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 last
To: doc30
We are comforted because we have accepted Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. It is the Temple of Darwin fanatics who sacrifice their brains at the alter of Darwood in order to find comfort and intellectual "fulfillment."


201 posted on 02/20/2009 12:06:16 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Marie2

What I may or may not presuppose is not the issue. Why do you keep evading it?


202 posted on 02/20/2009 1:11:37 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: mlo

So would you consider the affirmative statements in the following scientific publication to be science or faith?

“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.”

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


203 posted on 02/20/2009 2:02:59 PM PST by srweaver (Never Forget the Judicial Homicide of Terri Schiavo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
"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."

As far as I can tell, Wile has a PhD in chemistry and his research focus was nuclear chemistry. Additionally, his last professional article was published in 1993, and since 1995 he appears to have absolutely no association with any accredited university. From 1995 to 1998 he wasn't even doing vaguely academic work; he was doing database programming or something. Why would you use a biology course written by someone who doesn't have any credentials in biology?

Here is what one Amazon reviewer had to say about Wile's biology course:

At one point Wile compares a certain basic protein, which is known to scientists as one of the simplest building blocks of life, and that is present across all species, and compares the differences between the protein in one animal and the protein in another, and shows that there is no relation between how distant the animals are related evolutionarily and the differences in the proteins: but this is very poor science, proteins are heavily modified after they are made, which is why scientists go to the blueprint of the protein: the DNA. DNA is the genetic material We've all heard of the "human genome project", which mapped out the DNA of human beings, and we all know that the project found the DNA of humans was only one spot different from chimps, and a couple from gorillas and orangutans and so on, and it all confirmed what had been previously theorized about human evolution. Well while Wile presents "evidence" from a single protein, which really can tell us nothing about evolutionary history, he decides not to even tell the student about the Human Genome Project! This is gross negligence!
Is it true that Wile doesn't even mention the Human Genome Project? If so, that's incredibly dishonest of him. What arguments for evolution does Wile discuss?
204 posted on 02/20/2009 2:47:57 PM PST by oldmanreedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Cedric

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

Apparently you don’t have a good explanation do you? See how trivially easy it is to falsify Creationism.


205 posted on 02/20/2009 6:37:10 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: Cedric
“It is incumbent upon the proponents of a theory to prove it.” [excerpt]
It is also their responsibility to attempt to disprove it.

Failing to do so instantly turns the hypothesis into a religious dogma.
206 posted on 02/20/2009 10:41:45 PM PST by Fichori (To everyone who gave Zero his own Hawaiian-good-luck-salute and donated to the FReepathon, THANKYOU!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Cedric
“Give us 150 years, a strangle hold on academia and untold grant dollars and we'll get back to you.”
Ka-Ching!
207 posted on 02/20/2009 10:43:40 PM PST by Fichori (To everyone who gave Zero his own Hawaiian-good-luck-salute and donated to the FReepathon, THANKYOU!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; 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;” [excerpt]
Exodus 20:11 puts the total (from beginning to end) creation time at six 24 hour days.
208 posted on 02/20/2009 11:08:36 PM PST by Fichori (To everyone who gave Zero his own Hawaiian-good-luck-salute and donated to the FReepathon, THANKYOU!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
“But presupposing something ISN’T true isn’t science either, is it?” [excerpt]
Interesting thing presuppositions are.

Evolution's got some whoppers.

The starting point of Evolution is that, everything that exists arrived at its current state via completely Naturalistic processes.


The only completely Naturalistic process is Evolution.


These presuppositions, these axioms, these philosophical assumptions, on which the boondoggle of Evolution is built, they are all impossible to disprove.

Because they are assumed to be true. (And philosophical assumptions cannot be disproved)

Which would mean that Evolution is not falsifiable.

And that would put Evolution into the category of religion.



Good for you for homeschooling.
209 posted on 02/20/2009 11:35:53 PM PST by Fichori (To everyone who gave Zero his own Hawaiian-good-luck-salute and donated to the FReepathon, THANKYOU!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

How big of a ship would it take, to have room for all known species of animals on board? Two each.

Creation science should answer the questions of how many species, and how big a boat (ship).

Did the technology exist at the time, to build a vessel of whatever size the scientists calculate?

Name the species.

I think my question is very legitimate, from a logical standpoint.


