Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
........BAAAAAAHHHAHahahahahahahaha! Ohmygoodness! xDIf you think about it, the creationist/ID side in the Dover trial never stood a chance.
The prevailing view in science is that there's nothing beyond the physical universe, so anything that does not conform to that worldview is automatically considered non-valid, or worse, nonsense. I suspect the trial was merely a formality.
I hope ID scientists continue to publish their findings independent of the scientific establishment, which is far from unbiased with its pressure to publish only what conforms to its dogma, lest one suffers ridicule, censure, and even dismissal.
There was a few questions that this case was asked to answer and Judge Jones went the extra mile and ruled on all of them even though the first ruling nullified the requirement to answer the rest - it probably grated him that the Christians supporting the ID cause were so dishonest...ID scientists did in fact defend it in court but the question before the court was never whether or not ID was true or false. The question was whether or not teaching ID in a science class was a violation of the establishment clause. The court found that the designer must be God and therefore it was religious. That's all there every was to it.
Garbage. Dover was about a reference to a book in the library. From the link provided and ignored.The Wedge Document, which discusses this, isn't enough for you? Or the fact that it was the entire goal of the ID side of the Dover trial to get ID in schools?
The Judge? You have not refuted, you conceded, and now you are doing damage control.It was awfully easy to refute.
As noted in the link below. News flash, if they do it to that extent including the factual errors it makes them look stupid, not briilliant. I suppose they can wear dunce caps in courtrooms but if they do, well, don't they open themselves up to scrutiny?First of all: there isn't technically anything wrong with him doing that, as judges do this all of the time in rulings.
Sara Austin, who was the president of the New York Bar Association at the time, said that "a judge can adopt some, all or none of the proposed findings."
Ask your mother if copying 90+ % including the factual errors is brilliant, an outstanding thinker, and while you are at it, ask if she could plagiarize in Law School. The rest of your post is damage control.According to my mom (a lawyer), judges can use whatever they want in a case for their concluding statement and it really doesn't matter where it comes from. (The internet and my lawyer dad both agreed)
So the Judge did copy including the mistakes. So why does that make him brilliant? From the link which you did not bother to read.
The study notes that, while judges routinely make use of proposed findings of fact, “the extent to which Judge Jones simply copied the language submitted to him by the ACLU is stunning. For all practical purposes, Jones allowed ACLU attorneys to write nearly the entire section of his opinion analyzing whether intelligent design is science. As a result, this central part of Judge Jones’ ruling reflected essentially no original deliberative activity or independent examination of the record on Jones’ part.” [And that makes the judge an outstanding thinker?]
So you are rejecting one "mythology " for another? That's odd. What is even odder is that what you are rejecting has evidence, or in the case of abiogenesis, no one is saying any of the hypothesis now are correct. They are only ideas right now (although there is some evidence it isn't conclusive) . It is probable that none of them are how life on this earth come to be, even if we learn that life could form the way some or all of the hypothesis suppose.The obvious naturalistic assumptions of Darwinians are obvious in this statement:
Understanding of how homochirality occured at the onset of life remains a mystery (Discovery demystifies origin of life chirality phenomenon)To this day, recapitulation is all this amounts to:
In the formulation of origin-of-life scenarios, self-assembly is often invoked as the only available mechanism to bridge the ‘insurmountable kinetic barrier’ connecting simple carbon-based molecules available on the early Earth and the simplest structures capable of enzymatic activity, which in a RNA world scenario would be ribozymes (Abiotic ligation of DNA oligomers templated by their liquid crystal ordering)Sure you can have an RNA self-assmply structure capable of making an enzyme. If and only if you have an RNA enzyme that catalyzes a chemical reaction.
