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

Skip to comments.

KU prof's e-mail irks fundamentalists (Christian Bashing OK)
Wichita Eagle ^ | 25 Nov 2005 | Associated Press

Posted on 11/25/2005 8:34:07 AM PST by Exton1

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 601-625 next last
To: All

Another article on the same subject here as well:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1528320/posts


51 posted on 11/25/2005 10:18:06 AM PST by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek
Spoken like a true secular fundamentalist zealot, still fervently committed to that "Old Time (Darwinist) Religion".

Nice name calling. Pretty good series for this early on a post-holiday morning.

Do you take an interest in the advancement of all sciences, or have you just selected evolution as your special field of study?

52 posted on 11/25/2005 10:18:26 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

Comment #53 Removed by Moderator

To: Exton1
To me, it sounds like he was joking/being sarcastic. Besides you don't know what the context was. It may have been part of a longer discussion.

BTW- A few thoughts about Creationsim being unsound. Is there any evidence for evolution? There aren't any evidences of inter-species change. All we have are tiny speciations and mutations that may or may not change a species. There should be tons of fossil evidence. There isn't.

BTW2- Myth actually is evidence for Intelligent Design and a flood. Every racial and religious group has had a creation myth and flood one. Usually myths are based in fact and since it occured so much throughout the Earth it probably is based in fact.

BTW3( the last)- def. of science. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. According to this Creationism/intelligent design is science.

54 posted on 11/25/2005 10:26:39 AM PST by onja ("The government of England is a limited mockery." (France is a complete mockery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek
Devotees of scientism have always sought to rule out challenges to their faith in strictly materialist metaphysics.

Sorry, you don't get to change the definition of science. Science can & always has & always will address the natural world only, and has a myriad of facts on its side to support evolutionary theory. Good for the NABT for reiterating the importance of the theory.

Y'all have been asking for years that ID be given time in the classroom, and now you got it. As they say, be careful what you wish for...

55 posted on 11/25/2005 10:28:25 AM PST by Quark2005 (Science aims to elucidate. Pseudoscience aims to obfuscate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
You miss the fact that he is paid with taxes.

That removes his first amendment rights?

Unfortunately, yes.   The ACLU has seen to that.

56 posted on 11/25/2005 10:34:08 AM PST by Prime Choice (Mechanical Engineers build weapons. Civil Engineers build targets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: onja
BTW- A few thoughts about Creationsim being unsound. Is there any evidence for evolution? There aren't any evidences of inter-species change. All we have are tiny speciations and mutations that may or may not change a species. There should be tons of fossil evidence. There isn't.

Wrong on all counts. This is just a small part of the fossil evidence--there are tens of thousands of additional specimens.

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)


BTW2- Myth actually is evidence for Intelligent Design and a flood. Every racial and religious group has had a creation myth and flood one. Usually myths are based in fact and since it occured so much throughout the Earth it probably is based in fact.

You criticize science for lack of evidence then you espouse a global flood and claim it is based in fact?

For a start, here is a decent overview of the flood evidence (or lack thereof): Problems with a Global Flood, Second Edition, by Mark Isaak.

If you want more, let me know. But first, you have to specify the date of the flood. Do you accept 2304 BC -- Answers in Genesis (+/- 11 years)?

57 posted on 11/25/2005 10:40:52 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Exton1
The apparently illegally obtained 'private' e-mail really struck a nerve. What hypocrisy on the part of the indignantly offended. It's okay to try to push teaching of ID and a supernatural cause in high school biology science classes and it's okay to mock the ToE and call it a religion, but it's not okay to explore ID and Creationism as religious beliefs in a college level comparative religion course.

Behaving just like left-wing postmodernist decronstrutionists, they attack the course by attacking the 'motives' of the course instructor.
58 posted on 11/25/2005 10:41:31 AM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles

Well, then we'd better quit whining about the MD4BUSH affair, then.


59 posted on 11/25/2005 10:43:37 AM PST by BeHoldAPaleHorse (MORE COWBELL! MORE COWBELL! (CLANK-CLANK-CLANK))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Spoken like a true secular fundamentalist zealot, still fervently committed to that "Old Time (Darwinist) Religion".

