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

Skip to comments.

Results from nationwide poll (Overwhelming support for teaching both sides of Evolution debate)
Zogby International ^ | February 3, 2009

Posted on 02/19/2009 4:06:47 PM PST by GodGunsGuts

Narrative Summary

4. Would you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory?

(Click excerpt link for responses)

5. Charles Darwin wrote that when considering the evidence for his theory of evolution, “…a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with Darwin’s statement?

(Click excerpt link for responses)

6. I am going to read you two statements about Biology teachers teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of view—Statement A or Statement B?

Statement A: Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.

Statement B: Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.

(Click excerpt link for responses)

(Excerpt) Read more at evolutionnews.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: 2009polls; antiscienceagenda; catholic; christian; creation; creationism; evolution; fundamentalism; intelligentdesign; moralabsolutes; zogby
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 221-228 next last
To: Cedric
And you got Genesis 1 & 2 screwed up, too.

I don't think so. Please explain why you think I did?

121 posted on 02/19/2009 6:18:51 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Cedric
Words, not an entire sentence, professor Johnson.

A sentence is composed of words.

122 posted on 02/19/2009 6:20:18 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Cedric

It is you that distorted his post. His post:


Your game here is quite pathetic. “I can destroy evolution easily!”

is clear that he is referring to your “game” and not making a direct quote from you posts.


123 posted on 02/19/2009 6:25:21 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Please explain why you think I did?

Because you're intellectually arrogant and spiritually dead.

You asked.

124 posted on 02/19/2009 6:38:35 PM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Cedric
Me: Please explain why you think I did?

Because you're intellectually arrogant and spiritually dead. You asked.

Translated: You can't explain so you make a personal attack.

125 posted on 02/19/2009 6:43:29 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

The title of this thread is somewhat misleading. By inserting “Overwhelming support for teaching both sides of Evolution debate”, one may assume that the “sides” in question are those that are generally debated here: evolution vs. creation. However, the survey instead questions whether scientific evidence should be presented in support of and in oppostiion to evolution. Of course it should—that’s good science. As creation has no scientific foundation, it is really not the counterbalance to evolution that the title implies.


126 posted on 02/19/2009 6:55:07 PM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.; GodGunsGuts
The title of this thread is somewhat misleading.

Posted by GGGs. What else.

127 posted on 02/19/2009 6:57:06 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
No attack, just an honest appraisal of why you claim there's a contradiction in Genesis 1 & 2 when none exists.

If it weren't for the stifling combination of the two cited deterrents, you could and would get it.

128 posted on 02/19/2009 7:01:08 PM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Cedric
No attack, just an honest appraisal of why you claim there's a contradiction in Genesis 1 & 2 when none exists. Please. Genesis 1 states that animals were created before man but Genesis 2 states that animals were created for companions for Adam AFTER he found Adam lonely. BTW, didn't God know that Adam would be lonely without Eve when he created Adam?
129 posted on 02/19/2009 7:04:21 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
No attack, just an honest appraisal of why you claim there's a contradiction in Genesis 1 & 2 when none exists.

Please. Genesis 1 states that animals were created before man but Genesis 2 states that animals were created for companions for Adam AFTER he found Adam lonely.

BTW, didn't God know that Adam would be lonely without Eve when he created Adam?

Didn't God know that animals would not be a satisfactor companion for Adam?

130 posted on 02/19/2009 7:05:34 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

The darwinists predicted a tree of life. Creationists predicted an orchard of trees. Darwin’s tree of life is being hacked down. Creationist prediction strengthened.

Creationists predicted catostrophism. Darwinists predicted uniformitarianism. Catastrophism is on the rise. Darwinism diminished, creation strengthened.

Creationist predicted that the genome is mostly functional, Darwinists predicted that the vast majority of the genome is leftover “junk” from our evolutionary past. We now know that the genome is at least 93% functional. Darwinism deminished, creation stengthened.

Etc, etc, etc.


131 posted on 02/19/2009 7:22:02 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; Cedric

==Do you think you can prove ID?

Do you think you can “prove” Darwin’s fanciful creation myth?


132 posted on 02/19/2009 7:25:41 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: pallis

I’m down with that. Excellent point!


133 posted on 02/19/2009 7:27:51 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Creationists predicted an orchard of trees.

Creationists believe in evolutionary trees. I agree execept for the YEC'rs.

134 posted on 02/19/2009 7:32:20 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Cedric
Bring it.

LOL Genesis 1: 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

----

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

You creationists got the the order wrong. First you make the Sun then you get the light. Also putting plants on the Earth before there is a sun doesn't make any sense either.

Now back to you. Do you have any evidence at all that plants were growing on the Earth before the Sun existed?

135 posted on 02/19/2009 7:37:14 PM PST by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you can’t reason someone out of something that they didn’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Cedric; tacticalogic

==Psalm 104:5 He laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be moved forever

If an historian recorded that America laid the foundations of the steam engine, so that it should not be moved, would you assume that the author meant that steam engines remain stationary?


136 posted on 02/19/2009 7:41:15 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Do you think you can “prove” Darwin’s fanciful creation myth?

Do you think it can be disproven by simply declaring it so often enough?

137 posted on 02/19/2009 7:46:53 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I would think they had it backwards because a steam engine is built so that is should be moved.

My question is how, once one accepted that the ‘proper’ scriptural interpretation was that the Earth did not move, would one disabuse himself of that notion?

Obviously the majority of the Christian world changed their mind on the issue over the centuries. What was the mechanism of change?


138 posted on 02/19/2009 7:49:42 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
If an historian recorded that America laid the foundations of the steam engine, so that it should not be moved, would you assume that the author meant that steam engines remain stationary?

I don't consider a historian to speak for God. We are talking about God's word or do you just consider the Bible to be a history text?

139 posted on 02/19/2009 7:50:00 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
If an historian recorded that America laid the foundations of the steam engine, so that it should not be moved, would you assume that the author meant that steam engines remain stationary?

That depends on the context. He might have recorded that it should not be moved, but plate techtonics says it did anyway.

140 posted on 02/19/2009 7:51:55 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 221-228 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