Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Christian Teacher in Ohio Battles Tyrannical Evolution Pushers
scottfactor.com ^ | 04/17/12 | Gina Miller

Posted on 04/17/2012 4:27:49 AM PDT by scottfactor

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-229 next last
To: MrB
Well “special” creationism formed as a movement in opposition to a scientific theory - and modern creationists are in opposition to the theories of plate, geology, astronomy, physics, archeology, paleontology and any number of OTHER scientific disciplines.

So yes Virginia - Creationists are anti-science. The only type of science they like is “Creation Science” which is not science at all as its methodology is in direct opposition to the scientific method.

Moreover it is to be expected that Creationists are not very conversant or knowledgeable about science - as the less educated someone is - the more likely they are to be a creationist.

That being said - creationists cannot seem to help sounding like total idiots talking about theories being “unproven” and offering up inane idiocy like “if humans evolved from apes - why are there still apes?”.

That is the general level of knowledge about science and evolution we have to deal with from people on the creationist side.

21 posted on 04/17/2012 12:50:31 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: metmom
No metmom, the theory of evolution does not take a position on the existence of God.

Do you think the theory of nuclear fusion takes a position on the existence of God because it describes a physical means whereby God can create a star? Does the creation of stars through nuclear fusion mean that God did not create that star?

Not just atheist and humanists accept the theory of evolution; we have, for example, Pope Benedict XVI.

22 posted on 04/17/2012 12:55:03 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
modern creationists are in opposition to the theories of plate, geology, astronomy, physics, archeology, paleontology and any number of OTHER scientific disciplines

because you say so.

23 posted on 04/17/2012 12:58:20 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Anyone who knows the first thing about the theory of evolution knows that it has been repeatedly disproved by all the evidence available. Evolution is supposed to have happened very slowly over billions of years but actually the fossil record shows that doesn’t happen. The theory of evolution does not even begin to explain the diversity of life on Earth. It’s wrong, plain and simple.


24 posted on 04/17/2012 1:02:55 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Because THEY say so.

Instead of plate techtonics creationists have “hydroplate” so called theory.

Instead of astronomy creationists have God “stretching out the Heavens” to account for the billions of light years.

Instead of half-life decay rates to detect the age of objects creationists have “you can't do that!”.

Instead of archeology and linguistics and human genetics to explain differences between human populations creationists have the “Tower of Babel” and the “three sons of Noah”.

Instead of paleontology creationists have a “Global Flood”.

Creationists oppose science because THEY say so Mr. B.

25 posted on 04/17/2012 1:06:43 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

The theory of evolution is nothing more than an lie about how all life came into being accidentally for no reason, with no direction or purpose and not created by any design. The theory of evolution is a psychological crutch for those who have rejected God. They have to believe in evolution because it validates their irrational belief in a Godless meaningless universe.


26 posted on 04/17/2012 1:06:55 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Actually “abiogenesis” is the theory of how life came into being.

Evolution is the theory about how life, once it exists, is subject to change through natural selection of genetic variation.

When the Pope says evolution is a reality that enriches our understanding of life - is that to validate his irrational belief in a Godless meaningless universe?

27 posted on 04/17/2012 1:09:26 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: rfreedom4u

As to the ‘creationists’ using the date of 6000 years ago...for the creation of man, that is sheer ignorance or denial. Right there is a major flaw. I have personally studied, reviewed and encountered prehistoric human ‘remains’ dating well before 6000 years ago. The evolution theory is flawed in many major areas, however the existence of man kind as we know it from the earliest findings shows many adaptive differences and extinctions.

Read about the Cambrian explosion. Evolution cannot account for this. There is nothing in the Bible which states that Genesis must be a tenet of faith. Mankind does so much the bastardizing of the entire Bible and this does not serve God nor what He wishes for or from mankind.


28 posted on 04/17/2012 1:09:41 PM PDT by Dudoight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

You haven’t investigated SQUAT of what creation scientists “say”. You prove it in every thread.

You put up a strawman of what YOU say they say,
then beat the crap out of it, while we sit back and watch your flailing talkinoucherass “arguments”.


29 posted on 04/17/2012 1:13:23 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

The theory of evolution says that all life is descended from one single common ancestor. This absurd claim cannot possibly ever be proved and is a religious belief based entirely on circular logic.


30 posted on 04/17/2012 1:13:55 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

There is nothing in the evolution theory that is antithetical to God. The creationists are antithetical to the existence of mankind.


31 posted on 04/17/2012 1:18:27 PM PDT by Dudoight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: rfreedom4u

evolution is not a theory. it is akin to saying the theor of gravity. This is just a slow motion skopes trial. Farmers have been using natural seclection for millendia. even humans use it when searching for a mate. nobody wants short fat and ugly.


