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

Skip to comments.

Creationism makes a comeback in US
abc news ^ | Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:24am AEST | Mark Simkin

Posted on 06/25/2007 5:55:14 PM PDT by Alien Syndrome

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-238 next last
To: GourmetDan
Oh well, since we don't believe that, we'll just ignore that little bit.

What is it exactly that "we" don't believe? I can't tell from your post which side you come down on. I believe that G D created the Universe just the way He said He did. Just not with the time frame most Christians "think" the Bible says. Like I stated in my former post, the time frame of the story of creation is from the Creators perspective not from the writer of Genesis perspective.
151 posted on 06/26/2007 9:41:33 AM PDT by smug (Free Ramos and Compean:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Boxen
Source

There is some more material towards this end located here
152 posted on 06/26/2007 9:46:00 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
I am not an expert (not even heavily informed) on many scientific aspects of creationism.

The theory of evolution is outside my field, but I have educated myself about it and can address topics from many areas of it because it's very easy to find papers by others who have done the research. You don't have to be an expert to be able to dig up papers.

The thing with creationism is there are no papers. The theory of evolution gets along well with chemistry, geology, astronomy, physics--all other fields. Findings in these areas meld well with the theory of evolution and are rapidly incorporated. But creationism has had the same data for the past 150 years and done precisely nothing with it. The other fields of science have gone back into the past and said where the various continents were at various times, what plants and animals lived there, what the environment was like (hot? cold? dry? wet?), and even the chemical composition of the atmosphere. Creationism doesn't even look at the data. If the evidence were compatible with creationism, you would be buried in papers the same way I am.

You all refer to me as a blithering idiot, and that’s on your good days.

I'm sorry you think that of me, although also somewhat amused. I think of you as a blithering idiot on your bad days, like when you're asking someone why they drank the kool-aid. :-D On most days I find you to have at least average intelligence unfortunately hampered by ideology. My challenges aren't so I can feel good about stumping you, they are efforts to make you think, take a look at the evidence, and see if it really jibes with your model of origins.

Others consider me wildly optimistic because I'm still here handing out information, but since I was once a creationist I don't think it's unheard of that someone might change their mind.

Plus I really like talking about science!

153 posted on 06/26/2007 9:52:21 AM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Alien Syndrome

Deliberate ignorance of elementary science is not a virtue.


154 posted on 06/26/2007 10:11:04 AM PDT by shuckmaster (The only purpose of the news is to fill the space around the advertisements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smug
"I believe that G D created the Universe just the way He said He did."

Please reconcile 'evening and morning' with millions of years for me. Are you from the 'evening and morning' in heaven camp?

How do you tell what parts of the Bible are from a 'heavenly perspective' and therefore subject to interpretation and what parts are not? Is it only those parts that man (i.e., science) accepts as 'true' (as routinely re-interpreted)?

155 posted on 06/26/2007 10:12:48 AM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Er, have they been moving elements around on the periodic table again? Has the electromagnetic spectrum been moving around again? Have they changed the laws of chemistry again?

The periodic tables being printed today are significantly different from those I had in high school.

The electromagnetic spectrum is not the same class of concept as a periodic chart, our understanding of the spectrum has certainly been refined in the last 150 years, as have the "laws" of chemistry and gravity. There are quite a few phenomena, such as superconductivity, that were not anticipated and which are not yet fully understood.

Are you unaware of this, or are you leading up to an actual argument?

156 posted on 06/26/2007 10:13:45 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: JSDude1
I don’t see what (some) darwinists have against the teaching of empirical evidence against darwinism?

If you can demonstrate that this "empirical evidence" exists anywhere but your bizarre imagination, please show us a sample.

Shouldn’t ALL the evidence be looked at,

It is but, there's only so much time in a school day for science and that short time is best spent studying science not ignorantly debating every whako idea blurted out by pseudoscience charlatans and their deluded followers.

157 posted on 06/26/2007 10:19:57 AM PDT by shuckmaster (The only purpose of the news is to fill the space around the advertisements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"The periodic tables being printed today are significantly different from those I had in high school."

Now you know I asked if the elements had been moving around, not being added. Were your periodic tables in a different order or are you just trying to avoid the point?

