhain has not replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 107 of 179 (115396)
06-15-2004 2:45 PM
|
|
|
Traditions
It would seem that some individuals are having difficulty differentiating between the concepts of church and state, and god and government. They also seem to have a great deal of difficulty differentiating between law and tradition. In Message 105 Rrhain shows a quote from an outside source that I had posted earlier in the thread which reads as follows:The separation of church and state contradicts the traditions of this great country. To which Rrhain replies:But that's just it. It isn't the tradition of this great country. While I agree that a separation between church and state is indeed constitutional, I do not agree that a separation between god and government is. The acknowledgement of god in public life is not an establishment of religion, and therefore is not a violation of the constitution. "Establishment"
NOUN:
1a. The act of establishing.
b. The condition or fact of being established. 2. Something established, as:
a. An arranged order or system, especially a legal code.
b. A permanent civil, political, or military organization.
c. An established church. Rrhain continues:This country (and I define "this country" as the creation of the United States with the ratification of the Constitution) was founded on the separation of church and state. It is one of the defining principles of this great country. How can it be a contradiction when it is the very basis for our existence? Rrhain becomes his own contradiction because Rrhain wants to exclude the following document from our history. Normally I would choose to include the entirety of such a document but in order to crystalize in the mind of the reader the magnitude of what Rrhain would have excluded, I enclose only the first three paragraphs of said document:THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE In Congress, July 4th, 1776
The Unanimous Declaration Of The Thirteen United States Of America When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Powerful words. Words that Rrhain would have us ignore as if they had no meaning, as if they have no bearing on the founding of this, the greatest of nations. Words that are in actuality the backbone of the founding of this, the greatest of nations. Words that will forever remind us of our beginning, and our traditions as a nation, the greatest nation the world has ever known. No, Rrhain, the citizens of this great nation should never forget these words, for to do so would be to invite the tyranny and oppression that we sought to dispose of at the first. Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
|
berberry
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 108 of 179 (115408)
06-15-2004 3:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 107 by DarkStar
06-15-2004 2:45 PM
|
|
Re: Traditions
You're missing an important point, DarkStar. The Declaration of Independence was our statement to King George that we were no longer subject to him, that we no longer regarded him as our sovereign. The Declaration was intended only to establish the rationale for declaring our independence from Britian, it was not intended to lay down the law of the land in the way that the Constitution did. As you say, there is ample reference to God, or the Creator, but there is nothing to suggest that the founding fathers intended to establish a theocracy. There is nothing to establish a binding link between God and government.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 107 by DarkStar, posted 06-15-2004 2:45 PM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 109 of 179 (115409)
06-15-2004 3:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 108 by berberry
06-15-2004 3:02 PM
|
|
Re: Traditions
What's more, the phrase "Laws of Nature and Nature's God" is a tip-off that the god they were referring to is the Deist god, who created and then stepped back to let creation take care of itself -- and certainly didn't concern itself with being worshipped.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 108 by berberry, posted 06-15-2004 3:02 PM | | berberry has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 110 by berberry, posted 06-15-2004 3:14 PM | | Chiroptera has not replied | | | Message 112 by RAZD, posted 06-15-2004 4:33 PM | | Chiroptera has not replied |
|
berberry
Inactive Member
|
Re: Traditions
Yes, and I think it's also notable that the idea that nature's God endowed us with all of these rights does not seem to have come from the bible.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 109 by Chiroptera, posted 06-15-2004 3:07 PM | | Chiroptera has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2188 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 111 of 179 (115419)
06-15-2004 3:24 PM
|
|
|
A reply to message 86 in this thread would be most appreciated, DS. Thanks in advance.
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1423 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: Traditions
take it further:
to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them separate and equal for the people ... laws of nature ... nature's god ... that all men are created equal ... among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ... to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. all these elements point to the teaching of the natural laws in a manner that would not interfere with the separate and equal treatment of all the various personal and individual varieties of faith and belief. And note particularly that government is empowered by the people, not a god.
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand
Rebel AAmerican .Zen [Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 109 by Chiroptera, posted 06-15-2004 3:07 PM | | Chiroptera has not replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 113 of 179 (115458)
06-15-2004 4:35 PM
|
Reply to: Message 86 by nator
06-12-2004 9:13 PM
|
|
Re: Evolving Views
Hi schrafinator! As requested in Message 111, I reply. schrafinator writes: The evidence found in nature strongly supports random mutation combined with natural selection being the designer of life on Earth. The evidence found in nature also strongly supports design, even intelligent design. schrafinator writes: What are the predictions of design in nature, and what would falsify a finding of design?