The RNA world hypothesis has been criticized because of the belief that long RNA sequences are needed for catalytic activity, and for the enormous numbers of randomized sequences required to isolate catalytic and binding functions using in vitro selection. For example, the best ribozyme replicase created so far able to replicate an impressive 95-nucleotide stretch of RNA – is ~190 nucleotides in length , far too long a sequence to have arisen through any conceivable process of random assembly. (The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life, except for all the others, NCBI)Yea those hard headed creationists that won't simply assume all of this happened at random in spite of the fact it's impossible. Of course, like all peer reviewed scientific literature it's subject to the scrutiny of the reviewers. Check out what this one had to say Ucog:
“I, for one, have never subscribed to this view of the origin of life, and I am by no means alone. The RNA world hypothesis is driven almost entirely by the flow of data from very high technology combinatorial libraries, whose relationship to the prebiotic world is anything but worthy of “unanimous support”. There are several serious problems associated with it, and I view it as little more than a popular fantasy” (reviewer's report in [5]).Bottom line, just a popular fantasy. That speaks volumes for the audacity of Darwinian evolution assuming something that can neither be directly observed or empirically demonstrated. Yet, they insist, we should all assume what they have never been able to prove. Most importantly, they know that for a fact. How is this, 'popular fantasy', supposed to be anything other then a modern mythology? The modern mythographers while extremely esoteric and profoundly well educated, it's the same thing as ancient pagan mythology that traced the origin of even the gods back to pagan elementals. Nothing new under the sun. Thanks for the yarn Ucog, I do enjoy a good story from time to time. I just don't confuse that as a substitute for faith in God, who is the true the author of life. It's called the law of biogenesis, life only comes from life. The only viable source of life on this planet is the living God and the only legitimate history of the origin of life is recorded in Genesis 1. Call me incredulous if you will, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
Have a nice day
Mark
Abiogenisis isn't a part of evolutionary biology, because the later is a natural phenomenon while the former is a myth.
it's a theoretical question. do you agree or disagree that a motor that is made from organic components is evidence for design or not?
Did too.
"Equal quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules (called a racemic mixture) were consistently produced by the Miller-Urey procedure. In life, nearly all amino acids that can be used in proteins must be left-handed, and almost all carbohydrates and polymers must be right-handed. The opposite types are not only useless but can also be toxic (even lethal) to life." source
Because I'm a student of redemptive history and Genesis 1 dovetails perfectly with the gospel. Abopgenesis never had a rational basis, let alone an empiricle. I actually read the scientific literature and it's supposition and speculation.So you are rejecting one "mythology " for another? That's odd. What is even odder is that what you are rejecting has evidence, or in the case of abiogenesis, no one is saying any of the hypothesis now are correct. They are only ideas right now (although there is some evidence it isn't conclusive) . It is probable that none of them are how life on this earth come to be, even if we learn that life could form the way some or all of the hypothesis suppose.
What is almost certain right now though, is that it was natural. Why? Because everything so far has been natural (despite everything once or still being thought to be by deities and super entities) and because there is no evidence of the supernatural.
Yes, indeed. It is obvious nothing will change your mind, but scientists, well most of them, most of the time, aren't like you. They go where the evidence leads. And so will I.
So why do you think that "genesis is the only legitimate history of the origins of life"? I'd genuinely love to know.
ID scientists did in fact defend it in court but the question before the court was never whether or not ID was true or false. The question was whether or not teaching ID in a science class was a violation of the establishment clause. The court found that the designer must be God and therefore it was religious. That's all there every was to it.
You are sorta right. It wasn't about if it was true or not. It was about whether ID could be legally taught in public schools as science. The judge found that it was only religious, with no scientific evidence for it. So, no, it could not be taught in public science classes.
On December 20, 2005, Jones issued his 139-page findings of fact and decision ruling that the Dover mandate requiring the statement to be read in class was unconstitutional. The ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science, and permanently barred the board from "maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District)What the court determined was that ID was religious, that ID was a progeny of Creationism, that it was not science (which I could have told them). Never did the court attempt to reach a conclusion regarding whether or not it's true:
After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District)This is exactly what I was hoping for, getting religious doctrine out of the schools and as much as possible, out of politics. More importantly because something is not science or happens to be religious doesn't mean it's not true. The Church and a number of very credible scientists have made some kind of Intelligent Design argument. Traditionally this was refereed to as natural theology. I will add, that even though it's based on essential doctrine it's not a formal theology either. It is an intellectual and philosophical exercise, that is at it's core, largely a matter of conviction.
Have a nice day
Mark
The judge found that it was only religious, with no scientific evidence for it.
Isn't that what I said? I know some religious people have an abnormal definition for "truth" (it is whatever they believe it is, no matter how little or contrary evidence there is for it). So, in that sense, yeah, as I said, it didn't rule if it was the TRUTH. But what you forgot to mention the first time, was that they ruled it wasn't science and was only religious. So of course it cannot be taught in public schools as science.
Your very welcome.Thank you. You have a nice one as well.
Their experiments, along with considerable geological, biological, and chemical evidence, lends support to the theory that the first life forms arose spontaneously through naturally occuring chemical reactions. sourceDoes Bergman explain that Miller and Urey were not actually trying to 'create life'?
I think there is a misunderstanding here. I readly admit it is probably from my end. Forgive me, I was home schooled.This is what you said, the court made no statement regarding whether or not ID was true. It in fact said it had no opinion.
The court said it was religious so it was out, I agree. That's not the same thing as it have no basis in fact or not being true, and as I said, the court offered no opinion whether or not it's true.
What is abnormal here is how empirical testing is equivocated with truth, it's nothing of the sort. Just remember, not everything has to be science in order to be true.
Your very welcome.
Grace and peace,
Mark
Because of the establishment clause, religion cannot be taught in the public schools. It's really as simple as that because of the first amendment. In the decision they said it over and over again, it's all the trial was about.I think there is a misunderstanding here. I readly admit it is probably from my end. Forgive me, I was home schooled.
Yes, it is possible there is truth that can be discovered without the scientific method. Although I do think evidence is closer to truth than faith is. At least for this moment in time. But that is why I agreed with you that the court did not rule on its truth value. What I disagreed with was when you said the court said it was religious, so it could not be taught in public school.
The ruling was that it was not scientific and was only religious. Therefore it was unconstitutional for it to be taught as science in public institutions.
What the court determined was that ID was religious, that ID was a progeny of Creationism, that it was not science (which I could have told them). Never did the court attempt to reach a conclusion regarding whether or not it's true:
After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District)
This is exactly what I was hoping for, getting religious doctrine out of the schools and as much as possible, out of politics. More importantly because something is not science or happens to be religious doesn't mean it's not true. The Church and a number of very credible scientists have made some kind of Intelligent Design argument. Traditionally this was refereed to as natural theology. I will add, that even though it's based on essential doctrine it's not a formal theology either. It is an intellectual and philosophical exercise, that is at it's core, largely a matter of conviction.
The court said it was religious so it was out, I agree. That's not the same thing as it have no basis in fact or not being true, and as I said, the court offered no opinion whether or not it's true.
What is abnormal here is how empirical testing is equivocated with truth, it's nothing of the sort. Just remember, not everything has to be science in order to be true.
Perhaps you're missing what @Motherofkittens is trying to highlight - the Court made no decision on the claims of ID because even were it to attempt it, there's no Scientific evidence in its favour to assess. Literally, the only thing ID had were religious underpinnings and denial of evidence based science already out there that support the theory of evolution.Because of the establishment clause, religion cannot be taught in the public schools. It's really as simple as that because of the first amendment. In the decision they said it over and over again, it's all the trial was about.
The case had nothing to do with I'D being true or false, it was whether or not it was religion and science. The court can't have an opinion whether or not religious views are true or false it's a violation of the first amendment. It's remarkable that this obvious fact is buried by the fallacious notion that I'D lost because the evidence it was untrue was against them. That wasn't even a question, it was their criticism of Darwinism that the court and the secular world doesn't like. Darwinian evolution is still a myth and God is still the creator of life both in Genesis 1 and Revelations 22, from the beginning until the end.Perhaps you're missing what @Motherofkittens is trying to highlight - the Court made no decision on the claims of ID because even were it to attempt it, there's no Scientific evidence in its favour to assess. Literally, the only thing ID had were religious underpinnings and denial of evidence based science already out there that support the theory of evolution.
Although the Court worded in its decision that 'ID arguments may well be true', it's actually more probable that ID arguments are false, especially given the ID movement had every chance to front any scientific evidence whatsoever which would have not only vindicated the ID movement, but would've meant that ID and all its claims were in fact science and therefore had every grounds to be taught everywhere as science, Including in Dover!
They'd have won this case hands down!
-_- Nope, still missing the point... If ID had ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, Then it wouldn't matter that it was religious because the science part would actually be science, they could teach it at Dover Public Schools and every other public institution it could imagine itself in because it would actually be Science!The case had nothing to do with I'D being true or false, it was whether or not it was religion and science. The court can't have an opinion whether or not religious views are true or false it's a violation of the first amendment. It's remarkable that this obvious fact is buried by the fallacious notion that I'D lost because the evidence it was untrue was against them. That wasn't even a question, it was their criticism of Darwinism that the court and the secular world doesn't like. Darwinian evolution is still a myth and God is still the creator of life both in Genesis 1 and Revelations 22, from the beginning until the end.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?