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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-228 next last
To: GodGunsGuts

>>If that is your argument, then evolution needs to be exluded as well. Like creation and intelligent design, evolution is an historical inference about the unobservable, unrepeatable past. As such, evolution does not fall under the perview of operational science, and thus should be excluded. If you argue that it should be kept (and enforced), then competing historical inferences should also be given a fair hearing. That includes creation and intelligent design, not to mention panspermia and other competing evolutionary theories.<<

Actually, my argument is that consensus mainstream science should be taught in science class and that in other classes they can teach the consensus in those fields.

BTW, when developmental biology is no longer standard science we’ll know it when companies that depend on biology to make money stop using and shift to ID or something else. Developmental biology is accepted because it makes useful predictions. ID is not used because it does not make useful predictions.

One can like that or not like it. And that’s OK. But science works by useful predictions.


151 posted on 02/19/2009 8:51:24 PM PST by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
But Christian literalists defended their Geocentricity with that scripture. What mechanism convinced the Christian world that this particular interpretation was in error?

If a Greek also suggested the same thing it is OK to dismiss a literalist interpreting of a particular scripture?

Is that the criteria?

152 posted on 02/19/2009 8:58:46 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

>>But Christian literalists defended their Geocentricity with that scripture. What mechanism convinced the Christian world that this particular interpretation was in error?<<
I believe it was that the non geo-centric model made useful predictions that were important.


153 posted on 02/19/2009 9:05:29 PM PST by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


154 posted on 02/19/2009 9:05:45 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
It also became increasingly untenable to insist upon “epicycles within epicycles” to explain how everything could be moving around a motionless Earth.

Data convinced people, good God fearing Christian people, that a literlist interpretation of Psalm 104:5 was in error.

Now nearly everyone in the Christian world accepts that the Earth circles the Sun, and that Psalm 104:5 doesn't mean anything more than that God made the Earth a safe place for us, a secure foundation.

155 posted on 02/19/2009 9:10:00 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

I’m saying the Church learned its first lesson not to compromise scripture based on the wisdom of the world. BTW, Psalms is poetry, whereas Genesis is literal history. It is interesting to note, that you and Dembski share something in common with respect to your interpretation of biblical poetry:

WD:Psalm 93 states that the earth is established forever and cannot be moved.

Dembski should read the verse in context. The next verse says, ‘[God’s] throne is established of old’, where the same word kôn is also translated ‘established’. And the same Hebrew word for ‘moved’ (môt) is used in Psalm 16:8, ‘I shall not be moved.’ Surely, even Dembski wouldn’t accuse the Bible of teaching that the Psalmist was rooted to one spot! He meant that he would not stray from the path that God had set for him. So the earth ‘cannot be moved’ can also mean that it will not stray from the precise orbital and rotational pattern God has set (‘firmly established’) for it.

WD:A literal interpretation of Psalm 93 seems to require geocentrism.

Well, the Psalms are poetic books, so we should generally expect figurative language and be very careful before concluding that a particular verse is literal. Psalms have the defining characteristic of Hebrew poetry, which is not rhyme or metre, but parallelism. That is, the statements in two or more consecutive lines are related in some way: saying something, then saying it again in a different way. Or saying one thing then saying the opposite. So the parallelism in Psalm 93 clearly shows the reader that the verse Dembski cites should not be taken literally.

Conversely, Genesis is straightforward historical narrative. This should be obvious, because it has all the grammatical features of Hebrew narrative, e.g. the first verb (in Genesis 1:1) is a qatal (historic perfect), and the verbs that move the narrative forward are wayyiqtols (waw consecutives); it contains many ‘accusative particles’ that mark the objects of verbs; and terms are often carefully defined.


156 posted on 02/19/2009 9:12:44 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Like “morning” and “evening” when there wasn’t even a Sun?

And being so serious about chronology that the two accounts differ?

If Genesis is literal then which one?


157 posted on 02/19/2009 9:16:03 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Those were the predictions I was referring too.

in much the same way, it is useful predictions (i.e. not predicted correctly by any other means) that make developmental biology the current theory today and its the lack of useful predictions that prevent ID or any young earth theory from being current science.

And science class should really teach current science.


158 posted on 02/19/2009 9:19:05 PM PST by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Cedric
"No, Einstein."

"Read much?"

I wasn't talking to you. The question was posed to someone else.

But, if you are really this incapable of having a civil discussion, what are you doing on this thread?

159 posted on 02/19/2009 9:19:10 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
The topic here is about what should be taught in science education.

In the comment I replied to, you distinguished between three possible teachings, rejecting two of them, on the sole basis of what the Bible says.