Darkstar writes: Even the myriad of scientists who have made open statements regarding the overwhelming sense and indication of design that they see throughout the universe are not abandoning the theory of evolution for intelligent design. That's because ID isn't a scientific theory, but a philosophy. I submit for your reading pleasure;Theory
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. Not a full listing of definitions of what constitutes a theory, but sufficient for our purposes. Now whether or not you accept that all of these definitions of the word theory can be applied to the theory of intelligent design is not for me to decide. You would have to debate that with an individual more in tune with, and having a greater understanding of, the theory of intelligent design. Personally, I would readily admit that no less than two, if not all of the above definitions meet the qualifications necessary to determine that intelligent design is indeed a theory. Whether or not you agree with my assessment is really a moot point, as I am not qualified to debate the issue of intelligent design theory with you, nor is that my purpose in being here. I have merely stated in the past that I acknowledge patterns, designs, and yes, even intelligent designs in the aspects of nature that I am able to personally observe. This should not be viewed as an endorsement of intelligent design theory. schrafinator writes: The origin of life has nothing to do with the ToE. I agree. Yet the presupposition of abiogenesis remains at the forefront of the theory of evolution even as the presupposition of a creator remains at the forefront of the theory of intelligent design. To state otherwise is both disingenuous and non sequitur. Cheers This message has been edited by DarkStar, 06-15-2004 03:47 PM This message has been edited by DarkStar, 06-15-2004 03:50 PM
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 86 by nator, posted 06-12-2004 9:13 PM | | nator has replied |
|
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1411 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: 06-23-2003
|
|
|
Message 114 of 179 (115492)
06-15-2004 5:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 113 by DarkStar
06-15-2004 4:35 PM
|
|
Re: Evolving Views
DarkStar claims: quote:
I would readily admit that no less than two, if not all of the above definitions meet the qualifications necessary to determine that intelligent design is indeed a theory.
More in terms of a conjecture, certainly, than as a testable framework for organizing observations. And scientific? Not even close. The foundation of scientific endeavor is methodological naturalism. This guiding principle states that science must propose verifiable, detectable mechanisms to explain natural phenomena. Anything not verifiable or detectable is considered irrelevant to science, since it can have no meaning in the context of empirical evidential inquiry. Empirical deals with what we can all observe or verify with our senses. Evidential refers to the methodology that relies on supporting evidence to confirm or refute scientific claims. And if the inquiry doesn't qualify on either of these counts, it's not scientific. regards, Esteban Hambre
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 113 by DarkStar, posted 06-15-2004 4:35 PM | | DarkStar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 115 by DarkStar, posted 06-15-2004 6:24 PM | | MrHambre has replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 115 of 179 (115505)
06-15-2004 6:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 114 by MrHambre
06-15-2004 5:59 PM
|
|
Re: Evolving Views
I have requested from others, but so far have not been supplied with, a viable and extensive definition and explanation of what exactly constitutes "natural selection'. Perhaps you would be able to supply me with the definition of natural selection and how it functions. Thanks! Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 114 by MrHambre, posted 06-15-2004 5:59 PM | | MrHambre has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 116 by MrHambre, posted 06-15-2004 6:56 PM | | DarkStar has replied |
|
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1411 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: 06-23-2003
|
|
|
Message 116 of 179 (115514)
06-15-2004 6:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 115 by DarkStar
06-15-2004 6:24 PM
|
|
Natural Selection
From the glossary of this site: quote:
Natural selection: Differential reproduction or survival of replicating organisms caused by agencies that are not directed by humans (See Artificial selection). Since such differential selective effects are widely prevalent, and often act on hereditary (genetic) variations, natural selection is a common major cause for a change in the gene frequencies of a population that leads to a new distinctive genetic constitution (evolution).
Think of a tournament in which all contestants pair off and compete, then the winners of all those competitions pair off, and so on. The traditional arrow-shaped diagram used to keep track of tournament standings is a useful way to visualize the process. There's no reason that any one of the possible pathways through the diagram should be the a priori correct one, but one contestant will eventually emerge as the winner. Natural selection is just such a filter, except that the lines of the diagram also radiate from each nexus as the winners advance. In other words, the winners of each round reproduce more contestants, and the process becomes a cumulative one. The inherent variation in any population is therefore subjected to successive rounds of testing, and each winning variation both narrows down the field (by eliminating other variants) and tries to expand it to its advantage (by reproducing variations on its successful genetic formula). regards, Esteban Hambre
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 115 by DarkStar, posted 06-15-2004 6:24 PM | | DarkStar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 117 by DarkStar, posted 06-15-2004 9:52 PM | | MrHambre has not replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 117 of 179 (115549)
06-15-2004 9:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 116 by MrHambre
06-15-2004 6:56 PM
|
|
Re: Natural Selection
Thank you for the definition you supplied in Message 116. The only other one I have available is from the dictionary, which I suppose would have sufficed.
Natural Selection
The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.
