Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

[Kansas Education] Board member Morris: Evolution a 'fairy tale'
The Wichita Eagle ^ | 13 June 2005 | JOHN HANNA

Posted on 06/13/2005 6:23:59 PM PDT by PatrickHenry

Evolution is an "age-old fairy tale," sometimes defended with "anti-God contempt and arrogance," according to a State Board of Education member involved in writing new science standards for Kansas' public schools.

A newsletter written by board member Connie Morris, of St. Francis, was circulating on Monday. In it, Morris criticized fellow board members, news organizations and scientists who defend evolution.

She called evolution "a theory in crisis" and headlined one section of her newsletter "The Evolutionists are in Panic Mode!"

"It is our goal to write the standards in such a way that clearly gives educators the right AND responsibility to present the criticism of Darwinism alongside the age-old fairy tale of evolution," Morris wrote.

Morris was one of three board members who last week endorsed proposed science standards designed to expose students to more criticism of evolution in the classroom. The other two were board Chairman Steve Abrams, of Arkansas City, and Kathy Martin, of Clay Center.


Kathy Martin and Connie Morris

Morris was in Topeka for meetings at the state Department of Education's headquarters and wasn't available for interviews.

But her views weren't a surprise to Jack Krebs, vice president of Kansas Citizens for Science, an Oskaloosa educator.

"Her belief is in opposition to mainstream science," he said. "Mainstream science is a consensus view literally formed by tens of thousands people who literally studied these issues."

The entire board plans to review the three members' proposed standards Wednesday. The new standards - like the existing, evolution-friendly ones - determine how students in fourth, seventh and 10th grades are tested on science.

In 1999, the Kansas board deleted most references to evolution from the science standards. Elections the next year resulted in a less conservative board, which led to the current, evolution-friendly standards. Conservative Republicans recaptured the board's majority in 2004 elections.

The three board members had four days of hearings in May, during which witnesses criticized evolutionary theory that natural chemical processes may have created the first building blocks of life, that all life has descended from a common origin and that man and apes share a common ancestor. Evolution is attributed to 19th Century British scientist Charles Darwin.

Organizing the case against evolution were intelligent design advocates. Intelligent design says some features of the natural world are so complex and well-ordered that they are best explained by an intelligent cause.

In their proposed standards, the three board members said they took no position on intelligent design, but their work followed the suggestions of intelligent design advocates.

In her newsletter, Morris said she is a Christian who believes the account of creation in the Book of Genesis is literally true. She also acknowledged that many other Christians have no trouble reconciling faith and evolution.

"So be it," Morris wrote. "But the quandary exists when poor science - with anti-God contempt and arrogance - must insist that it has all the answers."

National and state science groups boycotted May's hearings before Morris and the other two board members, viewing them as rigged against evolution.

"They desperately need to withhold the fact that evolution is a theory in crisis and has been crumbling apart for years," Morris said.

But Krebs said Morris is repeating "standard creationist rhetoric."

"People have been saying evolution is a theory in crisis for 40 or 50 years," Krebs said. "Yet the scientific community has been strengthening evolution every year."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; kansas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 701-736 next last
To: RobbyS
This is romantic piffle.

Why?
51 posted on 06/13/2005 7:58:34 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

A Muslim could explain how life appeared from the primordial soup as well as any scientist can. First, you have nothing and then you have something. But the something is all we know.


52 posted on 06/13/2005 8:04:17 PM PDT by RobbyS (chirho)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Always three types of folks here on these evolution-creation discussions:

1. Classic Evolutionist - No creator god exists. Man result of evolution - evolution is random.
2. Classic Creationist - Creator god exists. Man created intentionally and as is.
3. Evolutionist/Creationist - Creator god exists. Man result of evolution - evolution follows rules established by creator god.

Can these three philosophies be represented in school?
53 posted on 06/13/2005 8:04:26 PM PDT by Mulch (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Why did you even respond to the post?

In just a few posts (#44-#48), you've managed to corroborate evErything I just said.

