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 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 221-238 next last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 221-238 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