Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Professor of new creationism course criticized for e-mail
The Morning Sun {Pittsburg Kansas} ^ | November 25 2005 | AP author unknown

Posted on 11/25/2005 6:19:05 AM PST by labette

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-162 next last
To: Coyoteman
Son, I "is" a scientist.

OK. Since you bring this up, and you don't have to, what do you study?

141 posted on 11/27/2005 10:56:21 AM PST by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Post #140:

You changed the word. I stated "evos" in quotes. I never said anything about scientists. An "evo" may actually have a job as a scientist of some sort. Most don't. "Evos" are people who see this issue as one where by they use science to participate in religious argument and the like. The interest is not the science or evidence for its own sake but for bashing Christians or other beliefs.

That is what I meant by learn what a scientist is as opposed to an "evo".

Post #137:

Learn what is analogy and learn what is scientist.

First, I didn't change any words. I quoted you exactly. Scientific training, I guess.

I also think that there are quite a few other scientists posting on these threads. Our goal is not to "bash" religion, but to keep ID out of science classes.

This whole fight was started not by scientists, but by the "ID" crowd after CS was removed from science classes by the Supreme Court. They seem to be following The Wedge Strategy of the Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture.

You want to see some real bashing? Take a look at the hatred and, frequently, outright falsehoods some of the CS and ID types throw at evolution and the scientists who study it. There are many examples on these threads.

Finally, I think the number of "evos" on these threads, as you define them, are very few.

142 posted on 11/27/2005 11:06:54 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
No. See 111. My quote:

Of course. It's clear from years of these threads that that is the actual interest of the "evos" much more than studying biology or evolution.

Never did I equate "evo" with scientist. You did that in answering.

143 posted on 11/27/2005 11:11:14 AM PST by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Our goal is not to "bash" religion, but to keep ID out of science classes.

These threads predate any attempt put ID in science classes.

144 posted on 11/27/2005 11:12:05 AM PST by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Son, I "is" a scientist.

OK. Since you bring this up, and you don't have to, what do you study?

Anthropology, but mostly the "hands dirty" fields, archaeology and physical anthropology. Two of my fields for the Ph.D. exams were human osteology and fossil man.

145 posted on 11/27/2005 11:12:28 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
OK, I stand corrected on post #111.

However, I still think there are few of what you define as "evos" on these threads. There are a number of scientists on these threads.

146 posted on 11/27/2005 11:16:36 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Some might consider these fields science :)

I think most here are "evos". I don't see much real understanding of or genuine interest in science.

147 posted on 11/27/2005 11:20:58 AM PST by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: narby; RoadTest; labette; Aetius; Alamo-Girl; AndrewC; Asphalt; betty boop; bondserv; bvw; ...
"It's always amazed me that religious people would seek to criticize evolution by labeling it 'religion'."

You don't understand what religion is. Religion has nothing to do with God; religion is man's way of side-stepping God's commandments to create a god in their own twisted image. Christianity is not religion; It's the only irrefutable reality that exists.

"Are they trying to bring down evolution to their lower level?"

Evolution is the product of the lowest level. It is the result of the desire to live by one's own standards, rather than proven, irrefutable truth.

"Or trying to raise their flimsy faith to the level of a science?"

Is your faith flimsy? - Science is the objective acceptance of the observable. When the observable supports faith, then science requires acceptance of that fact.

148 posted on 11/27/2005 7:47:47 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: narby; The Ghost of FReepers Past
"By definition the supernatural, being outside the ability to observe, can't be studied."

Balderdash! - The supernatural is constantly observed, and it is by far the most studied subject on earth.

149 posted on 11/27/2005 7:51:31 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Thanks for the ping!


150 posted on 11/27/2005 7:51:55 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

well said. Most religions are man-centered rather than God centered. The focus of Christianity is on Christ and Christ's grace rather than Man and man's works. This is what distinguishes Christianity from the rest and makes it more likely to be the true path.