Nice name calling. Pretty good series for this early on a post-holiday morning.

Do you take an interest in the advancement of all sciences, or have you just selected evolution as your special field of study?

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
A devotee of scientism typically takes umbrage at having favorite dismissive epithets tossed back in his face. They can generally dish it out far better than they can take it. So be it.

My Ph.D. is in mathematics (Univ of MN, 1975), but I have also studied physics, chemistry, and astronomy at the university level, and done wide reading in philosophy of mathematics and philosophy of science beginning with a series of college level courses in philosophy. My formal study of biology ended in high school, but personal studies have kept me in touch with developments in molecular biology at the level covered in, e.g., Watson's "Molecular Biology of the Gene". I see, in checking the Amazon listing, that I am one edition behind (4th). I will have to pick up the 5th edition and see what I've missed in the last few years.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080534635X/102-5784961-9541720?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance


60 posted on 11/25/2005 10:47:35 AM PST by Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek
A devotee of scientism typically takes umbrage at having favorite dismissive epithets tossed back in his face. They can generally dish it out far better than they can take it. So be it.

My Ph.D. is in mathematics (Univ of MN, 1975), but I have also studied physics, chemistry, and astronomy at the university level, and done wide reading in philosophy of mathematics and philosophy of science beginning with a series of college level courses in philosophy. My formal study of biology ended in high school, but personal studies have kept me in touch with developments in molecular biology at the level covered in, e.g., Watson's "Molecular Biology of the Gene". I see, in checking the Amazon listing, that I am one edition behind (4th). I will have to pick up the 5th edition and see what I've missed in the last few years.

If you look back on my posts you will not see much name calling. I don't consider it productive.

Thanks for a brief glimpse into your background. That gives me some idea of who I am dealing with. I have a Ph.D. in Anthropology, and two of my fields for the exams were human osteology and fossil man.

So, let the games resume!

61 posted on 11/25/2005 10:54:38 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek

Those interested in following the discussions about the development of biological knowledge beyond the polemical level may also want to become familiar with this text:

Molecular Biology of the Cell, Fourth Edition (Hardcover)
by Bruce Alberts, Alexander Johnson, Julian Lewis, Martin Raff, Keith Roberts, Peter Walter
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0815332181/ref=pd_bxgy_text_b/102-5784961-9541720?%5Fencoding=UTF8

Students of computer science and mathematics will find much to fascinate them in the advances of molecular biology. Some of the most interesting challenges in the representation and formal manipulation of information are being set forth by the investigators on the frontiers of this discipline.


62 posted on 11/25/2005 10:58:50 AM PST by Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice
Why not? One cannot criticize Islam in any public court without official and unofficial reprisals.

OK. So we've established your goal is a fundamentalist theocracy. That's what we thought, but thanks for confirming it.

63 posted on 11/25/2005 11:10:00 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: dsc
You can look at young-earth creationists and think them fools, but this country treasures its freedom of religion. That includes freedom from having it "stuck to you" in public places.

Sure thing, Mullah Omar. But here in America, we have this thing called "free speech".

64 posted on 11/25/2005 11:12:21 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: APFel
It isn't about the First Amendment. It's about being rude and antagonistic simply for the sake of being rude and antagonistic.

Being rude and antagonistic is protected speech.

65 posted on 11/25/2005 11:14:24 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
You're funny.

No, I was pointing out that our contemporary society holds some religions as sacrosanct while leaving other religions open for cheap pot shots.

I'm sorry you missed this obvious point. Maybe if you let go of your anti-Christian bias, you'll be able to appreciate the reality of the situation.

66 posted on 11/25/2005 11:16:09 AM PST by Prime Choice (Mechanical Engineers build weapons. Civil Engineers build targets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek
At a conservative estimate, say 15 Sites per enzyme must be fixed to be filled by particular amino acids for proper biological function. . . [T]he probability of discovering this set by random shuffling is one in 1040,000, a number that exceeds by many powers of 10 the number of all atoms in the entire observable universe [Science News, Vol. 121 (January 16, 1982)].

I would expect that someone with a PhD in mathematics would understand that it is totally meaningless to apply probability in such a convoluted manner.