It doesn't matter what you or I believe, or even if your belief is correct. Your choice is clearly a religious one, not a scientific one. You are entitled to it, no problem. But you should accept that it is a religious belief and don't expect that it be taught as science.

160 posted on 02/19/2009 9:23:35 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
"Creation science presupposes these incidents to be true."

That's not science.

161 posted on 02/19/2009 9:24:57 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Compromise?

In what way is scripture compromised by a moving Earth?

A stationary Earth would be the simplistic literal interpretation of not just that Psalm, but also Joshua 10:12-4 was taken to mean the Sun moved around a stationary Earth.

Psalm 93:1 was used by Calvin in a defense of Geocentricity.

It is not a “compromise” of the Bible to be Geocentric, nor did the Christian world change its opinion on the matter to have it be more in line with a literal interpretation of scripture.

162 posted on 02/19/2009 9:25:16 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
==Like “morning” and “evening” when there wasn’t even a Sun? Already been over that one with you. God said let there be light, and there was light. Why do you insist that there couldn't be an evening and a morning when God himself was providing the light? Have a little more faith, Allmendream.

==And being so serious about chronology that the two accounts differ?...If Genesis is literal then which one?

Genesis contradictions?

In Genesis chapter 2 the order of creation seems to be different to that in chapter 1 with the animals being created (2:19) after Adam (2:7). Doesn’t the Bible contradict itself here?

by Don Batten

Between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve, the KJV/AV Bible says (Genesis 2:19) ‘out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air’. On the surface, this seems to say that the land beasts and birds were created between Adam and Eve. However, Jewish scholars apparently did not recognize any such conflict with the account in chapter 1, where Adam and Eve were both created after the beasts and birds (Genesis 1:23–25). Why is this? Because in Hebrew the precise tense of a verb is determined by the context. It is clear from chapter 1 that the beasts and birds were created before Adam, so Jewish scholars would have understood the verb ‘formed’ in Genesis 2:19 to mean ‘had formed’ or ‘having formed’. If we translate verse 19 as follows (as one widely used translation1 does), ‘Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field …’, the apparent disagreement with Genesis 1 disappears completely.

The question also stems from the wrong assumption that the second chapter of Genesis is just a different account of creation to that in chapter 1. It should be evident that chapter 2 is not just ‘another’ account of creation because chapter 2 says nothing about the creation of the heavens and the earth, the atmosphere, the seas, the land, the sun, the stars, the moon, the sea creatures, etc. Chapter 2 mentions only things directly relevant to the creation of Adam and Eve and their life in the garden God prepared specially for them. Chapter 1 may be understood as creation from God’s perspective; it is ‘the big picture’, an overview of the whole. Chapter 2 views the more important aspects from man’s perspective.

Genesis 2:4 says, ‘These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens’. This marks a break with chapter 1. This phraseology next occurs in Genesis 5:1, where it reads ‘This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man’.

‘Generations’ is a translation of the Hebrew word toledoth, which means ‘origin’ or ‘record of the origin’. It identifies an account or record of events. The phrase was apparently used at the end of each section in Genesis2 identifying the patriarch (Adam, Noah, the sons of Noah, Shem, etc.) to whom it primarily referred, and possibly who was responsible for the record. There are 10 such divisions in Genesis.

Each record was probably originally a stone or clay tablet. There is no person identified with the account of the origin of the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1–2:4), because it refers primarily to the origin of the whole universe, not any person in particular (Adam and Eve are not mentioned by name, for example). Also, only God knew the events of creation, so God had to reveal this, possibly to Adam who recorded it. Moses, as ‘author’ of Genesis, acted as a compiler and editor of the various sections, adding explanatory notes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The toledoths acknowledge the sources of the historical records Moses used. This understanding underlines the historical nature of Genesis and its status as eyewitness history, contrary to the defunct ‘documentary (JEDP) hypothesis’ still taught in many Bible colleges. [Ed. note: for a refutation of this fallacious and anti-Christian theory, see Did Moses really write Genesis?.]

The differences in the toledoth statements of Genesis 2:4 and 5:1 affirm that chapter 1 is the overview the record of the origin of the ‘heavens and earth’ (2:4)—whereas chapter 2 is concerned with Adam and Eve, the detailed account of Adam and Eve’s creation (5:1,2). The wording of 2:4 also suggests the shift in emphasis: in the first part of the verse it is ‘heavens and earth’ whereas in the end of the verse it is ‘earth and heaven’. Scholars think that the first part of the verse would have been on the end of a clay or stone tablet recording the origin of the universe and the latter part of the verse would have been on the beginning of a second tablet containing the account of events on earth pertaining particularly to Adam and Eve (Genesis 2:4b–5:la).

