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

Skip to comments.

State science standards in election spotlight (ID/Creation Kansans need to vote!)
The Wichita Eagle ^ | August 1, 2008 | LORI YOUNT

Posted on 08/18/2008 9:35:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 1,141-1,153 next last
To: wintertime
Many Judeo Christian teachers and schools would use this as an example of a rational God.

Well yes, except it conflicts with the literal word of the Bible.

But since you admit that the literal word can't be taken seriously, you have no reason to remain a flat-earther with respect to biology.

There was a time when people were imprisoned for saying the earth orbited the sun. Were they reading a different Bible?

261 posted on 08/18/2008 8:43:20 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: wintertime; Alamo-Girl; betty boop
Many Judeo Christian teachers and schools would use this as an example of a rational God.

IIRC, that's exactly the rationale that Issac Newton used when he began his scientific inquiry but I believe that there are others more informed on what he thought so I'm courtesy pinging them.

262 posted on 08/18/2008 8:47:00 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Impatience is the lot of non-scientists.

Like socialist Democrats who expect their revealed Marxist bible to explain everything, non-scientist religionists often insist that their revealed Christian bible explains everything.

They then expect science to explain everything in just as much detail.

Religions fill in the blanks with whatever they make up to fit and their "evidence" is the books they write -- fictional, cooked, or made up out of whole cloth -- without any reliance on how their story fits with the real, verifiable world. If in doubt, or if faced with a sticky problem they cop out with "God did it." or "God works in mysterious ways." Any criticism of the original revealed dogma is heresy.

Scientists may also make stuff up or make educated guesses, but they test their theories and discard that which doesn't fit with the real, verifiable world. The scientific "bible" is edited, revised, and rewritten to fit with what can be verified. Generally accepted "laws" of a hundred or a thousand years ago are often found to be unsupportable and thus are revised or discarded. All this uncertainty is not accepted by religionists who fall back on a supposedly infallible Bible.

BTW, the Bible was also edited, revised and rewritten to make for a better book to run theocracies with.

263 posted on 08/18/2008 8:48:05 PM PDT by Dagny&Hank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
Who are the bullies here?

Anyone who would misuse the judiciary through the threat or misuse of lawsuits, to force on the unwilling populace their point of view alone, to the exclusion of all others.

Can you say "thought police"?

264 posted on 08/18/2008 8:50:28 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
I expect that the Darwinists will put their fingers in their ears and chant, “Yes it is religiously neutral! Yes, it is religiously neutral! It is just a fact! It is just a fact!”

Rather than teaching facts you would have the schools teaching superstitions, as long as they were your superstitions, eh?

At the very least you and your fellow believers want a veto power over what facts are taught.

Google "The Enlightenment." We don't need a theocracy to tell us how to believe, whether it be your version or any other.

265 posted on 08/18/2008 8:53:25 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: metmom
OK, so now you have taken both abiogenesis and cosmology out of the realm of science because they apparently, according to you, are not theories but conjecture.

Conjectures are at the very heart of science, but to be theories or hypotheses they must lead to research. There is currently no program of research that could confirm or disconfirm string theory. There are merely mathematical models that are self-consistent or not.

Abiogenesis is an active and productive realm of research, but there is no hypothesis that puts the pieces together. Such was the world of astronomy before Newton and Einstein. A clever person might note that heliocentrism was pretty well established as the best description of the planetary system long before there was a clean mathematical basis. We're talking centuries here.

Is Hawking a scientist? LOL. Experimental physicists might say no. There's always been a feud between experimental and theoretical physicists. It's one of those things that can't happen in science because all scientists bow to a central authority.

266 posted on 08/18/2008 8:53:53 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The FR fanatical, dishonest evolutionists and their far left allies at the ACLU simply despise parental authority.

Both of these liberal groups love the very liberal Big Government Public School Monopoly run top-down by the far, far left.

267 posted on 08/18/2008 8:54:31 PM PDT by Old Landmarks (No fear of man, none!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Landmarks

From what I have seen in the crevo threads, the evidence suggest you are spot-on.


268 posted on 08/18/2008 8:56:27 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Rather than teaching facts you would have the schools teaching superstitions, as long as they were your superstitions, eh?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Privatize universal K-12 education. Complete separation of school and state. Begin this process.

Stop the bullying!

Darwinist can choose schools that reflect the religious worldview in their homes, and the rest can choose schools that reinforce their values.

But....As I have previously noted, Darwinists are the biggest defenders of police threat government schools. What bullies!

