Posted on 02/28/2006 4:05:45 AM PST by PatrickHenry
House lawmakers scuttled a bill that would have required public school students to be told that evolution is not empirically proven - the latest setback for critics of evolution.
The bill's sponsor, Republican state Sen. Chris Buttars, had said it was time to rein in teachers who were teaching that man descended from apes and rattling the faith of students. The Senate earlier passed the measure 16-12.
But the bill failed in the House on a 28-46 vote Monday. The bill would have required teachers to tell students that evolution is not a fact and the state doesn't endorse the theory.
Rep. Scott Wyatt, a Republican, said he feared passing the bill would force the state to then address hundreds of other scientific theories - "from Quantum physics to Freud" - in the same manner.
"I would leave you with two questions," Wyatt said. "If we decide to weigh in on this part, are we going to begin weighing in on all the others and are we the correct body to do that?"
Buttars said he didn't believe the defeat means that most House members think Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is correct.
"I don't believe that anybody in there really wants their kids to be taught that their great-grandfather was an ape," Buttars said.
The vote represents the latest loss for critics of evolution. In December, a federal judge barred the school system in Dover, Pa., from teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in high school biology classes.
Also last year, a federal judge ordered the school system in suburban Atlanta's Cobb County to remove from biology textbooks stickers that called evolution a theory, not a fact.
Earlier this year, a rural California school district canceled an elective philosophy course on intelligent design and agreed never to promote the topic in class again.
But critics of evolution got a boost in Kansas in November when the state Board of Education adopted new science teaching standards that treat evolution as a flawed theory, defying the view of science groups.
All of this has been considered and reconsidered for over three hundred years. You would know this if you actually cared enough to read the history of geology.
This is why I believe you are personally and intellectually dishonest. You accuse long dead people of having anti-Christian motives -- all the time knowing nothing about them or what they said or how they reasoned. You assume that geologists made up their chronology to fit an atheistic agenda -- an assertion absolutely contrary to fact. You assert that geology was rigged to conform to Darwinism, when in fact it was Darwin and his predecessors in biology who learned about evolution from geology.
You make inane assertions about fish in the fossil record without knowing anything at all about the record.
This is just flat out dishonesty. You will say anything, no mater how much it discredits yourself and you faith.
What I said, which happens to be the truth, is that there has **never** been a fossilized fish (or any other vertebrate) in **any** lower-to-middle Cambrian fossil bed. Not in Canada, Greenland, China, anywhere.
Why should one necessarily expect to find fossilized fish in this location...
Because it's in the ocean. There are arthropods, priapulid worms, annelid worms, chordates, echinoderms, sponges, molluscs, all sorts of things you'd expect in the ocean.
But no fish. No evidence of any sort of vertebrate.
...unless he assumes this formation took place over a long period of time and demonstrates a history of life forms from the simple to the more complex?
I don't get this last remark.
The point is, IF fish had already been created, along with everything else, before the "Flood", AND if the fossil beds are remnants of said "Flood", THEN one should expect at least an occasional fish.
Not really, as I'm itching to answer them!
The whole, is, made of of parts.
I think it's your IMpersonal integrity that's a bit suspicious! ;^)
Rejection of the biblical texts has been going on for much longer than that. It is wishful thinking on the part of yourself and others to find a geological record that is contrary to the biblical texts. Three hundred years worth of carefully prepared propaganda cannot take away a global record of sudden death by sedimentary and aquatic processes.
The evidence for global deluge is there, as is the evidence for intelligent design, but your biases cause you to be blind to the same. So much so, that this alternative picture must be scoffed at and ridiculed, not merely questioned; that those who prefer to view the evidence as supportive of the biblical texts must be called "liars" and "fanatics," rather than merely people who prefer to view the evidence upon the basis of a text outside of themselves and their own experience.
As far as discrediting myself and my faith, I should hardly expect these to find "credit" from people like yourself who reject biblical texts from the start. I am not interested in that kind of credibility; the kind that relies upon your acceptance, your emotions, and your complete lack of foundation in anything but your own reason and strength. No thanks. Your judgments mean nothing to me. They have no basis. I know Whose judgment counts. You do not.
Check your logic carefully and get back to me. Also, be prepared to answer the question as to wheher fish fossils are found on a worldwide scale.
