Evolutionry/religious nonsense

Were you implying that dogs buried their food for reasons other than that it was surplus to current requirements?

Reproduction seems a driving force but is variation and selection?

jerlands wrote:

Reproduction seems a driving force but is variation and selection?

How come every time I give you the answer and serve it up on a silver platter for you, all you do it scrape most of it onto the floor and then complain about what's left?

You said you were trying to understand, but I no longer believe that's true.

If you fake comprehension (and then freely admit that youre not even interested in what the courts decreed), I sure as hell have no further interest in your make-believe debate

Separation of church and state in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Separation of church and state" is paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The phrase "separation between church & state" is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Jefferson wrote,

“ "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."[1] ”
Jefferson was echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams who had written in 1644,

“ "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world." ”
Article Six of the United States Constitution also specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."[2]

In contrast to separationism, the Supreme Court of the United States in Zorach v. Clauson upheld accommodationism, holding that the nation's "institutions presuppose a Supreme Being" and that government recognition of God does not constitute the establishment of a state church as the Constitution's authors intended to prohibit.[3][4] As such, the Court has not always interpreted the constitutional principle as absolute, and the proper extent of separation between government and religion in the U.S. remains an ongoing subject of impassioned debate.[5][6][7][8]

Re: Leadfoot (Post 6576302)
Quote:
Leadfoot

If you can't talk with me man to man about the subject, I'm not interested

Farmerman
If you fake comprehension (and then freely admit that youre not even interested in what the courts decreed), I sure as hell have no further interest in your make-believe debate.

@farmerman,
Quote:
Quote:
My question is, "what religion is it that I promoted in my interpretation of the evidence?
Pretty much youve been speking Fundamentalit Chritianity (I really care little about which persuasion) YEC OEC or TEc.


Please provide a quote from my algorithm argument, robot, frame of reference argument where I used religion. The only religious post I have in this thread was an answer to jerland https://able2know.org/topic/422776-21#post-6570714 specifically asking me about My view of the problem the algorithm is solving. In the scientific debate I kept it purely scientific.

If we use our intelligence to reproduce the conditions for abiogenisis in a lab (or outside a lab) our intelligence ends up being a factor (and possibly a requirement) for the lab experiment to be successful.

If our intelligence is not a requirement we should see pools of water without life one day, containing life the next without our intervention. But running around daily checking sterile pools for life (which is the only way to truly observe abiogenisis) has not been fruitful, and I doubt ever will be.

If there was an intelligent initiation that set up the environment in the universe, it does not have to be the omnipitent Christian God of the bible.

It could be a smaller god that can only order a small part of the universe(the part we can see and live in, similar to a lab but larger in scope). It's intelligence could have a beginning similar to abiogenis. This intelligence could have been established as a natural part of the initial matter by or with the laws of physics, and through trial and and error (learning through experience) caused abiogenis and biological evolution.

This would make this initial intelligence a purely part of nature and a purely natural process like ours. And, abiogenis in an ancient universe, would be an exact replica (maybe even in size if the ID was only able to manipulate a small part of the universe) of what we are attempting to do again in labs today.

Maybe this intelligence was known to the ancient men as Pantheism, Paganism, Hinduism, Buddhism etc. . . and is now come to be understood as Naturalism.

You can believe in this form of intelligent design and still be an atheist.

You think we could scientifically approach intelligent design from this point of view?

brianjakub

As I've suggested before, he's only here for the chatter. The topic is irrelevant.

The wall separation of Church and state was not intended to outlaw ID as the words from the supreme court in bold type indicate

PS, where the hell do you make up rules for crystal chemistry bsed on Lgorithms??
Crystals form when solute and solvent disconnect and molecules , ions, atoms, or colloids react based upon their own internal structures and the "magic" 105 degree columation of natures universal solvent. AND these various chemicals re combine into defined facial angles in response based upon ionic, covalent, hydrogen, van derWaals and Zeta P bonds. It ll depends upon the LAWS of crystallography (NOT ATOMIC LAW) , there is no ATOMIC LAW(other than that proposed by nuclear testing agreements). Its ATOMIC THEORY, which contains many interlocking Laws. Like Braggs Law or Snells Law . No help from outside unless qe create the chemistry nd watch to see ht crystals form.

BTW, thats how DNA structure was determined .

Please provide a quote from my algorithm argument, robot, frame of reference argument where I used religion.

If we use our intelligence to reproduce the conditions for abiogenisis in a lab (or outside a lab)does our intelligence end up being a factor (and possibly a requirement) for the lab experiment to be successful?

What are you talking about? There is no atomic law?

Seriously?? You’ve become doctor obvious.

Quote:

What are you talking about? There is no atomic law?

There are atomic LAWS (PLURAL NB), all nicely folded up in ATOMIC THEORY (MODERN not just Dalton's)

You guys really need to understand what the words LAW , THEORY and HYPOTHESIS mean to science

You guys really need to understand what the words LAW , THEORY and HYPOTHESIS mean to science