Posted on 07/27/2006 3:00:03 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
Well, I'm glad I homeschool.
Yup, they can read it all in context at the thread.
You missed the point of this thread - please re-read the article. Nothing to support ID / Creation Theories in public schools - nada, zilch, zippo!
Just maybe possibly a public acknowledgement of the tens (if not hundreds) of holes in the Darwinian and evolutionary theorems.
That they can. But why don't you save everyone the trouble by pointing out the posts that you disagree with the most?
I would think that it would be better to prove those you disagree with wrong/incorrect rather than try to silence them yet you appear to wish to silence those you disagree with.
Why?
Lots of responses on talk.origins. This was posted there today. Take a look, but you won't like them.
What holes are you referring to?
"What are Darwinists so afraid of?" I think it has something to do with hating God, loving power, being
found wanting in evidence, and generally a superiority
complex. It's kind of hard to have evidence supporting
something as vast as the universe coming from nothing.
Which is a total contradiction to scientific theory.
...that they're wrong.
Its called the Bible. Superceeded Darwin by many thousands of years.
There is no fear ehen you are correct. Darwin is correct.
Looks you have someone stalking onto this thread because of disagreements on another. Not unusual for the Creationists; they do that a lot.
The Bible is not a science book.
Don't stalk.
Creationism fails on every level, but for different reasons.
First level, that the Earth was created in 4004 B.C. That is, based on the 17th Century math of an Anglican Archbishop in Ireland. Even if you like the idea, check the math. We know a heck of a lot more about bibical times now than a non-scholar making a guess did in 17th Century Ireland. And he wasn't even an Evangelical.
Second level, okay, earlier than 4004 B.C., but still in seven days, not about 4.5 billion years. Nothing else that complex happens in the observed universe that fast. Nothing. Plus the fact that humans weren't there in the first place to record it happening.
Third level, that it was a long time in the making, but that for some reason, humans have been around since the beginning of it, and coexisted with dinosaurs. This idea is utterly useless. It isn't bibical and it isn't evolutionary. Why anyone proposes it in the first place is just silly.
And finally, fourth level, that some intelligence is responsible for it all. This just doesn't matter. Even if there is, it is not scientific, or else you do not understand science.
A good analogy to science is chess. You play chess by the rules of chess, or you are not playing chess. When you have played a game of chess, all you have done is play a game of chess. It has no deeper meaning to extrapolate.
Science also has rules. If you follow those rules, then what you have done is scientific. If you do not, then it is not scientific. Much knowledge is not, nor can be scientific, because it cannot be analyzed using the rules of science.
When evolution is taught in school, it is taught as a science. And it follows the rules of science, and can be criticized scientifically. But at no time does a higher intelligence enter into science, because it is a variable that cannot be analyzed, or experimented with, or discarded, proven or disproven.
And therefore higher intelligence is extraneous to science.
If I flip a coin 100 times in an experiment, and all 100 times it comes up heads, I must assume that either the coin or my flipping of it is the cause of the anomaly. I cannot scientifically even consider that an angel is directing the coin to fall that way. It is simply not an issue, because I cannot see any angel, or order it to stop interfering, or lock it out of the room. Nor can anyone else flip the coin and expect the same result, because I cannot guarantee that the angel will do the same for them.
Therefore, I completely ignore the possibility of there being an angel. It doesn't matter. And though I will note the anomaly, I will keep flipping the same coin, and a different coin, and in a different way, until the angel becomes bored and moves on, and the coin flips fit their predicted pattern again.
And the important thing is that it *will* fit the same curve of probability as if the angel wasn't there in the first place. Because it is possible to flip 100 heads in a row. Not likely, but possible.
So evolution is a science. So is chemistry and physics. History is not. It is a study. So is political "science". The latter two do not follow the rules of science, but this does not mean they are wrong.
So call creationism a study, but do not call it a science.
And since it is a study, it can be taught in school like evolution, but not in the same class, because the two are incompatible subjects, as much as teaching the "democrat version of chemistry".
Really?
I didn't realize that very many climatologist had authored papers on the topic of evolution.
Perhaps you could be kind enough to provide references to such papers?
I see one poster posting facts and getting attacked as a troll.
Good read
....and the THEORT of Evolution is not PROVEN fact!
The more I read the more I see evidence that evolutionists are willing to fake their evidence - moreso than with any other scientific theory. They also willfully ignore a lot that they simply can't explain reasonably.
To what other 'moreso' scientific theories are you referring?
BTW, in the spirit of your post, I'd like to add that I've yet to see any arguments, including yours that, were anything other than ignorant unsubstantiated wishful assertions based on fanatical anti-science religious beliefs, not shared by the leaders of the vast majority of most Christian religions.
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.