Posted on 12/20/2005 7:54:38 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
Fox News alert a few minutes ago says the Dover School Board lost their bid to have Intelligent Design introduced into high school biology classes. The federal judge ruled that their case was based on the premise that Darwin's Theory of Evolution was incompatible with religion, and that this premise is false.
And you have no proof of evolution. Show me one proof that man came from a lower form. Show me one proof of any evolving species. Show me one proof of any species evolving into something else. I can show you that God created each separately and created everything at maturity. Your evolution is as much accepted by faith as my faith tells me God is the Intelligent Designer.
I hope you don't tell your children they came from muck and goo. Because if you do, eventually they will begin to act that way. That's the trouble with many people in our society. They have lost hope. Anyone would if they thought they came from primordial sloop. You are just playing into the hands of the secular humanists and their religion of evolution.
Belief gets in the way of learning.Evolution and other sciences deal in evidence, not proof. If you want proof, try mathematics, photography, or a good Irish whiskey.Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
We can show you a great deal of evidence supporting evolution, but from your post you would, and indeed, could, not see it. But if you are interested, I would be happy to present some evidence and see what you think.
Examples would be nice. Whhat I don't understand is how a creationist could possible conclude that Piltdown or any other find is a hoax or fraud. On what basis?
You have completely avoided what we were discussing which is that 'fairy tale', that you seem to like spreading around, concerning Charles Darwin and his 'recant' of evolution...in spite of the links given you, by other posters on this thread to provide information about this being a false story, in spite of my specifically researching this story, and finding a Darwin biographer of 20yrs, who probably did get to the root of this story, still you continue to spread a false story...
And yet you do not address this...instead you go into some weird, odd-ball couple of worthless sentences, questioning me about whether or not I tell my children that they come from the muck and goo...You understanding of evolution is really infantile, if you think that is what evolution states...you do need to go to Patrick Henrys List-o-Links and educate yourself a little bit, as to what evolution actually does say...No one who believes in evolution tells them that they came from the muck or goo...anyone who knows even the smallest, most trivial thing about evolution, knows that evolution does not concern itself about how life began...since you obviously dont even grasp that much, and since you believe something someone told you a long time ago, and failed to research it, I guess you just dont want to concern yourself with facts...
Now, I dont know if you have children or not, but let me ask you...would you 'lie' to your children about this Charles Darwin recant, in an effort to reinforce your beliefs?...
Do note, that by constantly spreading around the story of Darwins recanting the theory of evolution, you are spreading a 'lie', which is of course, the same as saying that you are lying...
Your dodge and weave trick did not work...avoid responding to the research that was done about Charles Darwins recant, and hope it will just go away...well, it wont...
And it was very worthwhile to me, to do this research, which was actually done by me, in your first response on this thread, about how Darwin recanted his theory...I did do the research, and I printed it out on this thread for all to see...
So altho you did not see anything productive in it, I am sure the lurkers do...
What they see from you, is a lot of sputtering...
They don't mind using science, but only when it fits their worldview. If the Shroud of Turin turns out to be 2,000 years old, they'll accept radiometric dating for that one purpose. But not for dating fossils, and certainly not -- gasp! -- for determining the age of the earth.
Similarly, they'll go with science if it shows that some fossil isn't what it was once thought to be. But not for the purpose of showing that millions of other fossils are what they purport to be.
You got a problem wid dat?
Oh, and by the way, about my children....my older boy, died many years ago...but before he died, he was a sweet teen-ager, 15yrs old, showed every sign of growing into a fine young man, and had complete confidence that after he did die, God would welcome him home...as I am sure He did..
My younger son is now 31, a wonderful young man, who hardly acts as you describe, as 'coming from the muck and goo'(whatever the heck that means, you need to explain)
Why would you act as if someone who believes in evolution, would raise children who act like they come from the 'muck and goo'?....
Millions of people believe in evolution, and believe in God, and also raise wonderful children...that you would think otherwise, says much about you
I think the people had a right to sue, of course. But the judge should not have intruded himself into deciding curriculum. Nothing now prohibits another judge from deciding curriculum.
My opinion differs from the judge, and the judge unfortunately decided to stick his nose into the decision of local school boards.
I think that is an abuse of judicial power. He has no Constitutional right to do that, in my opinion. The determinative factor is that the Constitution does not give such powers to them.
The Constitution does not give powers of curriculum choices to the federal government. The Constitution specifically PROHIBITS the powers of the feds.
If you want to use "all cases...arising under this Constitution" down to local districts, you're shredding the 10th Amendment.
PH, I meant to ping you to my post #2047, as I made a faux pas, by not pinging you as I mentioned your name, and your List-O-Links...I was trying to encourage Conservative Blonde to take a look at your List-O-Links, in order to get some education about evolution...
I think Conservative Blonde does need some education in this matter as he/she questioned me, as to whether or not I tell my children, that they came from the 'muck and goo', to use Conservative Blondes wording...from this, I can see the Conservative Blonde understands nothing about evolution and thought your List-O-Links might be of assistance, if he/she would take a look....whether or not Conservative Blonde does bother to investigate is another matter...
But PatrickHenry, could you once again, provide a link to the List-O-Links?
Only by virtue of total cop-out. Show me an evolutionist who doesn't think that the entire universe is the result of random events operating within the contraints of physics (and nevermind where the physical laws come from).
To the evolutionist, the entire spectrum of the known universe is explained by the same unifying theory "Time and Chance".
Bravo Sierra!
As an evolutionist, what is YOUR belief about the origins of life on Earth?
Seems to me that many people don't seem to think so and must decide for the parents what should and should not be taught in school. It IS their tax dollars and it IS their children. They are basically hiring the school to provide a service for them, albeit unwillingly in the form of forced taxes, and if that's the case the parents should have say in what their children are being taught.
Which parents?
The "tyrany" of the majority over the minority?
The "tyrany" of the minority over the majority?
Who decides?
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.