67 posted on 11/25/2005 11:21:02 AM PST by Quark2005 (Science aims to elucidate. Pseudoscience aims to obfuscate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

Comment #68 Removed by Moderator

To: CPaleocon
Just all "happened" one day?

No silly, it took billions of years. You want days, see the bible literalists.

69 posted on 11/25/2005 11:25:14 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Yes, evolution is the preferred dogma of lefties everywhere. Their low level of tolerance ranks right down there with Islamofacists, with whom they share a hostility to both God and America.

Wow. Believing in evolution makes one anti-God, and anti-American to the order of the islamic terrorists. Who knew?

70 posted on 11/25/2005 11:25:17 AM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Comment #71 Removed by Moderator

To: CPaleocon
I meant it all started one day in a...............bang!

No idea. Bones are more my field.

72 posted on 11/25/2005 11:28:21 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

Comment #73 Removed by Moderator

To: Coyoteman

Yeah, I pretty much accept around that time period. There is a lot of flood evidence. I personally find it important though that every culture has had an almost identical flood story seperate of each other. That's pretty cool.

With those pictures, does that show the evolution of chimps into homo sapiens? Are those ones in between supposed to be the missing links between apes and man? If so, do you have a link that tells how they are similar? I'm not really much of a archaologist so I don't really understand those pictures. For all I know all those could all be humans(shows my ignorance).


74 posted on 11/25/2005 11:40:09 AM PST by onja ("The government of England is a limited mockery." (France is a complete mockery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Exton1

bump


75 posted on 11/25/2005 11:40:43 AM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CPaleocon
I meant it all started one day in a...............bang!

So, you're saying the Big Bang didn't occur?

Why don't you prepare an alternative scientific model of the Creation of the universe that explains the observed cosmic redshift, 3 degree Kelvin isotropic background radiation, universal H/He/Li element ratios and increasing presence of quasars & bluer stars with greater astronomical distances; then get back to us with your findings.

76 posted on 11/25/2005 11:44:27 AM PST by Quark2005 (Science aims to elucidate. Pseudoscience aims to obfuscate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005

God said, "Let there be Heavens" or something like that. :)


77 posted on 11/25/2005 11:46:25 AM PST by onja ("The government of England is a limited mockery." (France is a complete mockery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: CPaleocon
OK, I'll bet you that one human bone from a 7 foot tall African man, and one from a 5 foot tall Asian woman look like different species too.

You bet wrong. We look at morphology, not size. See the following:

STS 14 Pelvis (on the left)

~Discovered by Robert Broom and J.T. Robinson at Sterkfontein, South Africa in 1947

~Dated to 2.5 million years

What do you think?

http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/africanus.htm

78 posted on 11/25/2005 11:47:42 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
Normally (unless this post deters them), this will also bring out all the God-haunted FReepers, who will never admit Christian-bashing

I've seen maybe two Christian-bashers here on FR, and not frequently. The rest of the people typically accused of being "Christian-bashers" are always accused as such by creationists who seem totally unwilling to accept the fact that it's creationist-bashing (and deservedly so), not Christian bashing. It's just called Christian bashing because creationists claim that they are the only "true" Christians in the world.
79 posted on 11/25/2005 11:50:27 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: onja
With those pictures, does that show the evolution of chimps into homo sapiens? Are those ones in between supposed to be the missing links between apes and man? If so, do you have a link that tells how they are similar? I'm not really much of a archaologist so I don't really understand those pictures. For all I know all those could all be humans(shows my ignorance).

The point of my post #57 was to show you some of the fossil evidence. You had written in #54 "There should be tons of fossil evidence. There isn't."

I don't expect you to know all of the details of these specimens, as that takes years of study. But the point I am trying to make is that you are dismissing a couple of hundred years of evidence by thousands of scientists, with little actual knowledge on your part of the field, theories, or data. You are acting from your religious belief.

Yeah, I pretty much accept around that time period. There is a lot of flood evidence. I personally find it important though that every culture has had an almost identical flood story seperate of each other. That's pretty cool.

On the flood--I have been in a lot of residential sites in the western US which cross-cut the 4,000-5,000 time period and there is no evidence of a large scale flood. Rather, we have general continuity of stratigraphy, occupation, pollen, macrobotanical (plant parts) remains, radiocarbon dates, etc.