Challenged the motives of those who dared question you, rather than the science. Declared all challenges to your beliefs "uncredible." Ranted on about how nobody has done half as much research as you or they'd obviously have no disagreements (a very funny claim in my particular case). Declared no other theories as "equal" to your own. And, as is unusually common at FR on this topic, you have declared that you've read my mind and found tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories.

You have just made everything I said true.


54 posted on 06/13/2005 8:05:31 PM PDT by TitansAFC ("It would be a hard government that should tax its people 1/10th part of their income."-Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

An equal voice that says, "Evolution is a theory, Intelligent design is a theory. There is no proof for either scientifically." Something to that effect. Myself having fairly recently been forced to sit through a biology class in college, I can tell you that there is no equal footing. It was, "Evolution is the way it is." Nothing else. And this from an institute of higher learning. I found the science classes allowed the least amount of critical thinking than anyo fmy other classes. Including history.


55 posted on 06/13/2005 8:08:25 PM PDT by vpintheak (Liberal = The antithesis of Freedom and Patriotism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Mulch
If by scientific analysis, the TOE can be shown to be flawed in one or more areas then why are evolutionists not willing to discuss it?

They are. The fact is that, contrary to creationist propaganda, evolutionary theory has been tested repeatedly and, in a few cases, found wanting and subsequently modified. Here are a few examples. Darwin's original conception of genetic blending was wrong - replaced with Mendelian genetics. Natural selection isn't enough to explain all diversity - augmented with neutral drift. Strict common descent found wanting - added endosymbiosis and lateral transfer.

Of course the number of tests that it has passed are far more numerous. Scientists consider the theory very reliable because it is supported by multiple, independent lines of evidence.

56 posted on 06/13/2005 8:10:16 PM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC
In just a few posts (#44-#48), you've managed to corroborate evErything I just said.

Yes, I'm sure that I have. Somehow conspiracy-theorist creationsits manage to construe anything with which they don't agree as supporting evidence for the massive conspiracy.

Challenged the motives of those who dared question you, rather than the science.

In what post did I do this and how did I do it? Be specific.

Declared all challenges to your beliefs "uncredible."

Got a credible challenge to evolution that you'd like to bring to the table? Do so, and I'll point out exactly how it's been addressed before.

Ranted on about how nobody has done half as much research as you or they'd obviously have no disagreements (a very funny claim in my particular case).

Woah, now you're reading things that just aren't in my posts. I never compared anyone's research to my own. I simply pointed out that many creationists don't do any research at all. It's true, they don't. A cursory look at the creationists who regurgitate the same tired and refuted arguments -- such as the second law nonsense, the false claim that no transitionals have ever been found, the "explanation" of how the Grand Canyon was carved by the great flood by comparing it to completely different geological structures -- is solid evidence that a great number of creationists "think" that they know better even though they're just repeating arguments without actually doing any research into the matter themselves.

Declared no other theories as "equal" to your own.

If another theory had been presented, I wouldn't speak as I do, but thus far I've heard nothing but claims that there are other theories. When I press for details, I either get silence, or I get an explanation that is not consistent with a scientific theory (for example, I ask how "Intelligent Design" theory is falsifiable, and thus far the only explanation I got back was from someone who admitted that not only was his falsification criteria "lacking", but even admitted that ID is totally unfalsifiable, meaning that it isn't science).

And, as is unusually common at FR on this topic, you have declared that you've read my mind and found tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories.

You're the one coming in here and making sweeping claims about people who accept evolution as if they all have some hidden agenda to keep the "truth" out. Sorry for pointing out the obvious, but you're not going to score any points for accusing me of claiming that you do exactly what you're doing.
57 posted on 06/13/2005 8:12:37 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: vpintheak
An equal voice that says, "Evolution is a theory, Intelligent design is a theory. There is no proof for either scientifically."

1) No theory in science is ever proven.

2) A theory in science must meet several specific criteria. Explain how Intelligent Design meets the criteria. Among things, explain what Intelligent Design theory predicts, how it can be tested and offer a hypothetical observation that would falsify it.
58 posted on 06/13/2005 8:16:02 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
This is romantic piffle.