"The electromagnetic spectrum is not the same class of concept as a periodic chart, our understanding of the spectrum has certainly been refined in the last 150 years, as have the "laws" of chemistry and gravity. There are quite a few phenomena, such as superconductivity, that were not anticipated and which are not yet fully understood."<./i>

Oh? Have radio waves changed position on the spectrum? Or Infrared? Ultraviolet?

"Are you unaware of this, or are you leading up to an actual argument?"

Why did you cut it out and then pretend it wasn't there? Think no one will notice?

"Or are you incorrectly equating science with metaphysics?"

You're not being honest.

158 posted on 06/26/2007 10:21:58 AM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
How do you tell what parts of the Bible are from a 'heavenly perspective' and therefore subject to interpretation and what parts are not?

There's a reason why they call themselves "creationists". They just "create" their own interpretations to suit their current state of willful ignorance. Try not to rile them up too bad. It's upsetting them terribly to think that students are being taught elementary science that contradicts their personally created self-delusions.

159 posted on 06/26/2007 10:32:39 AM PDT by shuckmaster (The only purpose of the news is to fill the space around the advertisements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Were your periodic tables in a different order or are you just trying to avoid the point?

The periodic chart has a history and is still subject to revisions. The sequence of elements is determined by atomic number, and several elements have been added since I was in high school.

But your basic point, as I understand it, is that there are some phenomena that are so well understood and so well documented, that we take then to be be facts.

Common descent is a fact accepted even by critics of evolution. It is subject to no more doubt than the fact that the earth revolves around the sun.

160 posted on 06/26/2007 10:47:09 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
How do you tell what parts of the Bible are from a 'heavenly perspective' and therefore subject to interpretation and what parts are not? Is it only those parts that man (i.e., science) accepts as 'true' (as routinely reinterpreted)?

Every diddle and jot of the Bible is true. It is only man that is not. In the Beginning G D created...not As I saw G D create.

Likewise scientist study and misinterpret their data. Since you I assume think these were earthly days how was there an "evening and the morning" the first day without our Sun? And how long was that day? G D is not the author of confusion that resides with the fallen one.
161 posted on 06/26/2007 11:12:40 AM PDT by smug (Free Ramos and Compean:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Getready

Sinosauropteryx?


162 posted on 06/26/2007 11:17:58 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster

Yeah, yeah and Santa clause is your mother, and all that dribble: I have heard that before...

All I am asking is that students critically analyzy all the evidence both for, against darwinist evolution?

What do you really have against that..if its nothing then go back to your hole!


163 posted on 06/26/2007 11:28:22 AM PDT by JSDude1 (Republicans if the don't beware ARE the new WHIGS! (all empty hairpieces..) :).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Jim,

Please check your FREEPMAIL re cloture etc. today.

I think we the troops greatly need your overt wisdom, input and leadership at this crucial time.


164 posted on 06/26/2007 11:37:38 AM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: JSDude1
All I am asking is that students critically analyzy all the evidence both for, against darwinist evolution

Given this statement, I assume you have at your disposal at least some "evidence against evolution" that you would like to see added to high school biology curricula. Care to share it?

165 posted on 06/26/2007 12:52:10 PM PDT by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: metmom
The point was that the people looking for the planes worked on the assumption of a relatively small amount of ice buildup based on what science said it should be.

Only the amateur adventurers like David Tallichet, Larry Vardiman and Carl Wieland thought that.
Well, that's unfair to Mr. Tallichet; No one really knows what Wieland & Vardiman think, they're just sniping from the sidelines.
David Tallichet actually made the effort to get to Greenland to look for the planes in 1977, but crashed his airplane on the ice and had to cancel his search.

Professional meteorologists expected that based on 2m /snow per year, the squadron could be under as much as 300ft of snow & ice after 50 years.
In 1984, observations by Pursuits Unlimited confirmed that the pros were correct.

In 1986, the Greenland Expedition Society (not the 'Greenland Society of Atlanta' as Larry Vardiman wrote) made an expedition to the site but couldn't locate the aircraft. The site, being an active glacier, had moved ...
GES re-examined the data and two years later, the Society made another expedition and found the "Lost Squadron" at 260ft below the surface --two kilometers down-stream from where the crews had had landed in 1942. Then, 4 years later, they had "Glacier Girl" on the surface.

And as Paul Harvey says: "Now you know the full story."

They were working on assumptions that weren’t true. If you start out with wrong assumptions, then how can your conclusions be reliable?

