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 ...
Where are all the ID’ers who claim that ID has nothing to do with God to put an end to all this bible quoting?
Strawman. That wasn't a choice.
Evo-cultists ignore the fact that reproduction happens between a male and a female when they push their homo fetish. They want to have it all ways, so to speak.
I guess I don’t understand why creationism and evolution have to necessarily be at odds with each other, could it be that evolution is the way God worked.
Sorry, I think I misread your question. I have absolutely no idea what that statement is supposed to mean without any underlying context. It appears to be nonsensical.
Interesting that the people retain a much healthier dose of common sense than the scientific community and “evolution” proponents.
Most people aren’t ready to completely surrendet to naturalism and the nihilism that follows.
Of course, many are content to hold completely contradictory positions within themselves, believing “evolution,” but also trying to make-up some meaning or purpose for themselves and humanity in their completely impersonal, chemical, mechanical universe.
From a major scientific publication:
It begins like this.
“You shouldn’t be here. Not just reading this blog, but anywhere.
You shouldn’t exist. Period.
Moments after the big bang, equal amounts of matter and antimatter floated through the universe and when particles of each collided, they annihilated each other, leaving nothing but free floating energy in their paths.
Suddenly something changed, allowing for more matter than antimatter. The little extra bit that escaped annihilation clumped together and over time planets… and eventually you formed.
But billions of years later no one knows exactly how that happened.”
Yes, presupposing something is true is just as valid as presupposing it isn’t true. Nothing straw man about it.
“Do you think, based on the irrefutable evidence of this the emphasis should be, in a truly scientific analysis, that anything homosexual should be completely removed from public schools?”
I don’t support the teaching of sexuality in public schools aside from basic biological facts in the later grades.
Otherwise, pervs get ahold of the kids in many cases. Under the guise of sex education, they have license to mess with kids’ heads worse than a dirty old guy in an alley. They say things that any other adult could get arrested for.
I support teaching Biblical young-earth Creationism only if the class points out that YEC supports an earth-centered universe, a 4-cornered flat earth, and a 6000ish year old planet, all of which have been definitively, scientifically disproven.
You missed the point. There was nothing in our discussion about a choice of things to presuppose. That's the straw.
"Presupposing" things to be true, or false, is not science. It is faith. That is the point.
==YEC supports an earth-centered universe, a 4-cornered flat earth, and a 6000ish year old planet, all of which have been definitively, scientifically disproven.
Actually, current YEC cosmology supports a galactocentric universe (which Big Bang cosmologists, such as Stephen Hawkings admit is the most obvious interpretation of the data, but is excluded on “ideological” grounds). YEC does not hold to a flat earth. Current YEC cosmology holds that the earth is around 6000 years old, and that distant galaxies are billions of years old, and yet both owe their existence to the same creation event (i.e. gravitational time dilation as per Einstein’s theory of GR). You might want to bone-up on the subject before making such patently ignorant statements.
I would replace all science and social studies programs in the curriculum with a class on logic, rhetoric, and critical thinking.
In the suddenly emptied administrative offices, I would install liraries of contentious opinionated books for the students to dissect.
The only way out of the forest is through the trees.
“”Presupposing” things to be true, or false, is not science. It is faith. That is the point. “
Yet you presuppose the creation account in Genesis 1 to be false.
Me: >> ...why does it continue if they don’t reproduce?<<
Sir Francis Dashwood: >>The same reason why religion continues... <<
Sir Francis Dashwood: >>Your “understanding” is bull-shiite...
There is no evolutionary viability at all with homosexuals, that is a concrete scientific reality. <<
Sir Francis Dashwood: >>Homosexuality is a fetish like religion.<<
It sounds like you are equally critical of religion and homosexuality - is that what you really meant?
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.