80 posted on 11/25/2005 11:57:31 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
I have no idea what motivates one to be such a thing, and he's certainly not a scientist.

And yet he is a defender of science. Interesting.

I too taught a seminar course a couple of years back. It was called The chemical basis of evolution,... Half the class dropped after the first meeting, when they found they'd actually have to learn some science.

Why? It's not like you required any math. Anybody who can tie his own shoes can do that stuff.

81 posted on 11/25/2005 11:58:17 AM PST by AmishDude (Your corporate slogan could be here! FReepmail me for my confiscatory rates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
ID has not sought to eliminate the discussion of evolution, just to have it included. What's the big deal?

ID is not science, and it is dishonest to treat it as such. But then, you've been told this before, which makes me question the motive behind you asking something to which you already have received an answer.
82 posted on 11/25/2005 11:58:51 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
And yet he is a defender of science. Interesting.

I can name quite a few "defenders of Christianity" who have made incredibly rude and nasty comments, not to mention outright lies. Interesting?
83 posted on 11/25/2005 11:59:37 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

Comment #84 Removed by Moderator

To: dsc
The entire "mention ID in the classroom" movement arose in reaction to this.

Exactly! That's exactly what ID is. It's a reaction. The evangelical atheists don't see how they just feed it.

85 posted on 11/25/2005 12:01:55 PM PST by AmishDude (Your corporate slogan could be here! FReepmail me for my confiscatory rates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
The point is that this defender of science, presumably, knows nothing about science. Even the wussy qualitative stuff that passes for biology.

But the biggest environmentalists are English majors and the animal rights activists live in pet-free apartment buildings.

86 posted on 11/25/2005 12:03:53 PM PST by AmishDude (Your corporate slogan could be here! FReepmail me for my confiscatory rates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
Exactly! That's exactly what ID is. It's a reaction. The evangelical atheists don't see how they just feed it.

What about the rational Christians who also oppose teaching ID as science? Are they feeding it?
87 posted on 11/25/2005 12:04:50 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
It doesn't matter. Whatever "rational Christians" do (I suppose others are irrational, or are they complex?) is drowned out by those whose credo is the scientific method, whose priests are self-described scientists.

I just find it fascinating that scientists get so worked up over a "non-science" but have nothing to say when junk science overflows the landscape. As long as the grants keep coming, I guess.

88 posted on 11/25/2005 12:10:13 PM PST by AmishDude (Your corporate slogan could be here! FReepmail me for my confiscatory rates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
Anybody who can tie his own shoes can do that stuff.

You think so, huh?

Why don't you pull up, say, 20 sequences of one particular ribosomal protein, say s7, from 20 different and widely separated organisms, and cosntruct a maximum parsimony tree. Post it here, and I'll tell you how you'd have done in the course.

89 posted on 11/25/2005 12:12:52 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
It doesn't matter. Whatever "rational Christians" do (I suppose others are irrational, or are they complex?) is drowned out by those whose credo is the scientific method, whose priests are self-described scientists.

So you're saying that sticking to the scientific method is incompatable with being a Christian? I don't want to believe that you're trying to say that, but your statement seems to imply that the two are mutually exclusive.
90 posted on 11/25/2005 12:19:57 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice
No, I was pointing out that our contemporary society holds some religions as sacrosanct while leaving other religions open for cheap pot shots.

Disagree.

I'm sorry you missed this obvious point. Maybe if you let go of your anti-Christian bias, you'll be able to appreciate the reality of the situation.

Your point doesn't at all follow from what you posted. You can criticize Islam any way you want in America; I do, frequently. You can't in Saudi Arabia; and you weren't at all clear where you meant.

I don't have a bias against Christianity. I do have an animus towards creationists, based on long experience.

91 posted on 11/25/2005 12:20:04 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: dsc

> Just *wanting* to 'stick it to the fundies' is indicative of severe corruption of the worldview, whether one acts out or not.


Really? Do you even know what he meant by "stick it" in this context.?

> That includes freedom from having it "stuck to you" in public places.