Excellent question.
However, it seems that the assumptions used by GES were correct ... No?

166 posted on 06/26/2007 12:53:02 PM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Alien Syndrome

I came to the fear and conclusion a long time ago that this creationism and intelligent design silliness will contribute to and expedite the end of the conservative movement in the U.S.


167 posted on 06/26/2007 12:57:10 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smug
...how was there an "evening and the morning" the first day without our Sun?

Because the light that was created on day one, is different than the lights (plural) created on day four...sun stars, etc.

Now, what that light was on day one, I don't know, and I don't pretend to know. All I know is that there is a distinction between the two. This failure, by many, to understand this very clear, simple point, leads me to believe that those who raise an argument such as yours, simply have not read the text with any type of diligence.

That said, let me refer you to one of your previous posts in which you propose that creation is from God's perspective. In fact, I agree with you, so why is it so hard to understand that God would establish such a standard unit of time, from the beginning, for the purposes of understanding and communication with his special creation...and by extension, he would set the earth in motion to comply with this standard.

What is so hard to understand about that.

168 posted on 06/26/2007 1:30:11 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: JSDude1
All I am asking is that students critically analyzy all the evidence both for, against darwinist evolution?

Again, please give one example of this alleged evidence against evolution.

What do you really have against that..if its nothing then go back to your hole!

You seem to have your head stuck up yours!

169 posted on 06/26/2007 2:03:52 PM PDT by shuckmaster (The only purpose of the news is to fill the space around the advertisements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
"There's a reason why they call themselves "creationists". They just "create" their own interpretations to suit their current state of willful ignorance. Try not to rile them up too bad."

Actually, they are usually better informed than the naturalists; for whom willful ignorance is assumed 'a priori'.

"It's upsetting them terribly to think that students are being taught elementary science that contradicts their personally created self-delusions."

Wrong again. They are being taught a philosophically-created self-delusion masquerading as science (knowledge).

170 posted on 06/26/2007 2:28:24 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"The periodic chart has a history and is still subject to revisions. The sequence of elements is determined by atomic number, and several elements have been added since I was in high school."

Again, I will point out that I asked if the elements of the periodic table have been 'moved around'. They have not. Your insistence on equating 'moved around' with 'added' in order to avoid the point is noted, however.

"But your basic point, as I understand it, is that there are some phenomena that are so well understood and so well documented, that we take then to be be facts."

Such phenomena would be science, but not because they are 'well understood and so well documented'. This is a reasoning error again. The reason this would be science is because it is testable and repeatable. This is only true to the extent that the Humean philosophic position is not invoked and this too is a metaphysical choice, not a reasoned or 'scientific' one.

"Common descent is a fact accepted even by critics of evolution. It is subject to no more doubt than the fact that the earth revolves around the sun."

This would not be science. It is not testable and repeatable. This is metaphysical belief.

"Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS."

Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics (New-York: Simon and Schuster), 1961.

"The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is 'right' and the Ptolemaic theory 'wrong' in any meaningful physical sense."

Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus (London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973), p. 78.

171 posted on 06/26/2007 2:43:21 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: smug
"Since you I assume think these were earthly days how was there an "evening and the morning" the first day without our Sun? And how long was that day? G D is not the author of confusion that resides with the fallen one."

Day and night only require a source of light. Read Rev 21:23.

The day was 24 hours long.

You are correct that your confusion is not of God.

172 posted on 06/26/2007 2:46:03 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: stormer

So is it your contention that these cultural stories of catastrophic floods are the result of countless different local floods? Have you even read the legends themselves to find out whether they support this claim?


173 posted on 06/26/2007 2:50:43 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: D Rider

It’s clear that Voldemort carved the Grand Canyon, just like he carved a lightning bolt in Harry’s forehead via curse.


174 posted on 06/26/2007 3:22:16 PM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah; Coyoteman

I plan to go with whatever creation myth the people of Lemuria (or Mu) had. They actually experienced great floods.


175 posted on 06/26/2007 3:27:08 PM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
That and if you don't God'll hit you with a really big flood.

Don't be ridiculous. God will kill us with fire.

Flooding! You wish! Try using water wings during that!

176 posted on 06/26/2007 3:31:18 PM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: js1138
The Earth "orbits" the Sun and it "revolves" on its axis.

Same science course no doubt, but I was awake.

