Posted on 04/08/2010 8:07:40 AM PDT by christianhomeschoolmommaof3
Agreed public schools should not be teaching religion and they shouldn’t be saying that it is myth.
Let’s be honest, you did not refute my 14 points because you can’t, and your argument is from personal incredulity because you ignore the mountains of evidence that does not support your belief and you personally find the premise unlikely or unbelievable.
Yes, let's do just that.
Age estimates are obtained by observing differences between the DNA of different individuals, and are calculated using estimates of mutation rates. Mitochondrial DNA is often used for this; it is separate from the bulk of the human DNA, which is found in the cell nucleus. Mitochondrial DNA has about 16,000 base pairs and mutates, apparently, much faster than the nuclear DNA. Human mitochondrial DNA has been completely mapped, and all the coding regions are known, and the proteins or RNA for which they code. Some of the mitochondrial DNA does not code for anything, and is known as a control region. This region appears to mutate faster than any other region, because the variation among humans is greatest here.
Recently, mitochondrial DNA mutation rates were measured directly (Parsons, Thomas J., et al., A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region, Nature Genetics vol. 15, April 1997, pp. 363-367). The mutation rate in a segment of the control region of mitochondrial DNA was directly measured by comparing mitochondrial DNA from siblings and from parents and their offspring. Mitochondrial DNA was found to mutate about 20 times faster than previously thought, at a rate of one mutation (substitution) every 33 generations, approximately. In this section of the control region, which has about 610 base pairs, humans typically differ from one another by about 18 mutations. By simple mathematics, it follows that the human race is about 300 generations old. If one assumes a typical generation is about 20 years, this gives an age of about 6000 years.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/humanity.html
"Mitochondrial DNA was found to mutate about 20 times faster than previously thought, at a rate of one mutation (substitution) every 33 generations, approximately. In this section of the control region, which has about 610 base pairs, humans typically differ from one another by about 18 mutations. By simple mathematics, it follows that the human race is about 300 generations old."
Your response?
I didn’t say it was the best argument to make.
;o)
If you would like to see my refutation of points that you and others have made please research my posting history. I haven’t the time or the desire to do it again. Think what you like and have a good day.
:)
ping.
While other creation stories speak of turtles carrying the sun, chariots, and other mystical creatures, the Genesis story is a rational explanation that does indeed closely mirror what scientists know to be true about the origins of our universe the appearance and order of life on earth culminating in man.
We must remember that Genesis was directed to a primitive audience. If any atheist were challenged to explain ( in less than 400 words) to a very primitive people of today how the universe, earth, and man came to be could he do a better job than Genesis? I doubt it. An atheist's explanation would have just as much of a magical flavor as Genesis.
Finally....We must begin the process of closing down all government K-12 schooling. This is the only possible solution toward ending these endless battles over curriculum and policies.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE A RELIGIOUSLY NEUTRAL EDUCATION!!! This is axiomatic and one the major reasons why government must get completely out of the education business. Fundamentally, all government schooling is a First Amendment and freedom of conscience abomination.
I agree. If they had simply not mentioned it at all, that would have been different.
But to actively go out of their way to take a stand in a science textbook on a topic which scientists say that science cannot speak on because it's out of the realm of what science can address, is the height of hypocrisy.
Not a slip. Just intentional
The long and short of it is that I (and probably many others) have no doubt that they deliberately used the term *myth* in the book, knowing exactly what was implied by it and knowing exactly the kind of reaction it would produce.
There is no excuse for that kind of provocation from a group who prides themselves in objectivity. Scientists and evos continually tell us that science only deals with the *real* world and that is not capable of speaking on matters of faith, and yet turn around and proceed to do so, just like in this case.
They're hypocrites.
Liberals: Always trying to ban or censor something, yet, they are the ones that scream, “Fascist!”
If they want to present their scientific evidence for evolution that is one thing. Calling creationism a myth is not scientific inquiry.
Exactly. If scientists and evos demand that science textbooks just stick to science by not adding the teaching of creation, then they need to follow that policy and not teach about it at all.
If evos are going to be so adamant about teaching for creation in science textbooks, they need to not be such hypocrites and deliberately teach against it.
Since when did science decide to take upon itself the authority to speak on the veracity of religious beliefs?
For the umpteenth time, creationists are not introducing creationism in schools as if this is a new concept and strategy to sneak religion into schools.
Creation was taught in public schools for centuries, those centuries when tremendous strides were being made in the sciences and technology. The teaching of creation only in schools clearly never hurt the scientific progress made up through the beginning of the 20th century.
While I don’t object to teaching both creation and evolution in the schools, what creationists want is that creation be added BACK into the schools, as it had once been taught before the atheists and evos forced it out through litigation.
It’s more than hypocritical for evos and atheists to complain about forcing Christian religious views on others and then turn around and do the very thing they condemn in others, that is force THEIR atheist worldview on others. If it’s not acceptable for Christians to force their worldview on those who don’t share it, then it’s NOT acceptable for atheists to force their worldview on those who don’t share their worldview.
Stop being such hypocrites.
Who cares? Is what he says set in stone?
How do you know it's just a myth?
What's your evidence to support that contention?
On the contrary, you are the one conflating the terms *evolution* and *variation within species*
The typical knee jerk evolutionist reaction to someone who disagrees with their interpretation of the fossil record to to tell them that they're ignorant and don't understand evolution and then lecture them about what they think others need to know.
Hello. We understand what evolutionists claim evolution states and we still disagree with it, even though that concept is completely beyond your comprehension.
At one time the doctrine that the universe had a beginning was flatly contradicted by *modern science*. And your point is?
As long as it's a public school, I don't want the government to teach any religious doctrine.
Fine. Then don't go putting into allegedly science textbooks that Biblical creation is a myth because that is teaching a religious doctrine.
The book should not be used.
Likely she didn’t read your evo spam for the same reason I didn’t. We already know what you’re going to say and that still doesn’t show that we don’t understand evolution just because we disagree with it.
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.