Posted on 02/28/2006 4:05:45 AM PST by PatrickHenry
House lawmakers scuttled a bill that would have required public school students to be told that evolution is not empirically proven - the latest setback for critics of evolution.
The bill's sponsor, Republican state Sen. Chris Buttars, had said it was time to rein in teachers who were teaching that man descended from apes and rattling the faith of students. The Senate earlier passed the measure 16-12.
But the bill failed in the House on a 28-46 vote Monday. The bill would have required teachers to tell students that evolution is not a fact and the state doesn't endorse the theory.
Rep. Scott Wyatt, a Republican, said he feared passing the bill would force the state to then address hundreds of other scientific theories - "from Quantum physics to Freud" - in the same manner.
"I would leave you with two questions," Wyatt said. "If we decide to weigh in on this part, are we going to begin weighing in on all the others and are we the correct body to do that?"
Buttars said he didn't believe the defeat means that most House members think Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is correct.
"I don't believe that anybody in there really wants their kids to be taught that their great-grandfather was an ape," Buttars said.
The vote represents the latest loss for critics of evolution. In December, a federal judge barred the school system in Dover, Pa., from teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in high school biology classes.
Also last year, a federal judge ordered the school system in suburban Atlanta's Cobb County to remove from biology textbooks stickers that called evolution a theory, not a fact.
Earlier this year, a rural California school district canceled an elective philosophy course on intelligent design and agreed never to promote the topic in class again.
But critics of evolution got a boost in Kansas in November when the state Board of Education adopted new science teaching standards that treat evolution as a flawed theory, defying the view of science groups.
Is 1201 a prime?
As you know, my -thons are caused by being away from the computer for a while, and finding 200-300 replies to a thread when I get back!
I read (and comprehend, though some in these threads think not: or at least type as though I don't) rather fast, so a bunch of my replies will, of consequence, be all squished together: a -thon if you will.
I imagine that if a count were made of the TOTALS for each poster in these threads, my replies would be about average.
I hope that I haven't insulted or berated you in the past in one of my replies. I sure don't want to in the future, either.
By now I can take rebuke and correction fairly well (Lord knows I've needed it!), so if I'm outta line, let me know about it.
I saw that, but how it applied to Lincoln DID pass me by!
You mean I can't post to you in the same vein that you did to me?
HMmmm..... ;^)
B may be wrong: God favors A or God could care less about A
Isn't this ALSO possible?
I'll assume this is worthy of a response. Suppose we look at family names rather than genes, assuming the name is passed down only by fathers. It is possible for a name to be bottlenecked at a single individual, even though there are many people alive and having children. It is possible, starting with a small population, for one name to become dominant. This can happen even if all the males of various names have children, since female children don't contribute their family names.
Is this likely? It depends on the size of the population and the kind of society. There are instances in recorded history where all young males in a population have been ordered killed. You may have read about some of these instances. People do strange things.
Technically, yes. But not around here.
;^)
Elsie-thon commin' on.
But WAIT!!
I'm BACK!
The visible part of the iceberg...
Uh... that IS what this thread is about!
Simple version. There function "is a mother of" (or "is a father of" mutatis mutandis) is a contraction mapping. A mother may have more than one daughter but no daughter can have more than one mother (not even Heather.) Thus convolving (doing things more than once) makes the number of grandmothers smaller, etc. The end result is "1" for the "least recent common ancestor." (Look up "least recent common ancestor.")
Take all the women alive today (Please!--Henny Youngman) and consider their mothers, then consider their grandmothers, greatgrandmothers, etc. It doesn't take long to get back to only one person.
Correction; SOME Christian geologists gave up on the idea around 1830. I am not a geologist, but I think there is a lot of physical evidence for a global flood. I simply interpret the physical evidence differently than you do.
Cordially,
Another alternative to Jesus not telling the truth, or God hiding or otherwise falsifying the physical evidence is that you simply interpret all physical evidence through the assumption that Earth's physical characteristics are the result of slow processes and vast time periods.
Cordially,
And if your private interpretation is correct you will no doubt be worthy of a Nobel Prize. You and Amish Dude should get together an do the math.
"Slow day for finding new thread material" placemarker.
ok.............................
The Flood is over and the ark has landed. Noah lets all the animals out and says, "Go forth and multiply."
A few months later, Noah decides to take a stroll and see how the animals are doing. Everywhere he looks he finds baby animals. Everyone is doing fine except for one pair of little snakes. "What's the problem?" says Noah.
"Cut down some trees and let us live there", say the snakes.
Noah follows their advice. Several more weeks pass. Noah checks on the snakes again. Lots of little snakes, everybody is happy. Noah asks, "Want to tell me how the trees helped?"
"Certainly", say the snakes. "We're adders, so we need logs to multiply."
Barely.....
Glad he got out!
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.