151 posted on 11/27/2005 7:54:39 PM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

What you quoted applies equally well to the whole evolution theory of origins.

The spontaneous generation of life is equally outside the realm of the observable. Yet without that evolution has no chance.


152 posted on 11/27/2005 7:55:55 PM PST by festus (The constitution may be flawed but its a whole lot better than what we have now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
The supernatural is constantly observed, and it is by far the most studied subject on earth.

Good and interesting point

153 posted on 11/27/2005 8:19:27 PM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: narby
You mean they decided that it was OK for the church to sin?

Yes, because Jesus Christ taught that it would happen that way.

Mat 7:22-23
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Or is my contention correct that they merely interpreted the Bible differently, in a way where they believed they were not committing sin?

As you can clearly see, Jesus Christ expects us to understand the correct interpretation. The straightforward one. This is not some kind of game of dial-in-your-preferred-interpretation.

The point is not that some of us can be perfect. The point is that only some of us will recognize that we are imperfect, and ask God for His mercy and grace.

154 posted on 11/27/2005 11:48:29 PM PST by bondserv (God governs our universe and has seen fit to offer us a pardon. †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: labette
Critics of a new course that equates creationism and intelligent design with mythology

Evols don't seem to know the difference between creationism and intelligent design.

Or perhaps it's that they don't WANT to know there is a difference. I've explained the difference more than once on these threads and the evols continue to 'play dumb.'

I really don't understand it. If they were confident that the theory of evolution is solid, they certainly wouldn't display such fear of questions.

Perhaps they are not so confident as they'd like to appear.

155 posted on 11/28/2005 10:29:42 AM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: labette

"The fundies want it all taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category mythology."

Wow, how old is this guy? Three?


156 posted on 11/28/2005 10:47:58 AM PST by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constantine XIII
"The fundies want it all taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face . . . "

Now that this "professor" has suffered one or two slaps to the face certain evos are alarmed at the "disgusting violence so many Christians condone." At the same time, they have little to criticize about a professor who sets up a class specifically intended to ridicule the beliefs of others. It's the perfect opportunity for folks to play the game of self-righteous victim while paiting all Christians with the broad brush of violent ignoramuses.

157 posted on 12/07/2005 6:49:42 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: narby
This is the tragedy of teaching creationism and literal old-testament history. There's just no way to rationalize it with the physical evidence in hand. So what to believe, an old book, with zero physical evidence behind it? Or physical evidence I can hold in my hand?

Firstly, evidence takes many forms, and if you only believe in the type you can hold in your hand, then I pity you for your ignorance.

At one time science said the Bible was wrong, and the Hittites did not exist. However, the Bible was correct, and science wrong.

Time and again the Bible has been proven right and mockers wrong, and you will be too.
158 posted on 12/08/2005 3:59:40 PM PST by GarySpFc (De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc
if you only believe in the type you can hold in your hand, then I pity you for your ignorance. The touchy feely alternative for evidence you can "hold in your hand" isn't sufficient to describe reality. I believe in reality.

At one time science said the Bible was wrong, and the Hittites did not exist. However, the Bible was correct, and science wrong.

History of man is not a terribly hard science. DNA sequencing, like that tying together primate species including humans via identical virus insertions, is.

Time and again the Bible has been proven right and mockers wrong, and you will be too.

I'm sure there are "correct" part of the Koran too. And the Torah. But none of them can point to independent evidence of a deity.

The tone of your last sentence sounds as if you're petrified of the idea that there might not be a God. You should be scared. It's lonely without my imaginary friend now. Seriously.

I just find it impossible to believe in a fantasy. I cannot lie to myself.

159 posted on 12/08/2005 4:47:13 PM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: narby

At least you have finally revealed yourself for what you are in reality...an atheist.


160 posted on 12/09/2005 7:28:25 AM PST by GarySpFc (De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-162 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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