Posted on 09/17/2008 8:43:45 AM PDT by Soliton
The Brunswick County school board is looking for a way for creationism to be taught in the classroom side by side with evolution.
"It's really a disgrace for the state school board to impose evolution on our students without teaching creationism," county school board member Jimmy Hobbs said at Tuesday's meeting. "The law says we can't have Bibles in schools, but we can have evolution, of the atheists."
When asked by a reporter, his fellow board members all said they were in favor of creationism being taught in the classroom.
The topic came up after county resident Joel Fanti told the board he thought it was unfair for evolution to be taught as fact, saying it should be taught as a theory because there's no tangible proof it's true.
"I wasn't here 2 million years ago," Fanti said. "If evolution is so slow, why don't we see anything evolving now?"
(Excerpt) Read more at starnewsonline.com ...
QUICK NOTE TO ALL BIBLE-BELIEVING CHRISTIANS:
There are thousands of Freepers. These threads bring out a dozen or two Freepers who’ve concluded that God is irrelevant, that He did not in fact create “all this.” They are not open to dialog, not open to considering the evidence against their theories, not open to the possibility that the Creator in fact exists.
My advice for non-atheists: Ignore these kinds of threads. I’ve found them to be a waste of time. I’ve wasted hours trying to dialog with anti-Christian, anti-Scripture, anti-evidence Freepers. Soliton may be a fine Republican, but, like his pro-Darwin pals, is blind to the evidence in favor of a Creator. Don’t waste your breath with this gang of 20.
ToE teaching should be honest about the lack of evidence for it.
“Why are you even here on FR, sagar?”
FreeRepublic is the finest current event indexer and I find majority of the posts here to be insightful and enlightening. You can’t get non-socialistic material much elsewhere. I am not leaving just because I disagree on a couple of points.
“You may not believe that God created “all this,” but that gives you no reason to defame Bible-believing Christians, equating them with flat-earthers, numerology, mythology and Islam. Did a Christian offend you when you were young? On behalf of all Christians, I apologize that we’ve said or done something that’s led you to ridicule the Creator.”
I will now start pleasing the Creator by protesting the teaching of the Plate Tectonics theory that — by taking credit away from God’s punishment — gives credit to magical and un-Christian “lithosphere” that supposedly moves.
“Nothing can be said to exist unless it can be defined.”
Perhaps you mean implicitely “defined” or that some terms have meaning even if not easily definable. I’m assuming you’re not speaking of ostesibly defined entities.
I’ve never come across an adequate definition for the color “red”, at least as a qualia though I have little doubts that the color “red” exists (definable or not).
visible red light is an electromagnetic wave that has a wavelength of about 650 nm.
“visible red light is an electromagnetic wave that has a wavelength of about 650 nm.”
I knew that response would come up and that’s why I specifically referred to the *qualia* of the color “red” which is totally different.
Sorry.
“Qualia” is a philosophical dodge used by lazy philosophers and yet it exists. I know because it has a definition.
““Qualia” is a philosophical dodge used by lazy philosophers and yet it exists.”
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. In the phrase “yet it exists”, what “it” are you referring to? Oh, and it’s a perfectly valid term used to distinguish the epxerience of something vs. a physical description.
“I know because it has a definition.”
Uh, what do you supposedly “know” and what “it” are you referring to in the above statement?
It sounds like you don’t have an answer to my objection.
For some "thing" to be said to exist, it must have a definition. That is how we know what "it" is to which we are referring. "Qualia" exists as a concept. Concepts are "things". "Qualia" has an agreed upon definition.
If I asked you if Fizzleputers really exist, your first reaction would be for me to define what a Fizzleputer is. ("What the hell is a Fizzleputer?"). To claim that "God" exists, you must be prepared to state what your definition of "God" is. The original poster stated, "God, by definition". I simply asked him for that definition since he claimed to know. Since then, I have been bombarded by you with philosophy 101. With all your sophistry and angels dancing on the head of a pin nonsense, you haven't addressed a fundamental fact of epistemology and debate. Understanding begins with definitions.
I see you’re continuing your anti-Christian ridicule, in the name of science.
You are pathetic, sagar. May you recognize your sickness before you die.
>> and what “it” are you referring to in the above statement?
“For some “thing” to be said to exist, it must have a definition. That is how we know what “it” is to which we are referring. “Qualia” exists as a concept. Concepts are “things”. “Qualia” has an agreed upon definition.”
OK, now you’re going way off track here. I’m asking you about the grammatical reference to the “it” in that statement you are referring to, in other words the antecdent to the pronoun “it” in that statement of yours.
I am done with your sophistry. I am not anymore interested in discussing what “it” is than I am in people who argue over what the meaning of “is” is.
“To claim that “God” exists, you must be prepared to state what your definition of “God” is. The original poster stated, “God, by definition”. I simply asked him for that definition since he claimed to know. Since then, I have been bombarded by you with philosophy 101. With all your sophistry and angels dancing on the head of a pin nonsense, you haven’t addressed a fundamental fact of epistemology and debate.”
LOL.
You seem to be confusing me with someone else. The point stands independent of me using the term “qualia” to make that point.
You simply haven’t thought the subject through and are now irrationally lashing out at me. I actually agree with your overall take on “evolution” and I’m not sure why you brought the question of god’s existence into this discussion.
In any case, words can be used without being able to define them outside of an ostensible definition. You are mistaken about that I was simply pointing that out.
No reason to go all crazy...
It was a simple grammatical quesiton. Perhaps English issn’t your strong point but if you’re not spouting nonsense you should be able to clarify what you were trying to say.
Pronouns are our friends :)
I apologize if I offended you. And who are you to tell me I have sickness? Sounds like your arrogance is mighty high.
“I apologize if ...”
Says it all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.