And here are a few more questions: How much of the Burgess shale has been studied? How do you know the assignment of "Cambrian" to this or that layer of sediment is not arbitrary? What explanation would be given in a case where a vertebrate fossil would be found in sediment similar to the Burgess shale? Would it be considered "impossible?" Would belief in a global deluge suddenly become for you a "scientific" reality?
A global deluge laying down the geolgocial can be ruled out before even bothering to figure out how old the earth is. The data is just straight out incompatible with it.
http://www.indiana.edu/~jah/teaching/2001_03/
Here you go. Thanks for the reminder. Cough-ee helps. ;)
The whole is made up of its parts.
So very true and you underscore my point.
Also, be prepared to answer the question as to wheher fish fossils are found on a worldwide scale.
AFAIK they are. Why?
How much of the Burgess shale has been studied?
I don't know. But I imagine it's enough to be a fairly representative sample. Also, keep in mind that there are similar fossil beds in China, Greenland, and other places, which have similar (but not identical) fauna.
None of them have yielded any vertebrate remains
How do you know the assignment of "Cambrian" to this or that layer of sediment is not arbitrary?
"The Burgess Shale was discovered in 1907 by the preeminent Cambrian Paleontologist of the era, Charles Walcott. At the time, he was Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution..." Source
I'm not sure how Walcott concluded it was middle Cambrian. (My guess would be index fossils found worldwide). Keep in mind that the geologic column had been investigated for over a century by this time, and that there really isn't any doubt about the assignment. Also remember that the actual age of the rocks is immaterial here; only the relative ages are needed. The absolute dating wasn't finalized until after the discovery of isotopes, etc.
What explanation would be given in a case where a vertebrate fossil would be found in sediment similar to the Burgess shale? Would it be considered "impossible?"
Yes, it is impossible under standard biology. One of the potential falsifications of the ToE is the "Precambrian rabbit"; a Cambrian vertebrate is just as good.
As a practical matter, the provenance of the fossil would be scrutinized, to make sure there weren't any hoaxers in the neighborhood; remember the carved man tracks next to the dino tracks in Texas, the "Malachite man", and even our old pal Piltdown? Also, it would have to be independently dated. If it passed all these tests, I'm not sure how the theory would be changed, or even if it could be salvaged.
Would belief in a global deluge suddenly become for you a "scientific" reality?
No. It would only change or destroy the ToE; the geological data would still show that there was no "Flood"
My question WRT logic is why it is necessary for vertebrate remains to be present is every fossil bed, and how their absence ipso facto negates the possibility of a world-wide deluge.
Did you know there is some question even after a couple centuries of investigation that such thing as a "geologic column" exists? Maybe "Cambrian" is defined by the absence of vertebrates so that, where vertebrates are found, it is no longer a Cambrian bed. IMO too much circular reasoning attends to dating fossils. Nevertheless, I would be loath to suggest that those who pursue this field necessarily do so to spite the biblical texts.
According to the ToE, none will ever be found...
What I said, which happens to be the truth, is that there has **never** been a fossilized fish (or any other vertebrate) in **any** lower-to-middle Cambrian fossil bed. Not in Canada, Greenland, China, anywhere.
In this study, we illustrate an exceptionally well-preserved Haikouichthys ercaicunensis from the Lower Cambrian Chengjiang fauna that displays complete single dorsal, ventral and caudal fins. This 530-million-year old vertebrate is fish-shaped and characterized by a single median fin-fold, which is an essential trait of the initial vertebrate chordates. The radially orientated ray-like structures in its dorsal fin somewhat resemble but are probably not real radials seen in basal vertebrates, such as hagfishes and lampreys. The unique design of primitive fins and fin structures provides additional insights into the early evolution of vertebrates. Evidence for a single median fin-fold and tail in the Lower Cambrian vertebrate, Haikouichthys ercaicunensis
Cordially,
That cartoon is actually a wonderful metaphor for how Jews view Christians.
:-)
"The bill's sponsor, Republican state Sen. Chris Buttars, had said it was time to rein in teachers who were teaching that man descended from apes and rattling the faith of students. "
The people of Utah elected this idiot?
When you have ignorant legislatures like that B guy it is a wonder that kids learn anything. Imagine saying that we came from apes.
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.