Posted on 04/05/2005 7:42:56 AM PDT by bedolido
Wrong.
"I see neither a necessity nor a possibility of a nexus between insecticides and evolution."
Then you know nothing about science.
Evolution has correctly predicted and/or explained a huge number of things in many areas of biology and medicine, not just one.
There is no such distinction (i.e. there is no such theory as "micro-evolution"). The idea of "micro-evolution" is a weasel-word concept because the creationists CANNOT deny the facts of genetic change caused by the mutation/natural selection mechanism---so they try to have it both ways by coining new language.
There is only evolution---not "micro evolution and species change" as two separate issues.
Why are evolution and creationism at odds. Creation is open for interpretation.
Understood. Again, I never saw religion and science as addressing the same topics, in the same way, in any event.
My boys learn much more in science class now than ever before and GOD is the center and creator of this world's wonders. There is no contradiction between creation and science in these textbooks. Quite the contrary: God made science and we can use it to observe the awesome power of his creation.
I am amazed at His creation and dumbfounded that a scientist wouldn't be.
At least the reporter noticed this. DI's (now openly stated) purpose is to destroy the idea that scientific inquiry is a valid method of obtaining knowledge. In this aim, they have powerfull allies such as the postmoderndeconstructionists, the new-agers, and scientologists to name a few.
Spiced Ham attack?
bump
You teach evolution too, right?
Evolution- Like that some wolves evolved into dogs. That's proven.
I am willing to listen (and have to decades) to the other side of the evolution argument. However, I see a looooooong list of contradictions and inaccuracies that Darwinists refuse to address. That is BAD science.
God created our intellect and we should pursue our science with all vigor . . . but not refuse to acknowledge things that don't fit with our "theory" just because it may require admitting "something higher" than man exists.
"A day is but a thousand years, and a thousand years is but a day".
Quantum physicist have discovered time is a dimensional thing. There are 7 "heavens", and there are "dimensions" found in modern science. Once a molecule switches dimensions, time changes. Even going faster than the speed of light changes time.
My kids do study macro-evolution also but only to the point that they understand the theory. They know that it is a theory and has countless holes that have not been resolved.
Here's part you don't grasp about homeshcooling: this is MY school and it will reflect my beliefs. That's why I homeschool. If you don't like my teaching - don't send your kids to my house! Notice that my school, unlike public schools, is willing to inform its students of theories that contradict our core beliefs! I don't have to but do, public schools should but don't.
Now, as for public schools . . . they use my money to shovel bad science to kids who swallow it whole and ignore ID as if it doesn't exist as an alternate theory.
We do home school. We always have. We're going on 10 years of teaching our own, and the kids just keep coming! We don't want atheism forced on our kids by the federal government.
If they taught both "theories", maybe things would get safer and better in the public schools. In the mean time, the kids are killing themselves and each other, and the poor things can't even read!
Such as? List them and I'll address them.
Prediction: You will respond with a list of misrepresentations about science from creationist sources, not actual "contradictions and inaccuracies" that "Darwinists refuse to address".
A powerful and scientific defense of the indefensible!
I believe that was one of the favorite defenses of Bill Clinton: Just leave him alone.
Strike one: Domestic dogs are not members of C. lupus. And "macroevolution" is equally "provable/observable" -- you're doing your kids a huge disservice if you falsely tell them that it's not.
My kids do study macro-evolution also but only to the point that they understand the theory. They know that it is a theory and has countless holes that have not been resolved.
Such as? Let's see if you're teaching your children science -- or propaganda.
Here's part you don't grasp about homeshcooling: this is MY school and it will reflect my beliefs. That's why I homeschool. If you don't like my teaching - don't send your kids to my house! Notice that my school, unlike public schools, is willing to inform its students of theories that contradict our core beliefs! I don't have to but do, public schools should but don't.
Just be sure you're not crippling your kids' education by teaching them creationist misinformation.
Now, as for public schools . . . they use my money to shovel bad science to kids who swallow it whole and ignore ID as if it doesn't exist as an alternate theory.
Most creationist homeschooling curricula are prime examples of "shoveling bad science to kids who swallow it whole". You wouldn't be using Kent Hovind's materials, would you?
Home schooling is not easy (though my much-better-half does most of the teaching/grading) and takes dedication. We are of the same mind in that we have decided that our kids are worth the cost!
By-the-way, we have been using the Abeka system exclusively this year. My sister-in-law selects her texts from multiple curriculums. There are any number of ways to do this and being new at it, I need input. Any suggestions for this "newbie" homeschooling dad?
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.