I post a nice Haida creation story and you call it romantic piffle? Would you prefer Bushmen, Diegueno, Norse, Cherokee, Eskimo, Paiute, Cree, Salinan, Crow, Iroquois, Tsimshian, Dene, Japanese, or Wintu instead? I have all of these in stock for quick delivery.

Or are all of these creation stories romantic piffle too, all but your own version which is gospel (if you'll pardon the pun)?

Do you see the point I am trying to make?

Probably not. So, without further ado...


Creation of the Earth

The world was once nothing but water. The only land above the water was Black mountain. All the people lived up there when the flood came, and their fireplaces can still be seen.

Fish-eater and Hawk lived there. Fish-eater was Hawk's uncle. One day they were singing and shaking a rattle. As they sang, Hawk shook this rattle and dirt began to fall out of it. They sang all night, shaking the rattle the whole time. Soon there was so much dirt on the water that the water started to go down. When it had gone all the way down, they put up the Sierra Nevada to hold the ocean back. Soon they saw a river running down through the valley.

When they finished making the earth, Hawk said, "Well, we have finished. Here is a rabbit for me. I will live on rabbits in my lifetime." Fish-eater was over a swampy place, and he said, "I will live on fish in my lifetime." They had plenty to eat for themselves. It was finished.

Owens Valley Paiute creation story, eastern California


59 posted on 06/13/2005 8:16:33 PM PDT by Coyoteman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: vpintheak
An equal voice that says, "Evolution is a theory, Intelligent design is a theory. There is no proof for either scientifically." Something to that effect. Myself having fairly recently been forced to sit through a biology class in college, I can tell you that there is no equal footing. It was, "Evolution is the way it is." Nothing else. And this from an institute of higher learning. I found the science classes allowed the least amount of critical thinking than anyo fmy other classes. Including history.

And your religious training? How much equal footing did you get there? Or, is that different!

60 posted on 06/13/2005 8:19:38 PM PDT by Coyoteman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain


61 posted on 06/13/2005 8:19:40 PM PDT by durasell (Friends are so alarming, My lover's never charming...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Ah, so now you have TWO babes.

Do you still think the next Lysenko isn't one of these? And before you say "It can't happen here", I think you should read (or reread, whatever the case) It Can't Happen Here and remember (learn) where the Big Sellout came from. After all, Lysenko was a nothing agronomist in Azerbaijan when he got his start.

Is Kansas the Azerbaijan of the 21st century? These are the things bad dreams are made of.

62 posted on 06/13/2005 8:19:50 PM PDT by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Mulch
1. Classic Evolutionist - No creator god exists. Man result of evolution - evolution is random.

Evolution is not random. I don't know if any gods exist.
63 posted on 06/13/2005 8:19:50 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC
Carbon Dated a fossil...

Whoops? You were on a roll until there. You can't carbon date a fossil. Fossils are rock, no carbon.

You can carbon date a shell, a bone, even old charcoal if its from a good context, but you can't carbon date a rock.

Before you lecture scientists on science, better bone up on it a little.

64 posted on 06/13/2005 8:23:27 PM PDT by Coyoteman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
angryflower.com

Says it all...

65 posted on 06/13/2005 8:23:58 PM PDT by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Not many indian traditions can be traced to an authentic source. They are all "tales as told to " and recorded by some white guy. People who regard the Gospels as fabrications (that in the most literate society in the Roman world) will accept this sort of stuff. No many tape recorders in the 16th century when whire first encountered indian cultures. In a sense, it is condescending, ignoring how quickly indians picked up new technology and new ideas.


66 posted on 06/13/2005 8:25:45 PM PDT by RobbyS (chirho)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: vpintheak
All you evo's need to do is let a fair and equal voice be heard.

We don't need to be fair. This is not about equal time. There are plenty of other crackpot ideas out there besides creationism and ID that are being ignored. If you don't like it, come up with your own theory and displace evolution. But you can't.

The unfairness is perceived only by those against evolution. That's why IDers need to get the government to impose itself on science. Fortunately, the inmates can't run the asylum and ID will inevitably lose.

67 posted on 06/13/2005 8:36:15 PM PDT by ValenB4 ("Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets." - Isaac Asimov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Thanks for the ping!


68 posted on 06/13/2005 8:39:09 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

"Mainstream science is a consensus view literally formed by tens of thousands (of) people who literally studied these issues."

This matters little to creationists.


69 posted on 06/13/2005 8:43:07 PM PDT by DaGman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Do the same for evolution wise guy.


70 posted on 06/13/2005 8:43:17 PM PDT by vpintheak (Liberal = The antithesis of Freedom and Patriotism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Mulch

I have a fourth theory:

First, there was a giant pile of fat. The giant lugiska creature turned the pile of fat into the universe and all of the plants and animals.

This is why lots of us are fat.

I guess we have to teach my theory now. It is written on the internet, so it must be true.


71 posted on 06/13/2005 8:46:35 PM PDT by Poser (Joining Belly Girl in the Pajamahadeen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: DaGman

Everyone else being wrong is no reason to stop being right[eous].


72 posted on 06/13/2005 8:50:55 PM PDT by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Altair333
You don't help the cause of science by posting blasphemy. The impression that evolution is inherently hostile to religion is what is behind this creationism nonsense.
73 posted on 06/13/2005 9:12:14 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Jesus horses are blasphemous?


74 posted on 06/13/2005 9:15:41 PM PDT by cubram
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: cubram
Perhaps blasphemy is a bit strong. It's disrespectful.
75 posted on 06/13/2005 9:23:38 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

Do you actually have a point to make, or do you just spout stupid one-liners?


76 posted on 06/13/2005 9:28:21 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
O.K.--my two cents.

I don't believe in random evolution because:

1. Evolutionists believe life spontaneously began in the "primordial ooze" with no particular cause for no particular reason(pure chance). Why haven't those who believe this, with all the best technology the world has to offer, been able to replicate this in a laboratory?

2. Most Evolutionists, especially of the academic persuasion, are also rabid dyed in the [red]wool Leftist/Socialist/Marxist/Stalinist/Communist in political nature. How can I believe anyone to be credible who also believes in an economic/governmental model which has been PROVEN to be an absolute failure every time it is tried?

3. The same Evolutionists as in #2 above also are the prime movers of the Global Warming Hoax. Again, how can I take seriously so called "academics" who push such balderdash?

4. The Big Bang requires us to grant exception to the Law of Conservation of Mass. Something out of nothing violates this Law of Physics. Isn't a law of physics with an exception not a law of physics? And without Conservation of Mass does not the rest start to fall apart?

5. Very learned cosmologists currently debating the merits of string theory openly discuss the possible existence of parallel universes (the loaf model). This used to be only the stuff of science fiction writers. If some of the "smartest" people on the planet believe it's quite possible that there is much more to this universe than that which we see, including more universes, why is it so hard to believe that part of what we can't see had a very deliberate and causal connection to our origin?
77 posted on 06/13/2005 9:30:33 PM PDT by rottndog (WOOF!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vpintheak
Predictions of evolution.

Evolution could be falsified by finding a series of Precambrian rabbit fossils, or finding a transposon in whales and cows that is not present in hippos.

The "tests" for evolution are the processes by which the predictions have been borne out, and the processes by which one would hypothetically discover the aforementioned falsification observations.

Now, can you present predictions, tests and falsification criteria for Intelligent Design, or were you not expecting that I'd be able to satisfy your previous demand and thus aren't prepared with a proper response?
78 posted on 06/13/2005 9:32:23 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

My point is that your arguments are primarily ad hominem.


79 posted on 06/13/2005 9:32:28 PM PDT by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Explain how Intelligent Design meets the criteria. Among things, explain what Intelligent Design theory predicts, how it can be tested and offer a hypothetical observation that would falsify it.

All very good questions ...... and questions just as good on the flip-side could be asked for which it would be just as hard to produce satisfactory answers. Let's take a slightly different approach as to addressing the credibility of ID (and while ID could mean a lot of things to different people, let's assume it means God for the sake of this argument).

Genesis 1:1 says 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.' What is the evidence that this sentence written thousands of years ago is true? Well, I woke up this morning and looked outside and what did I see? Sky (heaven) and earth. Sure you might say, sky and earth might exist but that doesn't mean that God created them. Ok.... stalemate. The visual evidence that heaven and earth exist is undeniable but that particular statement (Genesis 1:1) can neither be proved or disproved. This is also going to be the case for lots of passages/statements in the Bible. However, scripture does contain many other statements that can be proved or disproved as being factual and what I would submit to you is that everything in the Bible fall into two categories: 1. Passages for which there is strong corroborating evidence to support its truth and 2. Passages which can not be established as being true or false because there is nothing available that corroborates it (such as the Genesis 1:1 account above).

Let me offer a challenge to you and if you can provide one example of what's being asked, I'll become the biggest evolution supporter overnight. One (but not the only reason) I believe in the creation account in scripture is because the Bible has consistently proved itself to be absolutely error-free in all areas which lend themselves to being proven or disproven i.e. through archaeological and historical evidence for instance. Since it has stood the test of time and proved to be consistently and absolutely true (for category one), why shouldn't I believe it for those areas which don't lend themselves (category 2)? What I'm saying is that there is no category 3 (Passages for which there is strong corroborating evidence to support its falsehood.) Here's your challenge - find me one irrefutable error in the Bible period. (My only stipulation is that you don't use some hocus pocus recent version where who knows how things have been translated to please the translator - go back to the King James Version if you will.) You see, if you can prove that, you really have something because a single error means that nothing else can be trusted either including the creation account (because the Bible claims to be inspired by God and therefore is infallible). Should be easy, right? Good luck in your search.

80 posted on 06/13/2005 9:43:09 PM PDT by Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: rottndog
1. Evolutionists believe life spontaneously began in the "primordial ooze" with no particular cause for no particular reason(pure chance).

This is not part of the theory of evolution. Not everyone who accepts the theory of evolution accepts this scenario. Some who accept evolution even believe that a divine agent created the first life forms and evolution started from there. The theory of evolution does not care how the first life forms came into existence, it only cares that life forms exist and reproduce.

Objections to the theory of evolution based upon abiogenesis are rooted firmly in ignorance.

Most Evolutionists, especially of the academic persuasion, are also rabid dyed in the [red]wool Leftist/Socialist/Marxist/Stalinist/Communist in political nature.

Okay, now I'm convinced that you're just deliberately presenting the top 5 logical fallacies used in attacking evolution.

How can I believe anyone to be credible who also believes in an economic/governmental model which has been PROVEN to be an absolute failure every time it is tried?

1) Proficiency in biological sciences has no bearing on proficiency in economics.

2) Your argument is founded upon an unsupported assertion anyway.

The same Evolutionists as in #2 above also are the prime movers of the Global Warming Hoax.

Another baseless generalization. How can I trust Catholic clergy when so many of them are child molesters

The Big Bang requires us to grant exception to the Law of Conservation of Mass.

1) No it doesn't. Please study the Big Bang theory before attacking it based upon a position of ignorance.

2) The Big Bang has nothing whatsoever to do with the theory of evolution, so why are you bringing it up here?

Very learned cosmologists currently debating the merits of string theory openly discuss the possible existence of parallel universes (the loaf model).

And? This has nothing to do with evolution.

This used to be only the stuff of science fiction writers.

Really? Where do you think that they got the idea?

If some of the "smartest" people on the planet believe it's quite possible that there is much more to this universe than that which we see, including more universes, why is it so hard to believe that part of what we can't see had a very deliberate and causal connection to our origin?

So because some cosmologists are open to the idea of paralell universes, evolution is false?

I'm sorry, but I cannot imagine what twisted crime of logic would lead a person to such a conclusion with that starting premise.
81 posted on 06/13/2005 9:44:18 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill
My point is that your arguments are primarily ad hominem.