177 posted on 06/26/2007 3:42:12 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

re·volve(r-vlv)
v. re·volved, re·volv·ing, re·volves
v.intr.
1. To orbit a central point.
2. To turn on an axis; rotate. See Synonyms at turn.
3. To recur in cycles or at periodic intervals.
4. To be held in the mind and considered in turn.
5. To be centered: Their troubles revolve around money management.
v.tr.
1. To cause to revolve.
2. To ponder or reflect on.


178 posted on 06/26/2007 3:48:27 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

revolve
A verb
1 roll, revolve

cause to move by turning over or in a circular manner of as if on an axis; “She rolled the ball”; “They rolled their eyes at his words”
Category Tree:
move; displace
roll, revolve,transit
2 orbit, revolve

move in an orbit; “The moon orbits around the Earth”; “The planets are orbiting the sun”; “electrons orbit the nucleus”
Category Tree:
travel; go; move; locomote
circle; circulate
orbit, revolve
retrograde
3 revolve, go around, rotate

turn on or around an axis or a center; “The Earth revolves around the Sun”; “The lamb roast rotates on a spit over the fire”


179 posted on 06/26/2007 3:51:54 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Are you going to let the English department dictate scientific truth?

Indiana University let those guys go after the basketball coach (Bobby Knight) and things haven't been the same since.

180 posted on 06/26/2007 3:56:52 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

Can we expect to know when the apocalypse arrives when we see four guys come riding into town on different colored horses?


181 posted on 06/26/2007 3:58:51 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Are you going to let the English department dictate scientific truth?

You were wrong about both the common and the scientific usage of the word revolve. Admit it before you dig your hole deeper. The word revolve can mean rotate, but in common usage, the earth revolves around the sun and rotates on its axis.

As I recall, you have a lot of trouble with idiomatic English. You write correctly, but seem unfamiliar with the most common usages.

Did I include enough commas?

182 posted on 06/26/2007 4:02:35 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Idiomatic expressions are frequently in error.

An inability to properly utilize commas is almost always the sign of inappropriate weening.

183 posted on 06/26/2007 4:04:30 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Boxen; Marysecretary
There are over 600 world flood myths. It's believed that they all refer to three great Ice Age floods many thousand years before any Hebrew thought about writing a story about Noah. These floods weren't global in nature as is suggested in the OT, but one of them caused the standing water level to rise over 100 feet in a very short amount of time. Another similar great flood was when the Mediterranean Sea and Sea of Marmara overflowed near what is now Istanbul, causing the shoreline to disappear a mile per day. None of these took place when Noah's flood was said to take place (and they weren't global, though they were extremely catastrophic).

There is an apparent structure totally underwater near Yonaguni, Japan (called Iseki Point by the discoverer of the structures).

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

All of this was underwater for many thousands of years before the Noah stories.

184 posted on 06/26/2007 4:04:55 PM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
V

Give it up. You are simply wrong. I checked the definition of "revolve" against a dozen websites before posting a response to you. I've looked at more of them since.

You are not going to find any source to back up your position. The phrase "revolve around the sun" is the single most common example of usage for the word "revolve."

185 posted on 06/26/2007 4:11:22 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Yet, the question isn't how some define a word or two, and there'll always be variations in that, but what constitutes scientific truth.

Einstein's view is that the Sun distorts space/time causing a deviation in the Earth's path.

That is, it only seems to orbit the Sun. In reality it is continuing on a straight line albeit on a curved path.

186 posted on 06/26/2007 4:18:29 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: js1138

I do believe you’re being jerked around.


187 posted on 06/26/2007 4:36:09 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
You are correct that your confusion is not of God.

Perhaps you are the confused one. Do you not recognize that I believe in G D and do not believe in evolution? I believe in the Bible the way it is written. Not the way most people think it is written. Faith is all about reading and understanding,
for G D hath said "my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. "Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests; Hosea 4:6 " Since you seem to be a believer as well what problem do you have with me?
188 posted on 06/26/2007 5:54:15 PM PDT by smug (Free Ramos and Compean:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob
Nope, I posted post #3.

just like I said, you posted 3 didn't you.

189 posted on 06/26/2007 6:25:09 PM PDT by D Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
It’s clear that Voldemort carved the Grand Canyon, just like he carved a lightning bolt in Harry’s forehead via curse.

