Posted on 12/18/2004 5:56:30 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Start with this: What size pump would you need to elevate 160 gallons of water 300 feet up?
Well, either I'm stupid, or maybe you -- like virtually all creationists -- have no sense of humor. Or maybe both.
Like I said...
Because it's SCIENCE class and all the evidence there is (comparative anatomy, genetics, paleontology, embryology, 29+ independent lines in all) points to evolution.
Still waiting for the reply...tap...tap...tap...
How exactly does one teach "You can't make me see"-ism, anyway? What does one learn by being immune to information?
I was under the impression that mainstream science had largely discredited this viewpoint, which originated well before the discovery of DNA. If you are right on this matter, I stand corrected.
For your purposes, considering me right on all matters will be a close enough approximation. Hatchling insects look like worms (an earlier-appearing and more primitive phylum). Hatchling frogs (an amphibian) look like fish (an earlier-appearing and more primitive phylum). Hatchling horseshoe crabs look like trilobites. I hope you're getting the idea by now. Hatchling lampreys look like Amphioxus and/or fossil Pikaia, primitive chordates both.
Tell me, is a Christian a Christian because you say so, or some council or authority says so, or because he says he believes in Christ?
Do you believe or know of anyone who would concider Satan a Christian?
Got my cut-and-paste going at the expense of accuracy. Chordata is a phylum which Amphioxus, fish, and frogs share.
Here, I will answer your question for you. And it is anything but being immune to information. This debate is all about information.
Kids, in this section of our curriculum we are going to look at the different ways that people think the world started and how man got to the point that he is today. Some will tell you that we evolved. We will go into detail on that. Others say we were created by a superior being, God. Using science as best we can, we will try to undertand how someone could have that perspective. And we will look at some other ideas on the origins of the Earth and life as well.
The purpose here is to present you with as much information, or lack of it as the case may be, for you to have as full an understanding of this question as possible. Keep in mind, though, that no matter the explanation for the origins of life and the Earth, when all is said and done, noone knows for sure and noone ever will. If someone tells you they are certain, that they have evidence, that is only their belief. You have to decide for yourself what you believe, if anything at all. And there will be no fooling yourself if you have a complete understanding of the issues and the debate. So, let's get started by first looking at Evolution.
Those that believe in evolution say it is grounded in solid sceience. They point to evidence they say confirms every species on Earth evolved from a single organism, spliting off into different species and then turing into all that you see around you today. For example, they look at similarities between apes and man and conclude that man came from ape. By contrast, those that believe a god created the Earth will tell you that it is just a matter of god having created an ape and having created a man.
Who is right. I am not going to answer that. Let's look at what the evolutionist say points to their belief that man came from an ape. We will get to the part about coming from a single organism later. Then we will look at what creationist say shows that evolution is wrong and they they say supports their belief that the world was created by a god.
I imagine a redwood is bigger than said pump in all particulars. You've been presented with a nicely detailed explanation. Before demanding a "better" one, you might explain something about what was wrong with the old one.
If water getting to the top of a redwood is a mystery, water getting to the 35,000 foot level in the atmosphere is a mystery beyond comprehension.
Next thing you'll be telling us is that all those different kinds of chordates got their spinal cords because of common descent. Give it up!
</creationism mode>
So you believe, anyway.
Evolution has not withstood the test of time as he says
Sure it has. It's stronger and better established today than ever before, as anyone who keeps up with the scientific literature already knows. Please tell us where you learned your "non-fact".
and doesn't hold up under scrutiny..
Oh? Feel free to demonstrate this amazing claim with specific examples.
As soon as you start poking at it, the theories many holes become apparent.
Such as...?
Given the theory is written on crepe paper to begin with,
Now you're just babbling.
Go to any well-stocked research library, you'll find out just how silly you're being here.
You are so self absorbed you think you know that I am a creationist. As for my having "no sense of humor", that is a dodge on your part. You could have just said, your right, I was just having a little fun but it was not an intellegent reply. And that would have been okay. We are supposed to evolve on here. My comment to you was an effort to keep this discussion doing just that, evolving, not regressing back to some school yard style exchange.
Asked and answered - for the last time. If you can't read and respond to the answers you got the first time around and acknowledge that it has been answered, don't ask again - it's deceitful.
Sunday School or perhaps Comparative Religion. Science more or less by definition explores natural processes, not supernatural ones, especially since there's no evidence for the latter.
The purpose here is to present you with as much information, or lack of it as the case may be, for you to have as full an understanding of this question as possible.
All of creationism, and the essence of your very own objections to the scientific data presented on this thread, is that no one can drag you kicking and screaming to a comprehension of it. Let's call this science "Dumb Bleep-ism." That's shorter than "You Can't Make Me See"-ism. That's kind of content-free.
Now, I realize the paragraphs you spout in this post are an attempted answer to that, but again, there's nothing for the poor hapless teacher to present if he isn't a Know-Nothing himself. If he thinks he actually understands the "Know-Something" part of the course--and as science teacher he should--then there isn't much nice he can say inside any state-mandated presentation of BJungNan "I'm Dumb As Petrified Dinosaur Dung And You Can't Stop Me"-ism.
By contrast, those that believe a god created the Earth will tell you that it is just a matter of god having created an ape and having created a man.
But a science teacher would be obliged to say that this statement belongs in SUNDAY SCHOOL where it doesn't matter that there's no evidence for it.
I agree with you. It is all amazing. As for the water to the top of the Redwood, I will first say that I am not a scientist. My roomies in college were all into science, working on their masters degrees and some into such things as rapid cell division to try and get a redwood to grow faster. It was they who explained to me that it was a complete mystery how a redwood tree can get water to the top.
The explanation you say was offered does contain the word believe. I don't think it was purporting to know the exact answer, an admission that we simply don't know. We know some of what takes place, but we don't know how.
Happy to hear how I am wrong on this.
Yea, well tell that to my biology professor in college. As he put it, after you study the science of biology if you still believe there is not a god then you have far more faith than I do.
Why would you expect otherwise to a stupid question?
I am sorry for not being clearer.
How about trying a scenario. :-)
You are a teacher and are teaching a science class about the boiling point of water. Now you know that it changes with pressure etc. However, someone asks you to teach an alternative belief that the water really boils at different pressures due to divine intervention instead of basic physics. Would you be so inclined to do so?
This is how throwing creation in with a science course on evolution and biology comes across.
BTW, if we are going to teach creation beliefs, which one takes the highest priority? How muddled do we make the curriculum taught in this classroom anyhow?
What if. What if your understanding is wrong. We can ask that question all day. You'll never own up to being wrong even if it's pointed out clearly that you are wrong. And you will continue to say we're all wrong because everyone on the planet that disagrees with your conclusions is just too stupid to understand something only you seem to have the intelligence to understand. The only thing that really shows is your haughtiness. Try selling that to the public - You're stupid so shut up.. you can't and they wouldn't put up with it. In fact, they've already gotten a sense of that and have been insensed by it as much as the rest of us here.
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.