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.
Another gold star in your record at Darwin Central.
Why not ask creation scientists where they are? They would have to hold more water than the oceans in order to provide enough water to cover the mountains.
I have trouble believing you are serious about this. You are joking, aren't you?
What's one more among so many?
Jesus left Tyre and went around to the borders of Decapolis (which included Hippus on your little map) then approached the sea of Galilee from the back side. Is there some kind of law against that?
Is there a law that Jesus had to follow some straight line route to get where he was going? And if he was going to the back side of the Sea of Galilee, wouldn't he have naturally taken this route?
Frankly the fact that this detour is mentioned is evidence of its truth. There was a reason why this was mentioned. The detour was important. Everything in the Bible is important.
Why was it important? Roberston's Word Studies gives us some insight:
Through the midst of the borders of Decapolis (ana meson twn oriwn Dekapolewv). Jesus left Phoenicia, but did not go back into Galilee. He rather went east and came down east of the Sea of Galilee into the region of the Greek cities of Decapolis. He thus kept out of the territory of Herod Antipas. He had been in this region when he healed the Gadarene demoniac and was asked to leave.
Good point. I'm not trying to get away with deliberate life-termination here.
"Do you have evidence that these springs did not burst forth contributing to the flood?"
Actually, the burden of proof is on you. Please show us the physiographical evidence to support the idea that springs burst forth, contributing to a global flood that exceeded 29,000 feet in depth above MSL.
(I just stole this from another thread! I just appreciate the humor, can't make it up myself. LOL)
Well if you read my religion posts you will see I rarely even use commentary so I don't have to. Besides that, the much ado over Mark having his map wrong can now rest. I'm so glad that the school marm was on watch as I had heard one was on the board, and I suspected it was you. Now I can rest easy knowing that it is.
Keep up the good faith. Being called a troll by this bunch is a badge of honor.
I'm flushing out the scold, lol
You are assuming that at that time Mount Everest was 29,00 feet above mean sea level. The fact is that it was below sea level at that time. Everything was.
Why is it that I have listened to the MIT's Beer Game using supply chain management so many times and I still don't know what it's about. i.e, why do I keep tuning it out each time?
"You are assuming that at that time Mount Everest was 29,00 feet above mean sea level. The fact is that it was below sea level at that time. Everything was."
Oh, please DO enlighten us as to how that much of a shift in physiographic forms came about only 5-6k years ago.
When using moderator-compliant FReepSpeaktm, as we must, it is necessary to determine the sense of the mods' wishes. As I understand it, they prefer that certain types of dishonorable behavior, when committed, should not to be forthrightly described. Vade probably did it correctly, although it was so subtle that his meaning may have been lost on most.
Perhaps in cases of apparent plagiarism, it would be best to call it something like an "unfortunate, but possibly inadvertent omission of proper attribution."
I never knew this. (extra homework for me now!)
Thanks for the info (I've bookmarked your post).
Somebody once claimed the Ark is at the 13,000 foot level on Mt. Ararat. I did the math on that (volume of a sphere of Earth's radius+2.46 miles minus the volume of a sphere of Earth's radius). It requires about a doubling of the Earth's water just to get to there. If you're going to completely cover all the mountains, it's vastly more.
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.