210 posted on 02/20/2009 11:48:06 PM PST by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlo
"Presupposing" things to be true, or false, is not science.

Morality (and all of those associated ideals) are rooted entirely in a presupposition that some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.

Nature is pure war, with every man against another. Fear of death is the only way to keep peace; so man is civilized by the restraint of violence against him for transgressions upon his neighbor.

211 posted on 02/21/2009 4:46:03 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
It sounds like you are equally critical of religion and homosexuality - is that what you really meant?

Homosexuality is a religion. It is a fetish... an idolatry of perversion. Excuse me if I refuse to bend my knee in acquiescence.

The same can be said for the temple of evolutionism.

The notion that children need to be indoctrinated and badgered into thinking a certain way is the insecurity of adults, a universal dissatisfaction with mortality reaching out for an eternal ideal. Whether this is done by atheists or by the religious, it is exactly the same ecclesiasticism.

Man did not come from apes... Man supposedly came from a common ancestor - the "missing link" Louis Leaky searched Oldavai Gorge 30 years in vain for.

But, the singularity of all life is the DNA molecule. All living things have it. Like the singularity of the "big bang" theory, evolutionists make the inadvertent admission life is some sort of immaculate conception...

Evolution, the theory, is called more properly "The Origin of Species." That was Darwin's title.

Evolution requires change over a period of time. Time then, by deductive reasoning must have a beginning.

The flaw in evolutionists' logic is that life did not come from the earth, because the earth came from somewhere else as well. Life came from somewhere else...

212 posted on 02/21/2009 4:58:59 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
Interesting thing presuppositions are.

See #212... a boiling point...

213 posted on 02/21/2009 5:06:11 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
It says “24 hour days”? You must have the “creationist” Bible. Mine says it was “in six days”, but doesn't give how many hours were in those “days”; moreover that passage gives the direct applicability of the parable of creation and its connection to the sabbath.

‘work for six days, and rest on the seventh’

214 posted on 02/21/2009 6:52:56 AM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: Fichori

>>The starting point of Evolution is that, everything that exists arrived at its current state via completely Naturalistic processes.


The only completely Naturalistic process is Evolution.<<

The second one is not accurate. The theory of evolution is just currently the theory that best fits the evidence

The first one is true but if evidence of intervention by an intelligent being is found that would be part of naturalistic. so while science does not assume God (or gods for that matter) it does not preclude them either.


215 posted on 02/21/2009 9:37:38 AM PST by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
“It says “24 hour days”? You must have the “creationist” Bible.” [excerpt]
Just the Hebrew.

“Mine says it was “in six days”, but doesn't give how many hours were in those “days”; moreover that passage gives the direct applicability of the parable of creation and its connection to the sabbath.” [excerpt]
Using an English translation to argue against the exactness of the Hebrew makes a pretty weak argument.
216 posted on 02/21/2009 11:48:25 AM PST by Fichori (To everyone who gave Zero his own Hawaiian-good-luck-salute and donated to the FReepathon, THANKYOU!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
The Hebrew that was translated also did not specify 24 hours, but merely said “yom”.
217 posted on 02/21/2009 12:39:15 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
The only completely Naturalistic process is Evolution.
“The second one is not accurate.” [excerpt]
Evolution as taught claims that it is the singular Naturalistic source of life.

Evolutionists have a priori commitment to denying the second. (While at the same time promoting the same)

“so while science does not assume God (or gods for that matter) it does not preclude them either.” [excerpt]
From a post by Coyote[man]:
“Methodological naturalism is a philosophical rule used by scientists. This rule states that scientists must look for a naturalistic cause (and only a naturalistic cause) for a natural phenomenon.” [excerpt]
Methodological Naturalism precludes anything supernatural, including God.
218 posted on 02/21/2009 1:11:50 PM PST by Fichori (B. Hussein Obama is nothing but a genocidal Kenyan baby killer ... albeit by proxy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
“The Hebrew that was translated also did not specify 24 hours, but merely said “yom”.”
Thats because you are taking it out of context and are, apparently, oblivious to semantics, intentionally or otherwise.


219 posted on 02/21/2009 2:02:11 PM PST by Fichori (B. Hussein Obama is nothing but a genocidal Kenyan baby killer ... albeit by proxy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: mlo

“What I may or may not presuppose is not the issue. Why do you keep evading it?”