32 posted on 04/17/2012 1:30:47 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Wrong again. The theory of universal common ancestry states that all life is descended from one single common ancestor.

Abiogenesis = a hypothesis about how life could come about through physical means.

Universal Common Ancestry = a theory to explain how all known life shares features of common ancestry.

Evolution = a theory about how life changes in response to selective pressure upon genetic variations within a population.

For the typical Creation story to be true - all terrestrial life had to have come from those few species that could fit on a boat of known dimensions. This entails semi-universal common ancestry between “kinds”, and speciation and evolution at a rate far beyond that proposed by evolutionary biology.

So the difference seems to be that creationists accept evolution so long as you don't call it evolution, they accept speciation and common descent - but only within a non defined “kind” - and at a very rapid rate.

Do you think mice and rats are the same “kind”?

Are tigers and lions the same “kind” or a different “kind”?

Are old world vultures and new world vultures the same “kind”?

33 posted on 04/17/2012 1:35:52 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Kingdom,
Phylum,
Class,
Order,
Family,
Genus,
Species


34 posted on 04/17/2012 1:42:39 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MrB; allmendream; Tailgunner Joe
@MrB: Well, a cursory Google search reveals stuff about hydroplate.

@Tailgunner Joe: The interesting thing is that the straight meaning of evolution is directional change, progress if you will (though what that progress is pointing towards, well, that's beyond our understanding); rather, the whole thing with evolution (as described as a scientific theory) is about adapting to one's environment so as to better reproduce.

Fittingly, any Darwinist that tries to assert the superiority of his theory immediately falls out of step with the Darwinian ideal, for how can one utilize an absolute standard if your criteria are dependent upon location and circumstance (for some reason, it's no longer clear to some that absolutes are universal).

35 posted on 04/17/2012 1:43:19 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007 (Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Kingdom,
Phylum,
Class,
Order,
Family,
Genus,
Species

The Animal …Kingdom
sharing with all other members of this group the need to feed on organic matter (unlike plants which can create energy using light and minerals)

The Chordate (or vertebrate) … Phylum
sharing with all other members of this group of animals, a back bone with a hollow nerve chord

The Mammal … Class
sharing with all other members of this group of vertebrates, the ability to feed their offspring on milk and having a body covering which includes fur

The Primate … Order
Sharing with all other members of this group of mammals, a thumb that can be opposed to the other digits, binocular vision and various more broadly defined characteristics (including high intelligence, relatively long maturation period for the young, dental similarities, tendency for complex social organization, and generally bearing one or two young)

The Lemuridae … Family
Sharing with other members of this group of primates, a slightly longer nose, smaller brain, long slender limbs, a tail, more specific dental features including the grooming comb formed by the lower incisor and canine teeth

The Lemur … Genus
Sharing with other members of this group of lemurs, scent marking methods, vocalizations, aspects of social structure and overall body shape

The Ring-tailed Lemur … Species

http://www.tigerhomes.org/animal/curriculums/lemurs-4.cfm


36 posted on 04/17/2012 1:43:40 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
You are the one who is wrong. Without universal common ancestry the entire theory of evolution falls apart. If all species are not descended from one common ancestor then why would we assume that any species are? When you take away the false premise of this assumption all the rest of the assumptions of the theory of evolution fall away as well. The evidence shows that life changes and adapts, but it does not show that one species evolves into another species.
37 posted on 04/17/2012 2:06:16 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

then no farmer could ever have bread a prize bull.

the modern banana would not exist.

corn would not be that long yellow ear but a short stubby miscolored earthtone.

Dog shows would not allow new breeds.

I find it interesting that the religious arguments are entirely based on the conclusion that no science can exist before god. While the science does not require the absence of god.


38 posted on 04/17/2012 2:18:11 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Wrong. Evolution could easily happen and be happening if life arose independently more than once and descended along two independent lines. The evidence doesn't suggest it did, but if it did, evolution is in no way dependent upon all life sharing common ancestry.

Evolution is inevitable in any living system that uses DNA as its genetic material.

We have observed speciation. One species can evolve into different species and it has been observed in the lab and in nature.

If you don't accept speciation - how did every single terrestrial species fit on the Ark? Don't most creationists think that one rodent “kind” could give rise to all contemporaneous rodent species?

39 posted on 04/17/2012 2:18:36 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: MrB

I’ll start!

“The other side sux!”


40 posted on 04/17/2012 2:56:03 PM PDT by Mr. K (If Romney wins the primary, I am writing-in PALIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-229 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
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson