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.
Crickets tend to do that when the wood is coated and ready to roll.
"Crickets tend to do that when the wood is coated and ready to roll."
Or when creationists run away from criticism.
I don't know the individual who wrote that. However, I found it compelling. If you do not, then how about the other half of the equation? You said "let's do the math". Let's means "let us", meaning now it is your turn. Show mathematically how the earth could have been repopulated to its current level solely by the people on Noah's Ark, in the time allotted. "Doing the math" was your idea, after all.
The Sacred Waters of the Holy Drained Pasta.
Hey. I'm not the one who avoided answering point number one, am I?
"Hey. I'm not the one who avoided answering point number one, am I?"
Yes, you are. :) And point number two, three...
I don't think I'm smart enough. I'd just take the number 8 and double it. Then see how many times it takes by the same doubling to get to 6 billion. I think it's between 29 and 30. If that were generations of 40 years, then it would take c. 1200 years to get 6 billion. Maybe there are others who can help here.
I wasn't the one who asserted the impossibility. But I did ask for the math. So far I don't think anyone has supplied sufficient evidence to substantiate the impossibility of it all.
See 767 and explain how the use of coated wood for a boat is a serious rebuttal of the notion of a world-wide deluge. Until you do, don't talk to me about avoiding points. :)
And while you're at it, see 787 and try a little impossible math. :)
Like mushrooms with that pasta?
There is no requirement here. Only the bare record that you not only accuse me of avoiding making a point which I have made, yet fail to address the point yourself. It's called "crickets." They might be your best friend.
"There is no requirement here. Only the bare record that you not only accuse me of avoiding making a point which I have made, yet fail to address the point yourself."
The record shows you have avoided my answer to your post like the plague. Instead of answering my post, you have accused me of not answering posts you made to other people. The fact remains, the Bible says there were 8 people after the flood, 5 of who were closely related. Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their 3 wives. It is impossible for 6 billion people to be the descendants of 8 people, especially 8 so closely related. Unless of course you throw genetics out the window.
Unfortunately, it's way more complicated than that. I also think that you have to start with 3 instead of 8, since that is the number of fertile women on the boat. The fact that people die also has to be taken into account; infant mortality rates, longevity, disease, war, etc.
Too bad AmishDude isn't still on, as I think he might actually enjoy doing something like this. It is certainly way over my head, which is why I went looking around on the internet to see if anybody had already crunched the numbers.
(AmishDude: we were discussing how long it would take to repopulate the earth after the alleged flood, FYI).
Then that means that the evidence is overwhelming that Jesus was a liar.
Whether that leads one to conclude Jesus didn't actually utter those words (and the author simply made it up), or that Jesus lied, or even that Jesus didn't exist, it appears to be a personal matter.
You seem to have left out the possibility that Jesus spoke the truth and that maybe you have some presuppositions about the evidence that makes you incapable of seeing the truth. Whatever. That's fine. You are free to deny Jesus. Most people do. They are called... non-Christians.
Personally I believe Christ.
"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,—and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proven to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye witnesses;—by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many fake religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wildfire had some weight with me. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct."
( Charles Darwin in his Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Dover Publications, 1992, p. 62. )
Charles Darwin (1809-1882)
"I think that generally (& more & more as I grow older), but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."
( Quoted from Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1991, p. 636. )
But...
How am I doing with the Scriptures? ;^)
I think you'll have to ask HIM, for this is an age old question that Man continually asks!
groan, Groan and double GROAN!!!
I think you've discovered the cusp of the problem!
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.