Well, I guess I see it as the issue. For some time I accepted the idea that my reasoning on the creation/evolution issue was faulty, because I jumped into any discussion with the assumption that the Bible is true.

After a few years it was pointed out to me that those who argued against me assume that the Bible isn’t true. So they really aren’t claiming any moral high ground. They are not “more scientific” than me.

We could say, alternatively, that I enter the argument assuming evolution isn’t true, and you enter assuming it is.

Either way I think it is helpful to everyone to be honest about our presuppositions, instead of pretending they don’t exist.


220 posted on 02/21/2009 5:25:53 PM PST by Marie2 (Ora et labora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: truth_seeker; GodGunsGuts
Said truth_seeker to GodGunGuts: How big of a ship would it take, to have room for all known species of animals on board? Two each.

Creation science should answer the questions of how many species, and how big a boat (ship).

Did the technology exist at the time, to build a vessel of whatever size the scientists calculate?

Name the species.

I think my question is very legitimate, from a logical standpoint.


That is a logical question, but a little context answers a lot of it. For example, when we ask about the technology, we must remember who the designer was - Gen 6:13 and following: "And God said unto Noah ... Make thee an ark of gopher wood; ..." and God proceeded to give many more details - so the designer was God himself.

And do you remember who closed the door on the arc when Noah and his family and all the animals were inside? Gen 7:16 says that "and the LORD shut him in." -- so God shut the door. Now mind you, isn't that scientifically impossible to say that God did anything since science doesn't say that God exists? I mean, never mind whether it could have floated with the door shut - if God didn't close the door, and the story doesn't record anyone else closing then it's scientifically impossible for it to have floated anyway!

I hope you can see my point - if you look at the story with the assumption that God does not exist and nothing supernatural ever happened, then obviously the story will always be impossible to you!

As to how many animals, keep in mind that any species that can breed with another species and produce offspring (fertile or otherwise) is almost certain (even to a creationist) to share a common ancestor. I mean, even as a Creationist myself, I know without a shadow of a doubt that, for example, the teeny pocket-poodle is related to the great Dane. And that's after only what, 150 years of dogbreeding? And compare the tiniest horsey which is smaller then the biggest dog, to the biggest horse which is a huge draft horse. See a cute comparison pictures at bottom of this post

So you can see then that hundreds of dog breeds would be just a single pair of dogs. Since zebra and horse can interbreed and produce (generally infertile) offspring, horses and zebras would have been another pair. Don't think that all hundred subspecies that we have now would had to have been saved on the ark to save, for example, dogs.

So while we don't know exactly what the kinds of animals were, we can still see that the ark wouldn't have had to hold all the gazillions of subspecies we have now. And just how many truly unique big animal types are there? Cats, dogs, horses, oxen, buffalo, giraffe, elephant, elk, and so on - even if I've only listed 10% of them, still, the majority of major kinds are small. So it's really not the correct question to ask "How big of a ship would it take to have room for all known species of animals onboard, two each " because not all known species existed then, and even then all variations within a kind didn't need to be saved.

By the way, I should mention -- while I believe that God did create the world in 6 days per the Genesis account, it just so happens that I wasn't there at the time. And while the creation story makes the most sense to me, it is ultimately a matter of faith - because I was not there and did not see it myself -- just like nobody was there when [if] the big bang took place, or when the first life form sprang into being, etc.

So let me ask you a logical question: What about the big bang? Do you really believe that there was nothing, and then the vacuum fluctuated? Since vacuum is empty space without anything in it, how could the vacuum fluctuate when there was nothing to fill in the void thus reducing the vacuum? And what about the issue of something having come from nothing? Do you really believe that? You sure can't know it.

The big bang theory violates many known laws of physics, was not seen by anybody, and has not been proven to even be possible much less to have happened - and yet it is taught in schools across the country as scientifically valid.

Does that too raise questions in your mind?

And what about that transition from non-life to life? Again, never ever been demonstrated to be possible under natural conditions, and yet it is taught across the country.

Now I grew up on a small family farm - so I well know that when a cow gives birth to a calf, it's not an exact copy of either of its parents - in other words, there's a slight change in DNA makeup - in other words evolution. So that's the kind of evolution I've seen and know exists. The other kind of evolution, which I have not seen and do not know exists, is that which says that a dog and a cow are related.

