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

To: GodGunsGuts
They voted to require students to analyze and evaluate some of the most important and controversial aspects of modern evolutionary theory such as the fossil record, universal common descent and even natural selection."

And if they use the scientific method they will come up with the same results as scientists have.

But if they use creation "science" they could come up with all sorts of oft-refuted anti-science nonsense.

In the interest of helping them out down there in Texas, here is a refutation of a few hundred of the most common creationist claims:

Index of Creationist Claims

5 posted on 01/23/2009 9:49:10 AM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Coyoteman
And if they use the scientific method they will come up with the same results as scientists have.

No, not necessarily.

It is simply beyond the comprehension of any evolutionist that the data could be interpreted in any other way than to support evolution.

They need to break out of their boxes and stretch their brains a little bit.

There's a big difference between *We know evolution is true, let's find the evidence to support it. It's there, some where. We'll find it if we keep looking long enough, in all the right places.* and *Here's the evidence, what else can it tell us?*

And evos have been looking for that fossil to link man to apes for how long now?

7 posted on 01/23/2009 9:58:55 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Coyoteman
And if they use the scientific method they will come up with the same results as scientists have.

Which scientists, exactly?
"When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd." (Conway Morris, Simon [palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK], "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11)

8 posted on 01/23/2009 10:04:17 AM PST by Sopater (I'm so sick of atheists shoving their religion in my face.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Coyoteman

I always thought that good science came out of doubting old scientific theory and finding more/better ways to understand the world with new scientific theory. I always thought this was the way science “progressed.” But in this day and age, if you dare merely to question the science (global warming, evolution) then you’re a “buffoon” worthy of ridicule.

Very sad.


9 posted on 01/23/2009 10:06:26 AM PST by Troll_House_Cookies (Ironically, Chancellor Obama's first re-education camp will be in Alaska.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Coyoteman

Hey Coyoteman, if belief in God is good enough for Einstein, it is good enough for me.


10 posted on 01/23/2009 10:08:40 AM PST by Troll_House_Cookies (Ironically, Chancellor Obama's first re-education camp will be in Alaska.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Coyoteman

In the itnerest of keeping the public informed of the TRUTH- here’s a site that exposes the one you listed for the liars and deceivers they really are! http://www.trueorigin.org/

That site refutes the absurd claims of hte one you listed- it refutes practically everythign styated on your link- but that’;s ok- just wave your hand and pretend it doesn’t, and that you’re ‘doing science a favor’ by linking to a site that has been exposed time and time again as liars and frauds and deceivers.


17 posted on 01/23/2009 10:30:02 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Coyoteman

Talk.Origins has been pretty thoroughly discredited by now, lad.


22 posted on 01/23/2009 10:34:48 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Nihil utile nisi quod honestum - Marcus Tullius Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Coyoteman
In the interest of helping them out down there in Texas, here is a refutation of a few hundred of the most common creationist claims:

My favorite on the list is
CA112. Many scientists find problems with evolution.
Silly creationists. They know that they don't qulify as scientist unless they accept mud to man evolution as an proven fact.
To doubt it means you are not a scientist.
If the accepted orthodoxy does not approve of your ideas, you're not a scientist.
If peer reviewed journals disagree with your findings, you're not a scientist.

Thus, no scientists doubt. Perfect petitio principii!

32 posted on 01/23/2009 11:24:24 AM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Coyoteman

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org

click on the scientists link to see your lies for exactly what they are.


55 posted on 01/23/2009 3:22:22 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Coyoteman

Check out this list of scientists and compare your qualifications to theirs.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

At least your screen name is appropriate. All you seem to accomplish here is howling at the moon, which serves no real purpose.


58 posted on 01/23/2009 3:35:54 PM PST by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

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