Hardly. If you saw, say, a Scientologist or a Wahabbi on a streetcorner handing out literature, you have the freedom to "stick it" to him by handing out debunking literature, engaging in debate or even mocking. You do not exactly have the freedom to lie, but you do, as with the case with the prof, have the freedom to point out the flaws, inconsistences, lies and whatnot in your opponents worldview.


92 posted on 11/25/2005 12:22:11 PM PST by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Now, of course, there's a bit of translation that is necessary. People in the easier areas of science and in the area of humanities often create vocabulary in order to obscure their subject. As a mathematician, this baffles me, because my vocabulary is an endless search for intuitive terms.

Nonetheless, a quick search of the terminology leads to the fact that what you describe is an NP-hard problem. So, in general, it would be impossible to conduct an efficient algorithm for what you ask. Although approximation would be possible, any attempt to create a maximum tree would just be ad hoc.

But if you are in the habit of giving your students monkey-work, maybe they are able to get the measure of your field.

93 posted on 11/25/2005 12:24:19 PM PST by AmishDude (Your corporate slogan could be here! FReepmail me for my confiscatory rates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
You do not exactly have the freedom to lie

Yes he does. Creationists excercise that freedom on these forums all the time.
94 posted on 11/25/2005 12:26:23 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
So you're saying that sticking to the scientific method is incompatable with being a Christian?

No, but I appreciate your attempt at creating a strawman. I am saying that believe in the validity of the scientific method is a faith. But you knew that. Unless you were being intentionally obtuse. Or you're stupid. I'll choose the former.

95 posted on 11/25/2005 12:26:24 PM PST by AmishDude (Your corporate slogan could be here! FReepmail me for my confiscatory rates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

Actually, there are many, many Christian-bashers at FR. Typically they excuse, disguise, or redefine their bashing in terms of whatever theyv'e adopted as their preferred dodge. Frequently they use the current scientistic dogma as camouflage for their unresolved (or mis-resolved) personal issues with God. Unable directly to assault God Himself, they settle for venting their bile on His people; and the harder those targets try to be true to God — which necessarily involves being true to His word — the more arrogant and abusive they become.

Dan


96 posted on 11/25/2005 12:26:49 PM PST by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Being rude and antagonistic is protected speech.

Okay, you sold me. I think I will verbally assault some stranger on the street and then head down to the playground to call children some mean names.

Those who cite the First Amendment in order to justify crass behavior is using a coward's shield. Free speech is responsible speech, and frankly I'm tired of folks wheeling out the Bill of Rights every time they feel the need to be an a**hole. And since we are speaking frankly, I'm tired of colleges and universities protecting and paying these mealy mouthed individuals.

Free speech, free speech, free speech, decorum be damned. Everyone has the right to be a butthole while working in a publicly funded educational institution because free speech gives you the right to be a jerk. Respect means jack, cuz we got that free speech. Polite discourse is for suckers.

Whoopdie freakin' do. Just the kind of society I want to live in. Let's all embrace our right to be rude.

APf

97 posted on 11/25/2005 12:27:18 PM PST by APFel (Loose ships sink lips.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

believe=belief


98 posted on 11/25/2005 12:29:08 PM PST by AmishDude (Your corporate slogan could be here! FReepmail me for my confiscatory rates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Exton1

It isn't "leftism" to put religious mythologies in a mythology class. It would be leftism, however, to "feel" for the other side, be politically correct, and allow unscientific stories be taught as science.


99 posted on 11/25/2005 12:29:09 PM PST by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

But also there are no trees before the supposed time of the flood. They all magically start at around 4000 or so years.

And I know you didn't expect me to know all the details of those fossils. What I'm wondering though is whether we know that the fossil evidence shows the progression of the evolution of the animals(or humans) or whether we have little jumps that could be seperate animal or human groups. Like say a black, white, and Asian face are all different but the same species. Perhaps Neanderthals are another segment of the homo sapiens who were very stupid and so got assimilated. Just wondering.

I'm not trying to argue with you. Just trying to learn like the student I am. I am acting from my religious belief in that I personally know that there is a God. From there I'm trying to see which one makes more sense.


100 posted on 11/25/2005 12:29:37 PM PST by onja ("The government of England is a limited mockery." (France is a complete mockery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 601-625 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