I don't care who carved the Grand canyon, as long as he/they/whatever used erosion... or explosives. Explosives would be OK also.

190 posted on 06/26/2007 6:29:08 PM PDT by D Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: D Rider
"Hey Compadre, it was intended for you. You did post #2 didn't you? "

Your words. Now it's a little early in the evening for the vodka so I really don't know what your problem is neither do I care. I wrote nothing about the Grand Canyon or erosion or anything to do with what you posted waaay back there. I propose we go our separate ways and agree to disagree about whatever.

191 posted on 06/26/2007 6:40:12 PM PDT by BipolarBob (Yes I backed over the vampire, but I swear I didn't see it in my rear view mirror.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob
Your words. Now it's a little early in the evening for the vodka so I really don't know what your problem is neither do I care. I wrote nothing about the Grand Canyon or erosion or anything to do with what you posted waaay back there. I propose we go our separate ways and agree to disagree about whatever.

I don't know what is funnier, a comment to you that you didn't get or this exchange. So, I went back and verified, yep you are absolutely correct you posted #3, and yes my post was intended for you. Somewhere I have an old Monty Python LP that has a skit about an argument clinic, Now would be a good time to go listen to it again. It is a real crack up.

And if it is my fault, for taking things so lightly on a serious thread (Creation vs. Evolution), I apologize.

192 posted on 06/26/2007 6:54:30 PM PDT by D Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: D Rider

No harm no foul. Go in peace. My statements were my beliefs that a nation which turns from God will fail. I still believe that. I enjoy humor as much as the next person but yours must be over my head.


193 posted on 06/26/2007 6:57:28 PM PDT by BipolarBob (Yes I backed over the vampire, but I swear I didn't see it in my rear view mirror.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Good choice of words.


194 posted on 06/26/2007 7:46:30 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster; atlaw

No, whats even more undbelieveable is that you don’t want people to study things on their own, but to just “believe what they’re told” by the ‘expert’ be it teacher, scientist, me, YOU, whoever

As for evidence against evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

http://www.theunjustmedia.com/darwinism%20refuted%20irreducible_complexity.htm

http://www.earthage.org/polystrate/Fossil%20Trees%20of%20Nova%20Scotia.htm

http://www.baptistlink.com/godandcountry/html/dead_moths.0

NOT that I Owe you Anything..

I Will NOT be insulted by you!

All I want to do is stand up for the right of students to study the evidence and decide for themselves, apparently that is too big for some individuals that don’t want people to use their minds...


195 posted on 06/26/2007 8:18:34 PM PDT by JSDude1 (Republicans if the don't beware ARE the new WHIGS! (all empty hairpieces..) :).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: JSDude1
All I want to do is stand up for the right of students to study the evidence and decide for themselves, apparently that is too big for some individuals that don’t want people to use their minds...

Then you need to separate scientific evidence from religious belief. (See tagline.)

196 posted on 06/26/2007 8:28:07 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: rockprof
people who couldn't tell a sandstone from a granite if it smacked them on the head

Ever wonder why they find fossils in Flint Rock? Bothers me.

197 posted on 06/26/2007 9:13:17 PM PDT by itsahoot (The GOP did nothing about immigration, immigration did something about the GOP (As Predicted))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: HoosierHawk
I predict 550 posts or more.

I predict that no one's opinion will change, so save the bandwidth.

198 posted on 06/26/2007 9:23:38 PM PDT by itsahoot (The GOP did nothing about immigration, immigration did something about the GOP (As Predicted))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Jonathon Spectre
Is there a reason that the Christian creation myth somehow deserves a place in a science curriculum while voodoo or Native American creation myths do not?

Great post. Debating the 'true believers' can be agrivating. Most of them are not able to use rational thought.
199 posted on 06/26/2007 9:26:29 PM PDT by BigTom85 (Proud Gun Owner and Member of NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; Alien Syndrome

NEBRASKA MAN: A SINGLE PIG TOOTH
OTA BENGA: THE AFRICAN NATIVE PUT INTO A CAGE
Archaeoraptor
Evolution is NOT observable,
Evolution is NOT testable; and,
Evolution is NOT repeatable.


200 posted on 06/26/2007 9:32:42 PM PDT by itsahoot (The GOP did nothing about immigration, immigration did something about the GOP (As Predicted))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-238 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