I am currently doing a self-imposed study on the possibilities of macro-evolution actually occuring in nature, though as yet I can not accept that this is a scientific theory due to it's inability to be observed, tested, or falsified. Two sites from which I am gathering information are and websites. In my search at both of these sites for reference to macro-evolution, I came across these:
One of the first things I noticed about these two sites is that they open with almost the same argument, but with different perspectives. Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution by Mark Isaak A large part of the reason why Creationist arguments against evolution can sound so persuasive is because they don't address evolution, but rather argue against a set of misunderstandings that people are right to consider ludicrous. The Creationists wrongly believe that their understanding of evolution is what the theory of evolution really says, and declare evolution banished. In fact, they haven't even addressed the topic of evolution. (The situation isn't helped by poor science education generally. Even most beginning college biology students don't understand the theory of evolution.) Five Major Misconceptions about EvolutionFive Major Evolutionist Misconceptions About Evolution (T. Wallace)a response to a nearly fact-free TalkOrigins essay of a similar title by Mark Isaak. A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.) http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp With the second piece being a rebuttal, I actually thought it quite clever to phrase it in such a similar fashion as the first, however, I see that those on both sides of the issue felt the need to defend themselves, and in the process, unnecessarily criticize those who hold the opposite point of view, though the ending quote on the rebuttal was also quite clever. The jury is still out on this one as far as I am concerned. I have much searching and reading ahead of me and I doubt that any concrete conclusion can be reached in anything but an extremely entended period of time.
"For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts can be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible." Charles Darwin Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 116 by MrHambre, posted 06-15-2004 6:56 PM | | MrHambre has not replied |
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
|
|
Message 118 of 179 (115562)
06-15-2004 11:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 107 by DarkStar
06-15-2004 2:45 PM
|
|
Re: Traditions
DarkStar responds to me:
quote:
I do not agree that a separation between god and government is.
Strange that you decided to quote the Declaration of Independence to support that statement since the DoI explicitly declares the opposite:
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Notice that it doesn't say that governments are instituted by god. It recognizes that government is something that human beings create in order to establish ways in which the citizens can interact with each other and maintain a cohesive society. What more do you need? The DoI directly states that the only reason government exist is because you and I let it, not because of god. The government is beholden to the will of the people, not to the will of god. It's first and only responsibility is to the people, not to god. Amazing that you quoted the text and managed to miss the entire point, even when it slapped you right upside the face.
Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 107 by DarkStar, posted 06-15-2004 2:45 PM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1485 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 119 of 179 (115606)
06-16-2004 2:59 AM
|
Reply to: Message 117 by DarkStar
06-15-2004 9:52 PM
|
|
I am currently doing a self-imposed study on the possibilities of macro-evolution actually occuring in nature, though as yet I can not accept that this is a scientific theory due to it's inability to be observed, tested, or falsified. Well, you're probably right about that, since there's no such thing as "macro-evolution", any more than there's a distinction between "micro-walking" and "macro-walking." Evolution is a result, not a process. When you let the mechanisms of evolution run for a short time, you get what might be called "micro-evolution." When you let them run for a long time, you get what might be called "macro-evolution." Where does micro become macro? You might as well ask when short becomes long. (There's a pun there, isn't there?)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 117 by DarkStar, posted 06-15-2004 9:52 PM | | DarkStar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 120 by DarkStar, posted 06-16-2004 9:15 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
Macro vs Micro
darkStar writes: I am currently doing a self-imposed study on the possibilities of macro-evolution actually occuring in nature, though as yet I can not accept that this is a scientific theory due to it's inability to be observed, tested, or falsified. crashfrog writes: Well, you're probably right about that, since there's no such thing as "macro-evolution", any more than there's a distinction between "micro-walking" and "macro-walking." DarkStar replies: Then perhaps I should avoid the following site as it obviously states that there is such a thing as macro-evolution. Since it is in error on this point, I can deduce that it is in error on other points and is therefore an unreliable source of information. What is macroevolution? In science, macro at the beginning of a word just means "big", and micro at the beginning of a word just means "small" (both from the Greek words). For example, a macrophage means a bigger than normal cell, but it is only a few times bigger than other cells, and not an order of magnitude bigger. In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa. Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. Another way to state the difference is that macroevolution is between-species evolution of genes and microevolution is within-species evolution of genes. TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy crashfrog writes: Evolution is a result, not a process. When you let the mechanisms of evolution run for a short time, you get what might be called "micro-evolution." When you let them run for a long time, you get what might be called "macro-evolution."
RESULT To come about as a consequence.
To end in a particular way.
The consequence of a particular action, operation, or course; an outcome.
.......
PROCESS A series of actions, changes, or functions bringing about a result.
.........
MECHANISM A habitual manner of acting to achieve an end.
BlackStar replies: Let me see if I have this straight. Evolution=result, which signifies an end of action. Evolution does not=process, which signifies a series of actions, changes, or functions meant to bring about a result, or end of action. Mechanisms of evolution=an ongoing process of an already acheived result, or end? Froggy, what the hell are you talking about. Now you really have me confused. Maybe those christians are right, it may be easier to just say "god did it" than to figure out how the end of action has an ongoing action leading to an end of action ad infinitum. Talk about circular. Damn! I'm getting all discombobulated just thinking about that one. Discombobulated Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 119 by crashfrog, posted 06-16-2004 2:59 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2