Let us apply this understanding to another objection: some also see a problem with the plants and herbs in Genesis 2:5 and the trees in Genesis 2:9. We have already realized that Genesis 2 focuses on issues of direct import to Adam and Eve, not creation in general. Notice that the plants and herbs are described as ‘of the field’ in Genesis chapter 2 (compare 1:12) and they needed a man to tend them (2:5). These are clearly cultivated plants, not just plants in general. Also, the trees (2:9) are only the trees planted in the garden, not trees in general.

Genesis was written like many historical accounts with an overview or summary of events leading up to the events of most interest first, followed by a detailed account which often recaps relevant events in the overview in greater detail. Genesis 1, the ‘big picture’ is clearly concerned with the sequence of events. The events are in chronological sequence, with day 1, day 2, evening and morning, etc. The order of events is not the major concern of Genesis 2. In recapping events they are not necessarily mentioned in chronological order, but in the order which makes most sense to the focus of the account. For example, the animals are mentioned in verse 19, after Adam was created, because it was after Adam was created that he was shown the animals, not that they were created after Adam.

Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are not therefore separate contradictory accounts of creation. Chapter 1 is the ‘big picture’ and Chapter 2 is a more detailed account of the creation of Adam and Eve and day six of creation.

The final word on this matter, however, should really be given to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. In Matthew chapter 19, verses 4 and 5, the Lord is addressing the subject of marriage, and says: ‘Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?’

Notice how in the very same statement, Jesus refers to both Genesis 1 (verse 27b: ‘male and female created he them’) and Genesis 2 (verse 24: ‘Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh’). Obviously, by combining both in this way, He in no way regarded them as separate, contradictory accounts.

Reference and notes

  1. The NIV. Return to text.
  2. Charles Taylor, Who wrote Genesis? Are the toledoths colophons? Journal of Creation 8(2):204–211, 1994. Return to text.

163 posted on 02/19/2009 9:26:11 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

==A stationary Earth would be the simplistic literal interpretation of not just that Psalm, but also Joshua 10:12-4 was taken to mean the Sun moved around a stationary Earth.

Nope, Joshua 10:12-14 can just as easily be understood from Joshua’s perspective. When you talk about a beautiful sunrise, you are making reference to the sun based on the way its movement appears to you. It doesn’t mean the sun is literally rising.


164 posted on 02/19/2009 9:31:09 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I have complete and total faith that the account in Genesis is allegorical, that “morning” and “evening” of a “day” without a Sun was not, as a matter of necessity, exactly 24 hours or any nearby variation; not when a day to the Lord is “as a thousand years” (once again poetic, not literal).

My faith is in no way dependent upon the wrongness of any scientific theory, as such, my faith is never lessened by the advancement of knowledge within that field.


165 posted on 02/19/2009 9:32:55 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
But once again scripture would not be “compromised” by a Geocentric model.

And once again, I am NOT saying that the scripture absolutely implies a Geocentric system at any time any where any how. Please get that out of your system.

What I am REPEATING again and again is that there was once a system of thought in the Christian world that the simple reading of scripture insisted upon a Geocentric world. At some point the Christian world abandoned this perception.

What do you suggest was the mechanism that changed the majority opinion of the Christian world from one that the Bible supported Geocentricity, to one that scripture did not insist upon Geocentricity?

What was the mechanism of change?

166 posted on 02/19/2009 9:37:49 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: mlo
None of these excerpted questions are controversial. Any scientific issue should cover evidence both for and against.

The Law of Contrarian Polling states: Given a choice of two positions, at least 10-20% of those polled will agree with either one of them, no matter how illogical it is.

167 posted on 02/19/2009 10:25:51 PM PST by Oztrich Boy ( As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities. - D)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mlo

“That’s not science.”

But presupposing something ISN’T true isn’t science either, is it? We bend ourselves like Gumby trying to be neutral, but we never are.


168 posted on 02/19/2009 10:37:59 PM PST by Marie2 (Ora et labora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Mogwai

I agree, I do not believe I am “entitled.”

Except that. . .

I am forced to pay tax dollars for public education.

Just as we conservatives may agree, we do not want our taxpayer funding to teach Keynesian economics at our public schools!

The solution, for me, is to stop public education. I simply don’t support it, in principle, although I do wish all the little schoolkids and teachers well. I just don’t approve of the entire idea.

However, in the meantime, asking for creation science to be presented as an alternative theory is not asking for affirmative action, I don’t think. Particularly since Gallup polls etc. show that less than half of Americans believe in evolution, even after all this time.

“PRINCETON, NJ — On the eve of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth, a new Gallup Poll shows that only 39% of Americans say they “believe in the theory of evolution,” while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% don’t have an opinion either way.”


169 posted on 02/19/2009 10:42:40 PM PST by Marie2 (Ora et labora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

‘I’m NOT trying to be a jerk here, “ I appreciate that, but do understand, the journals, textbooks, web sites and other information I digest and disseminate are indeed products of degreed scientists, mostly PhDs.

I have mentioned in other creation/evolution threads, my son has a BS in Physics from UCLA, homeschooled K-10 by me (went to college early), and is a six day creationist as we taught him. Science and creation need not conflict.


170 posted on 02/19/2009 10:45:29 PM PST by Marie2 (Ora et labora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: oldmanreedy

“Which “evolution scientist[s]” do you use, and what writings of theirs do you incorporate into your lessons?”

We use Apologia textbooks in the later grades, written by PhD Jay Wile - General Science, Physical Science, and Biology, so far. A brief glance through his texts shows quotes/examples from Darwin, Albright (archaeology, Neils Bohr, Einstein, W.H. Burr, Stephen Hawking, Sir Charles Lyell, Max Planck, Ivan Pavlov. . .many many more.

More tellingly, we learn of great Christian scientists as well, who had no problem (apparently) reconciling creation with their field of endeavor: oldies like Bradwardine, Nicholas of Cusa, Copernicus, also Kepler, Galileo, Pascal, and Sir Isaac Newton. Robert Boyle, van Leeuwenhoek, John Dalton, and Linnaeus who gave us our basic classification system, Biology, no less. James Joule of the First Law of Thermodynamics!! Roger Bacon, Grosseteste. . .

I’d have to read all the textbooks through to give you everybody, but you get the general idea.

Evolutionist and Creationist scientists side by side, no fear, and that is where I really respect the Creation Scientists. They will tell you, with reasonable honesty, the opinion of the Evolutionists. I can attest to the honesty because I was taught evolution throughout my school years. Yet Evolutionists will not mention Creation Science even as a theory, even as something they oppose.


171 posted on 02/19/2009 11:09:55 PM PST by Marie2 (Ora et labora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

Evolution is only viable with HETEROSEXUAL relationships and this is also confirmed by the Judaic book of Genesis...

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?


172 posted on 02/20/2009 1:06:10 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: mlo

Evolution is only viable with HETEROSEXUAL relationships and this is also confirmed by the Judaic book of Genesis...

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?


173 posted on 02/20/2009 1:08:54 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

Evolution is only viable with HETEROSEXUAL relationships and this is also confirmed by the Judaic book of Genesis...

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?


174 posted on 02/20/2009 1:09:33 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Marie2

See # 172... consider the question...


175 posted on 02/20/2009 1:13:23 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

>>

Evolution is only viable with HETEROSEXUAL relationships and this is also confirmed by the Judaic book of Genesis...<<

I should mention, I’m a physicist not a biologist... but my understanding is that non-reproducing members can still have some effect on the survival and development of a species... that said, I don’t remember Genesis covering the effect of homosexuality on evolution.

>>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 really follow you. If you are saying that homosexuality should not be a part of teaching science - I would agree. Its not a big topic at the high school level except it does present a biological question - why does it continue if they don’t reproduce? The other question that comes up is whether there is a biological basis.


176 posted on 02/20/2009 1:25:02 AM PST by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
I’m a physicist not a biologist... but my understanding is...

Your "understanding" is bull-shiite...

There is no evolutionary viability at all with homosexuals, that is a concrete scientific reality.

You want to avoid the question with equivocation.

Homosexuality is a fetish like religion.

177 posted on 02/20/2009 1:52:02 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
...why does it continue if they don’t reproduce?

The same reason why religion continues...

178 posted on 02/20/2009 1:53:34 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

Evo-cultists are on a mission to erase Genesis from the public sphere. It’s about being able to do anything they want, especially homo behavior. That’s why they have to ignore the fact that all reproduction is between a male and a female. Their homo fetish doesn’t fit with their *science* yet they never have an answer as to how homos can exist with it. If the evo-cult were true, than homos would have long gone extinct. That’s almost reason to wish it were true. Almost.


179 posted on 02/20/2009 5:08:22 AM PST by ToGodBeTheGlory ("Darwinism" is Satanism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The Evos use the government and the courts to enforce the religious dogma emanating from the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism on our public schools and government funded science institutions.

And here I thought it was the creationists wasting everyone's time with court cases and lawsuits. (See: Dover, PA).
180 posted on 02/20/2009 5:16:42 AM PST by whattajoke (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; allmendream

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?


181 posted on 02/20/2009 5:19:14 AM PST by whattajoke (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
"But presupposing something ISN’T true isn’t science either, is it?"

Strawman. That wasn't a choice.

182 posted on 02/20/2009 5:22:13 AM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: ToGodBeTheGlory
Evo-cultists are on a mission to erase Genesis from the public sphere. It’s about being able to do anything they want, especially homo behavior. That’s why they have to ignore the fact that all reproduction is between a male and a female. Their homo fetish doesn’t fit with their *science* yet they never have an answer as to how homos can exist with it. If the evo-cult were true, than homos would have long gone extinct. That’s almost reason to wish it were true. Almost.

You forgot to mention how evolution is satanic in this post. You're slipping.

I'm not sure how evolutionary biologists have "ignored" sexual reproduction seeing as though evolution is pretty much based upon reproduction and multiple generational changes in allele frequencies.

I'm also unclear as to why you'd think "homos" would go extinct within a vastly higher % heterosexual population. By your illogic, we'd have no more kids with any anomalies.
183 posted on 02/20/2009 5:25:22 AM PST by whattajoke (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
What do you suppose the other side of each question was when Darwin wrote that statement?

So, did you read the 1st 2 pages of "Origin of Species" yet to gain a clearer understanding of what Darwin was humbly referencing?
184 posted on 02/20/2009 5:30:38 AM PST by whattajoke (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
Homosexuals are not a species or any genetic variation thereof... it is a fetish plain and simple... Could you please explain the evolutionary viability of semen leaking out of a man's anus? While fellatio might be a part of a balanced diet for some people, it is still nothing more than a fetish...
185 posted on 02/20/2009 5:50:18 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

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.


186 posted on 02/20/2009 5:51:31 AM PST by ToGodBeTheGlory ("Darwinism" is Satanism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
Could you please explain the evolutionary viability of semen leaking out of a man's anus? While fellatio might be a part of a balanced diet for some people, it is still nothing more than a fetish...

Um. Wow. Sounds like a fetish you are all too familiar with. Just wow.
187 posted on 02/20/2009 6:08:49 AM PST by whattajoke (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: ToGodBeTheGlory
Evo-cultists ignore the fact that reproduction happens between a male and a female when they push their homo fetish.

I think you and Sir Francis should get together. So to speak.

And by the way, in all my years of college and readings thereafter, I never once read or heard anything about evolution's "homo fetish." Perhaps you've read too many Sir Francis posts on FR.
188 posted on 02/20/2009 6:17:45 AM PST by whattajoke (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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.


189 posted on 02/20/2009 6:24:50 AM PST by dfwgator (1996 2006 2008 - Good Things Come in Threes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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?

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.

190 posted on 02/20/2009 7:15:35 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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:

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2009/02/13/key-to-origin-of-universe-could-be-neutrinos-and-project-x/

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.”


191 posted on 02/20/2009 7:25:11 AM PST by srweaver (Never Forget the Judicial Homicide of Terri Schiavo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlo

Yes, presupposing something is true is just as valid as presupposing it isn’t true. Nothing straw man about it.


192 posted on 02/20/2009 8:46:40 AM PST by Marie2 (Ora et labora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

“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.


193 posted on 02/20/2009 8:49:15 AM PST by Marie2 (Ora et labora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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.


194 posted on 02/20/2009 9:05:24 AM PST by Longdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
"Yes, presupposing something is true is just as valid as presupposing it isn’t true. Nothing straw man about it."

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.

195 posted on 02/20/2009 9:10:02 AM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Longdriver

==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.


196 posted on 02/20/2009 9:12:51 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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.


197 posted on 02/20/2009 9:13:34 AM PST by headsonpikes (Genocide is the highest sacrament of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlo

“”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.


198 posted on 02/20/2009 9:25:27 AM PST by Marie2 (Ora et labora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

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?


199 posted on 02/20/2009 10:26:01 AM PST by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
True enough. But if those wholes are being picked based on the hypothesis that the biblical account of creation and the noaitic flood are true, then it’s science. For instance: creationists predict that the earth is young, they predict not a tree of life, but an orchard of trees with no transitionals outside the bounds of the biblical kinds; they predict evidence of a global flood, etc, etc. They are forming hypothesis, and they are testing the same using the creationists have yet to find any evidence of such occurences whereas there are mountains of evidence against them. Hence, the need to corrupt science to make it fit the warped, "Lyin' for the Lord" creationist/ID superstition of a special 6 day creation 6000 years ago. Creationists need to be comforted in their ignorance.
200 posted on 02/20/2009 10:35:20 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-228 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