So you make an attack on my tagline?
82 posted on 06/13/2005 9:44:49 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

It's late and this thread is going nowhere .. go figure.


83 posted on 06/13/2005 9:46:45 PM PDT by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...
Genesis 1:1 says 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.' What is the evidence that this sentence written thousands of years ago is true? Well, I woke up this morning and looked outside and what did I see? Sky (heaven) and earth. Sure you might say, sky and earth might exist but that doesn't mean that God created them. Ok.... stalemate.

Stalemate? You're invoking a logical fallacy. You're stating "If A then B", then asserting that the truth of B is somehow evidence for the truth of A. That's called affirming the consequent.

However, scripture does contain many other statements that can be proved or disproved as being factual and what I would submit to you is that everything in the Bible fall into two categories: 1. Passages for which there is strong corroborating evidence to support its truth and 2. Passages which can not be established as being true or false because there is nothing available that corroborates it (such as the Genesis 1:1 account above).

In addition to failing to demonstrate that things in the Bible are either demonstratably true or impossible to confirm as true or false, you cannot support the truth value of position A simply by showing that position C is true and that it's written in the same collection of books as position A.

Let me offer a challenge to you and if you can provide one example of what's being asked, I'll become the biggest evolution supporter overnight.

Claims like this usually precede a demand to demonstrate the truth value of something that evolution does not claim.

One (but not the only reason) I believe in the creation account in scripture is because the Bible has consistently proved itself to be absolutely error-free in all areas which lend themselves to being proven or disproven i.e. through archaeological and historical evidence for instance. Since it has stood the test of time and proved to be consistently and absolutely true (for category one), why shouldn't I believe it for those areas which don't lend themselves (category 2)?

1) As I said before, you can't support the truth value of one claim by using the truth value of an unrelated claim and saying that they both come from the same source.

2) I'm sure that you'll have no trouble explaining away all of this.

What I'm saying is that there is no category 3 (Passages for which there is strong corroborating evidence to support its falsehood.)

You mean that grasshoppers have four legs?

Here's your challenge - find me one irrefutable error in the Bible period.

Start with the list above. Not that it would matter. Even if every falsifiable claim in the Bible were demonstratably true, it would not lend support to the non-falsifiable claims.
84 posted on 06/13/2005 9:54:20 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill
It's late and this thread is going nowhere .. go figure.

So says the bozo who does absolutley nothing but snipe with inane one-liners without adding anything to the discussion. I'm through with you. Go troll somewhere else.
85 posted on 06/13/2005 9:56:42 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Predictions of Christ coming. Many of the Old Testiment Prophets predicted it. It came true. One God in man form did come, we are justified through the faith in that God in man form Jesus Christ. Now this cannot be falsified, it can be disbelieved, that is many people's choice to not believe. For you all I do weep, I do get angry many times, but that is human nature, debate, argue, anger, all the rest. I am prepared as I will ever be. I am through argueing and playing games.


86 posted on 06/13/2005 9:58:31 PM PDT by vpintheak (Liberal = The antithesis of Freedom and Patriotism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

No, seriously, you took too long to reply and I'm going to sleep soon. Call me if you have any other questions.


87 posted on 06/13/2005 9:59:10 PM PDT by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: vpintheak
Predictions of Christ coming.

This is a prediction of Intelligent Design? How shall I test for it?

Now this cannot be falsified

Then it's not very worthwhile as predictions go. Do you have anything that is falsifiable, or are you prepared to admit that your position is not, as you previously claimed, a theory?
88 posted on 06/13/2005 10:13:10 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Not that it would matter. Even if every falsifiable claim in the Bible were demonstratably true, it would not lend support to the non-falsifiable claims.

A predictable response. So let me get this straight and assume we are dealing with 100 specific statements provided by a witness in a court case. 50 of these are statements that lend themselves to being proved as being true or false and 50 of them cannot be proved or disproved because of the lack of corroborating evidence. What you are saying is that if all 50 of the falsifiable statements are verified as being true, this lends absolutely zero credibility to the witness's veracity concerning the remaining 50 non-falsifiable statements? I'll check in tomorrow as it's up early for me.

