You could have courage, and also be a fool. Those who doubt climatic chaos thanks to a slight increase of a trace gas, and those who are left wanting for a serious explanation of how an amoeba turned into a giraffe have little in common with your garden variety buffoon. :rolleyes: RobBut most scientists accept the evidence supporting climate change (a few outliers still have their heads in the sand). And I’ve never heard of anyone suggesting that “an amoeba turned into a giraffe” – that’s a new one one me!You could have courage, and also be a fool. Those who doubt climatic chaos thanks to a slight increase of a trace gas, and those who are left wanting for a serious explanation of how an amoeba turned into a giraffe have little in common with your garden variety buffoon.Rob
Section A. Chapters 170 and 174, RSMo, are amended by adding thereto two new sections, to be known as sections 170.018 and 174.890, to read as follows: 2. As used in this section, the following terms mean:
(1) "Analogous naturalistic process", a verifiable process which is either a present-day naturally occurring process similar to a past naturalistic process or the human-directed duplication of a process similar to a past naturalistic process. The verifiable process uses similar natural materials, mechanisms, and conditions as the past naturalistic process and produces an equivalent end result;
(2) "Biological evolution", a theory of the origin of life and its ascent by naturalistic means. The first simple life was developed from basic elements and simple molecules through the mechanisms of random combinations, naturally occurring molecular structures, other naturalistic means, and millions of years. From the first simple life, all subsequent species developed through the mechanisms of random variation, mutation, natural selection, adaptation, segregation, other naturalistic means, and millions of years. The theory is illustrated by the evolutionary phylogenic tree. Theory philosophically demands only naturalistic causes and denies the operation of any intelligence, supernatural event, God or theistic figure in the initial or subsequent development of life;
(3) "Biological intelligent design", a hypothesis that the complex form and function observed in biological structures are the result of intelligence and, by inference, that the origin of biological life and the diversity of all original species on earth are the result of intelligence. Since the inception of each original species, genetic material has been lost, inherited, exchanged, mutated, and recombined to result in limited variation. Naturalistic mechanisms do not provide a means for making life from simple molecules or making sufficient new genetic material to cause ascent from microscopic organisms to large life forms. The hypothesis does not address the time or sequence of life's appearance on earth, time or formation of the fossil record, and time or method of species extinction. The hypothesis does not require the identity of intelligence responsible for earth's biology but requires any proposed identity of that intelligence to be verifiable by present-day observation or experimentation. Concepts inherent within the hypothesis include:
(a) The origin of life on earth is inferred to be the result of intelligence directed design and construction. There are no plausible mechanisms or present-day experiments to prove the naturalistic origin of the first independent living organism;The next thing ya know they will be teaching IDvolution.
Just wondering. No offense intended. Who is left to defend our first parents? silence
I don’t get it?
With all the emphasis on creationism, and design-ID, neither of which affirms the Catholic doctrine of two parents of humanity, who is able to defend the subsequent Catholic doctrines on human nature, original sin, and why the need for redemption by the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity? silence?
This is stated very forcefully, but there's not a shred of logic behind what you say. Consensus, especially politically-driven consensus, is not science. Evolutionary theory is speculation, wild unscientific speculation.
Please tell me, step by step, how the human ear evolved. OK, I'll settle for a plausible outline. :confused: Rob Last I checked, amoebas swimming around in primordial soup have no need of redemption. :doh2:False .Veritas is quite correct. Hundreds of thousands of scientists regard your opinoin as irrelevant.
True.
False.
This topic is off limits. However, there is very clear scientific understanding of how this happened: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9310196Please tell me, step by step, how the human ear evolved. OK, I’ll settle for a plausible outline.Rob
As I recall before the ban on evolution discussion, there were not many CAF posters who could defend the reality of Adam and Eve in the 21st century scientific area of human origin. Sure, there were plenty who could defend design over chance, but knowledge of current human biology and current applications of polygenism were lacking.
Sorry that I cannot respond to the “primordial soup” of abiogenesis.
Your logic seems faulty.
I would say that all living things have a common *designer*! Many people, including you, seem very intelligent to me. But nonetheless, I cannot fathom how a single human being accepts that life in all its forms exist b/c of modification through descent. Blessings, Rob :)Sorry, VLM, but I am not accepting that God must be ruled out of the box of possibilities. If you believe in God, where exactly did he enter the picture? If you do not, you prove my point that many of the fiercest defenders of TOE are an intolerant sort. If you do believe, why would you wish for your reasoned position to be excluded from the classrooms? RobTires are not passed on by descent, and all cars are the result of individual creation, unlike living things.
This is a classic non-scientific statement. No fact we can think of could possibly falsify it. I can make these up too: there is a God, he made everything five minutes ago to look like it was old, including implanting our memories, and fake evidence of past history.
I have no idea. As I said, The Theory(ies) of Evolution do not address the origin of life. There is a lot of science being done in this area, but as yet, I do not think this is known. Science works by discovery, analysis, debate and correction. It does not explain everything (yet!) It is not a matter of belief, like religion.
Ah, but you are making decisions based upon belief. You stated that science can’t disprove creation by God, and yet you reject creation by God. On what basis? Not evidence.
I do not reject creation by God. I say that I have not seen evidence either of God, or of creation. If I do, I will accept this as fact. “Believing” things for which there is no evidence is not something I do.