So I have been long asking "What must I do to know for myself that ASBE (All Species By Evolution) is true without having to rely purely on faith in other people about things I have never seen." And so far nobody has been able to show me.

You see, I work in the field of electronics where if I doubt a claim, I can generally just go test it. If I tell you that a transistor behaves in a certain way and you don't believe me, I can just show you. And if you too wanted to personally know how a transistor behaves under different circumstances, I could lay out a series of material for you to study and at the end you'd be able to know for yourself and demonstrate for others how a transistor behaves - without having to reply on faith in anything.

But the "science" of evolution (the kind I haven't seen) is not like that - at best, I could only believe it as a faith - I cannot know it. And that, my friend, sure sounds like religion to me.

Have a wonderful day,

-Jesse
221 posted on 02/21/2009 10:54:56 PM PST by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: oldmanreedy

“Why would you use a biology course written by someone who doesn’t have any credentials in biology?”

Keep in mind this is a high school course.

To teach high school science in a public or private school, you need only your teaching degree and (normally) a Master’s in some sort of physical science. So, in your local high school, your science teachers may have a chemistry degree, or a biology degree, or physics, or marine biology, or oceanography, or any other number of hard science degrees.

So I don’t know why you find a Phd in Chemistry to be inappropriate for writing a high school biology text. College level, I could understand your concerns.

In regards to his not doing academic work since 1995, I imagine he was spending considerable time writing his textbooks. To ascertain their quality, visit www.apologia.com (I am not a salesman or any such thing, I am just providing the info for your perusal.) Tell me what you think about their quality. I have found no better high school level textbooks.

One of the things I especially like about Apologia Science is that Dr. Wile makes himself available via email to his students. I love it when someone stands behind their product in such a personal matter.

My Saxon DIVE CDs (Algebra 1, Algebra II) and my Spelling curriculum (Spelling Power) have the same accessibility to the writers. I love it.

In re: the human genome project, I don’t see where it is mentioned in the Biology course. Of course it may be, but it’s not in the appendix.

Module 7, mostly about cell reproduction, discusses Mendel, the definition of genetics, genes, chromosomes, DNA, histones, you do a DNA extraction (from an onion), mitosis (prophase, metaphase, anaphase, and telophase), asexual and sexual reproduction, karyotypes (including male human cell mitosis), and viruses.

Module 8, mostly about genetics, teaches about true breeding, self-pollination, the four principles of genetics, alleles, genotypes, Punnett squares, pedigrees, monohybrid and dihybrid crosses, autosomes, sex chromosomes, autosomal inheritance, and mutation.

A reasonable amount of coverage of high school biology on the subjects of cell reproduction and genetics? What do you think?


222 posted on 02/23/2009 4:52:08 PM PST by Marie2 (Ora et labora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse
The big bang theory violates many known laws of physics, was not seen by anybody, and has not been proven to even be possible much less to have happened - and yet it is taught in schools across the country as scientifically valid. Does that too raise questions in your mind?

It makes me thankful that you are not teaching science. Does that help?

223 posted on 02/23/2009 5:02:11 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Said js1138: It makes me thankful that you are not teaching science. Does that help?

I am teaching science, (but not at public school) and as a matter of fact I start each class off with reading a couple of verses from Genesis and if a video I'm showing talks about the earth being millions of years old, I stop the DVD and ask my students how long it really took God to create the world and they say "6 days!"

Does that help any?

I did notice that you completely skirted around my questions -- all of them!

So how about it? Be scientist and address the issue!

Thanks,

-Jesse
224 posted on 02/23/2009 8:35:55 PM PST by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse
Do you really believe that there was nothing and then the vacuum fluctuated and bang, all the sudden matter came into existence? (Or that matter came into existence from nothing any other way?) If a impressionable youngster who looked up to you asked you "Did all matter really come to be from absolutely nothing with a big bang due to natural process?" would you say "Yes"?

I'm aware of lots of conjectures about what caused the big bang ore what happened "before," but I'm not aware of any positive assertions that would show up in a textbook as fact. Much of what shows up on TV science channels has been scripted by the science equivalent of ad writers. The shows are designed to attract an audience rather than to educate.

It is much safer to talk about the history of the universe after the big bang than before.