89 posted on 06/13/2005 10:31:58 PM PDT by Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Cannot resist. "The Great Owens River Scandal" or How Squatter Potter's Daughter Got Her Water
90 posted on 06/14/2005 1:33:40 AM PDT by Misterioso
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Evolution is an "age-old fairy tale,"

I wonder which age she has in mind. Sounds like one of those pre-Darwin evos. Clueless.

91 posted on 06/14/2005 1:39:19 AM PDT by Misterioso
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Here's your challenge - find me one irrefutable error in the Bible period.

Don't go there place mark.

92 posted on 06/14/2005 2:27:03 AM PDT by dread78645 (Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: rottndog
5. Very learned cosmologists currently debating the merits of string theory openly discuss the possible existence of parallel universes (the loaf model).

What's the difference between that and the demonology systems of the middle ages?

93 posted on 06/14/2005 3:39:56 AM PDT by tahotdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
Ah, so now you have TWO babes.

According to the rules, now I gotta do this:


Kathy Martin and Connie Morris. In Kansas, they're intellectuals.

94 posted on 06/14/2005 3:55:46 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"So be it," Morris wrote. "But the quandary exists when poor science - with anti-God contempt and arrogance - must insist that it has all the answers."

The only people showing contempt and arrogance here are these skool board moronz, Mrs Morris and Mrs Martin. They are ignorant of biology and evolution, but arrogant enough to proclaim themselves better judges of it than life-long biologists.

They have been given a position of authority on this school board to advance education, not to advance their anti-science agenda. They are acting like activist judges of science. They are about as scientifically reliable as a Greenpeace fanatic on global warming.

The only controversy is in their collective dumb-ass heads. They want to spread their "controversy" like thick manure over the field of biology. Are they deluded? Sure. Should this act in their defense? No way. I don't care if they genuinely think they are right, they are still wrong. Delusion is no excuse when they have such a position of responsibility.

95 posted on 06/14/2005 4:02:10 AM PDT by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Fairy Tale????? There is a Fairy Tale and it is fairly obvious that it is not the Evolution people that are perpetrating it.


96 posted on 06/14/2005 4:25:13 AM PDT by Vaquero (an armed society is a polite society (Heinlien).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

"I post a nice Haida creation story and you call it romantic piffle? Would you prefer Bushmen, Diegueno, Norse, Cherokee, Eskimo, Paiute, Cree, Salinan, Crow, Iroquois, Tsimshian, Dene, Japanese, or Wintu instead?"

OOooo, Japanese please!


97 posted on 06/14/2005 5:11:49 AM PDT by Chiapet (Cthulhu for President: Why vote for a lesser evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"Her belief is in opposition to mainstream science," he said. "Mainstream science is a consensus view literally formed by tens of thousands people who literally studied these issues."

The implication being that Connie Morris did not? Oh, well! Another hottie gone to the Dark Side.

98 posted on 06/14/2005 5:18:10 AM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calex59
... Macro evolution has bit the dust due to no transitional fosils in the fosil record and none alive today.

That's such a hoot! We have plenty of transitionals.

Shall I guess in advance the gimmick will be that no one can make you see that what you just denied as existing exists?

So we have another poster spewing the creationist talking points who announces "I am not a creationist." I guess the new Wedge talking points must be out for Spring 2005 and they say, "Lie like hell about who you are and what you're up to." The gimmick THERE will be you'll eventually announce you've "converted" to cretinism because the evos are so dogmatic.

99 posted on 06/14/2005 5:35:31 AM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: vpintheak
An equal voice that says, "Evolution is a theory, Intelligent design is a theory. There is no proof for either scientifically." Something to that effect.

Because all the EVIDENCE is for evolution. ID is not a theory. It's the unsupported assertion that something somewhere made something else, and someday we may be able to tell what the ID-ist is talking about.

100 posted on 06/14/2005 5:38:49 AM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 701-736 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson