Skip to comments.Results from nationwide poll (Overwhelming support for teaching both sides of Evolution debate)
Posted on 02/19/2009 4:06:47 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
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 Darwins statement?
(Click excerpt link for responses)
6. I am going to read you two statements about Biology teachers teaching Darwins theory of evolution. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of viewStatement A or Statement B?
Statement A: Biology teachers should teach only Darwins theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.
Statement B: Biology teachers should teach Darwins theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.
(Click excerpt link for responses)
(Excerpt) Read more at evolutionnews.org ...
The United Church of Darwin does not allow any disagreement.
They barfed up the inane theory.
It takes more than insults and righeous indgnation to prove it.
“We must have read different bibles. “
Indeed. Can you tell me about any verses on alchemy or flat earth?
Those aren’t missing links, sorry, try again. I’d like to see the link species between one species and the next. Most especially, I’d like to see the one between apes and man.
I am sure that you would be the first to call the principal's office if your child came home saying that the science teacher was teaching that God may be dead.
It is interesting. Ultimately, evolutionists see matter as eternal. Creationists see God as eternal.
Okay, have someone read this to you very slowly: It is incumbent upon the proponents of a theory to prove it.
Do you think you can prove ID?
Looking at all these threads I see repeated the fake science of the creationists' web sites over and over again. It is not interesting. It is pathetic to see how so many are fooled by these guys and actually send in money to them.
Then you are admitting it is a matter of religion, not science.
But you do know that ID proposes that life originated from simple elements in pond scum and that man evolved from animals that evolved from this original life over billions of years?
Give us 150 years, a strangle hold on academia and untold grant dollars and we'll get back to you.
I admit the Bible is not a science textbook.
I deny that its account of the creation of this world is in error.
I admit that true science supports and does not contradict the Bible.
I admit that God knows infinitely more than we do about everything.
This is all anyone interested in science needs to know about Creationists and their view of the Bible and science. They know it is a trap, so they are not actually interested in scientific evidence to support their position, just interested in making everyone and everything “bow its knee” to their inane Biblical interpretation.
Using this criteria how would one ever disabuse themselves of the notion that the Earth doesn't move? Obviously one who knows that the Earth does move can read Psalm 104:5 with a clearer eye to its true meaning than a literalist.
Psalm 104:5 He laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be moved forever
NO WHERE in your link did it propose teaching 'another side of the Evolution debate'.
Talk about an entitlement mentality.
Do you know the literal, Hebrew translation of that verse?
Did the people taking this survey know that this is what they meant by "teaching both sides of the issue"?
I’m of the opinion that kids would get a lot more out of science classes if they didn’t waste any time on origins. The subject of origins isn’t required for teaching applicable facts of science, including biology. The most brilliant cell biologist on earth could be completely void of opinions on origins, and it wouldn’t make a diddly-squat bit of difference. The same goes for any of the various fields of botany or zoology. I’m not trying to get anyone riled up here, just stating my opinion. Parents can teach their kids creationism or evolution, whichever one represents their faith.
“Psalm 104:5 He laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be moved forever”
That is obviously a metaphor or something or other. You have to relate that to other relevant passages to understand the true meaning. You are not an expert in the Bible so you are not qualified to interpret the Bible. Oops. I didn’t mean ‘interpret’. Obviously the Bible is the literal word of God and does not need interpreting. The problem is that you are quoting a passage in English. In order to get the right meaning, you have to go back to the original Hebrew text. It takes a learned scholar to do that. So please, do not try to understand the Bible. Just go on what my Sunday School teacher tells us is fact. In case you missed sunday school, I have a few creationist websites I can link you to. BTW, they sell all kind of neat merchandise. Lots of tapes and DVD’s also!
Yup, that's the evo bullies, too lazy to get off their fat, grant sucking asses and try to dig up (pun) the evidence they promised over 150 years ago.
Young’s Literal Translation
Psalm 104:5 He hath founded earth on its bases, It is not moved to the age and for ever.
You can leave the "I know you are, but what am I?" arguement on the playground. This is class time.
Didn't the headline distort the results of the survey? I didn't see anything about teaching 'both sides'. I only saw that the surveyed wanted to teach the scientific evidence for and against evolution. That doesn't mean teach another side.
GGG has made something of a cottage industry in sources that do not back his contentions.
Does he get paid by the thread or by the number of responses to his threads?
Cedric: Im not opposed to destroying the flimsy myth of evolution, first, if thats where you want to start.
Other: Give us your one single best brightest undisputable evidence
Cedric: You go first.
Nice duck, dear Cedric. You said you would go first and you ducked the first challenge to you.
Depends on what you mean by "both sides". For and against the theory of evolution, or for some other theory, and against evolution. But you are correct that the questions asked in the survey and the results don't seem to support the conclusions that are being arrived at.
Yes, I know about references to the four corners, and to the sun rising and setting, none of which mean any more than I do when I use those phrases. If I say sunrise is at 6:28 am, that does not mean I am a flat earther. If I talk about visiting the four corners of the globe, it does not mean I am a flat earther. Jesus said He is the vine and we are the branches. That doesn’t mean Jesus is made of wood. You really need to read the whole Bible and be honest about it.
Today is Thursday, and that doesn’t mean I believe in the god Thor, either.
I think those skull represent various species, some of which may be extinct, and some of which may be primates with some sort of birth defect or abnormality or what have you. Just as in human beings, for instance, if we have dwarfism, the head is disproportionately large. The dwarf is not a missing link.
Go get some real evidence.
And quit misquoting me, you charlatan.
How do you reconcile the pacific 'zebra stripes' (magnetic reversals) with the 6000 year old earth?
A helpful hint for the reading impaired: The key word is "you."
So, as I understand the above, the words in the Bible mean no more than the words we speak similar phrases? Does this apply to all the phrases in the Bible?
Psalm 104:5 was often cited as one of the reasons it was ‘impossible’ for the Earth to move by Christian literalists.
If he does, that means he has something akin to a job.
Hence, your jealousy.
>I’ve wondered that. But ICR and AIG get nothing out of his parroting their articles. <
Per quarter hour $150.00
Total cost for 54 quarter hours $8,100.00
Special Fees (Non-Refundable)
Textbooks and supplies (about $150/course) $1,800.00
Application Fee: Must be submitted before
application can be processed $30.00
Supplemental Laboratory or Field Trip costs
(may vary depending on course) $3,500.00
Processing Fee for Graduation $20.00
Transcript Fee (first transcript is free) $2.00
Estimated Cost for the Program $13,450.00
Magnetic reversal is something I have not studied, so, for what it is worth to you, here is the short analysis from creationWiki
“It is believed that the unusual magnetic orientation pattern of sea floor rocks is due to repeated reversals of the Earth’s magnetic field when the rocks were cooling from molten material. According to this model, the magnetite grains in the magma (molten rock) will align themselves with the orientation of the Earth’s magnetic field while in a fluid state. When magma cools, the alignment of the magnetite grains is fixed, effectively recording the Earth’s magnetic orientation or polarity (normal or reversed) at the time of cooling.
If this interpretation of magnetic striping is correct, the striped pattern of sea floor rocks offers support for the theory of continental drift, which many creationists believe occurred as a result of catastrophic plate tectonics during the Biblical flood of Noah. Radiometric dating of sea floor rocks using potassium-argon dating method has also revealed a correlation between the distance of the rocks from the mid-oceanic ridge and the quantity of unstable isotopes in the sample.”
No jealousy. I have a real job. Not something 'akin' to a job. I design, build and operate nuclear power plants (with a little help from others). And if you really believe all the non-science that the YEC'rs spout you would be deadly afraid of nuclear power since all the physics' theories that allow us to safely operation nuclear power plants are totally trashed by the YEC crowd.
“Now if we can come to an understanding about the rest of the bible being symbolic and full of metaphors, we’ll be getting somewhere.”
References to the four corners of the earth and sunrise and so forth are in poetic and prophetic books. References to six-day creation are in historical narratives right in there with the genealogies, the troop movements, and all the literal stuff. Further, references to six day creation are referred to as literal by Moses, Jesus, Paul, and others. They are never referred to as being metaphorical.
As for grant money to pursue an investigation of odd skulls whose DNA does not match our own, I doubt I could get a grant. Firstly, I am not a degreed scientist and doubt I ever will be. Secondly, those who believe God created the world don’t get grants from secular or governmental institutions. We are not politically correct.