225 posted on 02/24/2009 6:26:03 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse

>>I am teaching science, (but not at public school) and as a matter of fact I start each class off with reading a couple of verses from Genesis and if a video I’m showing talks about the earth being millions of years old, I stop the DVD and ask my students how long it really took God to create the world and they say “6 days!<<

Millions? Is that a typo?


226 posted on 03/01/2009 10:35:39 PM PST by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

>>>>I am teaching science, (but not at public school) and as a matter of fact I start each class off with reading a couple of verses from Genesis and if a video I’m showing talks about the earth being millions of years old, I stop the DVD and ask my students how long it really took God to create the world and they say “6 days!<<<<

>>Millions? Is that a typo?<<

Nope. “Millions” (plural) means two or more million. So “billions” contains at least a thousand millions. And the fact is that in the 1800s, the “calculations” for the age of the earth were often less then a billion, sometimes even around 20 million.

And much of the videos I use in my class are from the 1950’s and it is entirely possible that they would use the phrase “millions of years” when referring to the age of the earth - so it made perfect sense for me to use the more broad word who’s definition is “Two or more millions.”

Does that help?

By the way, I don’t know what your field is, but mine is electronics and other physical sciences. I’m used to science being a knowable demonstrable thing. How do you feel about evolutionary science (as in All From Nothing and All Species By Evolution) - how can I or anyone else know it to be true rather then taking it purely on faith? Having grown up on a small family farm, I well know that the livestock never gives birth to an exact identical copy of itself (or at least they never did on my family’s farm!) so if we take the word “evolution” to just mean “change” — then yeah I’ve seen evolution. That’s the kind I have seen. But the alleged fact that the dog and the goat (even though they both bark up trees (Except the goat eats the bark)) are related is the other kind of evolution - that which I have not seen and that kind of evolution I can at best take by pure faith.

Or do you think that the level of faith required, for example, AC/DC theory is just the same as that required for ASBE/AFN (All Species By Evolution, All From Nothing)?

Thanks,

-Jesse

PS: I tried to find a chart of how old the earth was in 1950 but I could not find any such thing in my admittedly brief search.


227 posted on 03/02/2009 8:52:54 PM PST by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Said js1138: I'm aware of lots of conjectures about what caused the big bang ore what happened "before,"..

You mean like, for example, the conjectures that Berkeley is teaching?

They quite clearly describe the vacuum as having fluctuated and creating a singularity. Now pardon me, but this is obviously what Berkeley teaches - are you telling me that Berkeley isn't teaching their students that? The fact is that schools from gradeschools to universities across the country are teaching that the big bang is the best theory and is believed to be true, and you are trying to downplay it because you know it's absurd but you still don't want to appear to be butting heads with decades of science.

but I'm not aware of any positive assertions that would show up in a textbook as fact.

Again, you've got to be kidding if you're telling me that schools aren't teaching the big bang as how all matter was created, and that all came from nothing. Even my old Principles of Physics Fourth Edition by Bueche says in chapter 28 "... Astrophysics is greatly hampered by the lack of our ability to perform the really crucial experiments. The most important act of all, the formation of the universe, was performed several billion years ago and is still going on. ..." The book does caution the reader that many of our interpretations (of the origin of the universe) may later proved incorrect. Of course the book is probably a couple billion years old, since it was written between 1965 and 1982. But it does assert that the formation of the universe was performed several billion years ago..!

Much of what shows up on TV science channels has been scripted by the science equivalent of ad writers. The shows are designed to attract an audience rather than to educate.

Ironically, I had actually provided you a link in my post pointing directly to what Berkeley teaches about the big bang - and rather then addressing what a university has to say about it, you go rambling on about TV shows? I guess that's a straw man for ya!

It is much safer to talk about the history of the universe after the big bang than before.

Well if you really believed that then how come you didn't respond to my other questions in the same post -- like the questions as to whether you really believe that life came from non-life even though it's never been seen?

And I also asked about how you deal with the problem that the only way I or any thinking person can believe that ASBE (All Species By Evolution) is true is to take it on pure faith.

Anyway, I'm glad you're not teaching science.

(Even if you were teaching, it wouldn't be true science that you're teaching. It'd be a bunch of speculation that you couldn't demonstrate to anyone ever. [double wide grin])

Have a nice day anyway,

-Jesse
228 posted on 03/03/2009 10:20:28 PM PST by mrjesse (The big bang and dark matter exist only in black holes that are supposed to be full of gray matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]


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