269 posted on 08/18/2008 8:57:29 PM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are NOT stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: Dagny&Hank
Religions fill in the blanks with whatever they make up to fit and their "evidence" is the books they write -- fictional, cooked, or made up out of whole cloth -- without any reliance on how their story fits with the real, verifiable world.

That accusation wouldn't be anything like what Einstein did when he made up the *cosmological constant* and stuck it in his formulas in a vain effort to make his calculations fit the theory, now would it? You know, the calculations that showed that the universe had a beginning, something the scientists of his day (the steady state theory days), didn't want to admit?

And he didn't like what they showed, so he tried to fudge the data to fit the theory instead of adjusting the theory to fit the data, that is until Hubble's data showed redshift that laid to rest the steady state theory beyond the shadow of a doubt. And then Einstein admitted that he was wrong,.... sort of.... by calling it a "mistake"....

You mean something like that attempt at deliberate fraud by a man who claimed to be a scientist?

Now what was that about scientists being objective?

270 posted on 08/18/2008 8:58:54 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: Old Landmarks
The FR fanatical, dishonest evolutionists and their far left allies at the ACLU simply despise parental authority.
Both of these liberal groups love the very liberal Big Government Public School Monopoly run top-down by the far, far left.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Darwinists are the biggest cheerleaders of the police threat compulsory government schools.

Can you spell bully?

Answer: D*A*R*W*I*N*S*T!

271 posted on 08/18/2008 8:59:25 PM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are NOT stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Dagny&Hank
BTW, the Bible was also edited, revised and rewritten to make for a better book to run theocracies with.

Sources?

Which versions? When and by whom? What were the revisions?

272 posted on 08/18/2008 9:00:24 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Anyone who would misuse the judiciary through the threat or misuse of lawsuits, to force on the unwilling populace their point of view alone, to the exclusion of all others.

Well just damn. Can we say Scopes? Can we say the creationism laws in Arkansas, both of which were shot down? Can we say Dover?

Just what the hell gives theists the right to butt into science classes with religious stuff that can't even be examined by science? It reminds me a bit of the French, who have legal bodies devoted to defining what the French language can and cannot be.

Science is not done by lawyers or school boards. The findings of science are not subject to the whim of school boards run by people who can't even realize what a joke they are.

I differ somewhat from typical evilutionists. I want the confrontation. I look forward to it. I can't wait for some dumb as a brick school board to tries teaching "scientific alternatives to evolution." I will load up on popcorn.

273 posted on 08/18/2008 9:02:17 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Dagny&Hank

“Scientists may also make stuff up or make educated guesses, but they test their theories and discard that which doesn’t fit with the real, verifiable world.”

In your dreams.....

Studies examine withholding of scientific data among researchers, trainees
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1565120/posts

It May Look Authentic; Here’s How to Tell It Isn’t
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1563746/posts


274 posted on 08/18/2008 9:04:05 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Bye bye for the night. Just sayin’ I hope to see y’all in court. Nothing is more entertaining than a creationist under oath.


275 posted on 08/18/2008 9:04:19 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I believe the rocks are less than 10,000 years old. And scientists who hold to this position should be allowed to present the evidence in support of a young earth and the evidence that falsifies an old earth. And the scientists on the opposite side of the debate should be allowed to do the exact same thing.
lol... what about that dastardly speed of light?
276 posted on 08/18/2008 9:06:42 PM PDT by ketsu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

==You’ve tried to answer a question about the age of core samples taken from Antartica with an article about someone’s speculation about the formation of the Greenaland ice sheet based on incidental data, and that ice sheet is a physically much different propostion that what’s found in Antarctica.

That’s interesting. Wasn’t it you who said the following re: the Greenland ice cores:

“I don’t see any positive evidence is support of YEC theory or any kind of analysis of those ice cores that verifies or supports the 6-10k year hypothesis.”

I guess you have decided to change the subject now that you realize that the evidence coming out of Greenland is better explained by recent catastrophism, rather than it being a record of “millions or billions” of years.


277 posted on 08/18/2008 9:06:42 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: ketsu

==what about that dastardly speed of light?

What about it?


278 posted on 08/18/2008 9:07:24 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: MrB
yet for some reason also, even if these values are “beneficial to survival”, somehow at the same time retain a desire to go against this beneficial drive.

And we’re to believe that the reasoning of the minds developed by this process is correct?

You need to clarify your muddle.
279 posted on 08/18/2008 9:12:39 PM PDT by ketsu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Why are you changing the subject instead of answering the question? Your attempts to avoid answering are blindingly obvious.
lol... learn what an "absurdly analogous argument" is and leave the adults alone for a while. You're not very bright.
280 posted on 08/18/2008 9:16:37 PM PDT by ketsu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 1,141-1,153 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