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.
How convenient.
And evidently a happy one at that.
Are you discounting the loads of immigrants that have arrived since then?
And a poor movie, unfortunately. Mogambo (remake of Red Dust) was a much better of that type.
So? No one but O.J. saw him whack his wife and her friend, but the evidence was sufficient to convince quite a few people.
Second of all you obviously don't believe in miracles.
How do you know what I believe in? It's awefully presumptious of you, isn't it?
Do you deny that Jesus was born of a virgin as that was a physical impossibility. Do you deny that Jesus walked on water? That too was a physical impossibility. Do you deny that Jesus healed a man born blind by putting spit and dirt in his eyes? That too was a physical impossiblity. Do you believe that Jesus turned water into wine? Did Jesus calm the storm by the word of his mouth?
There is no evidence one way or another that these situations actually occurred. Indeed, it's pretty evident that lots of folks were performing such miracles in the Mediterranean at the same time. And, note, the "miracles" you mention are not of the type to leave any lasting physical evidence, UNLIKE A WORLD-WIDE FLOOD.
There is no evidence other than the testimony of the evangelists that any of these miracles occurred.
Exactly. Historians typically reject any classical claim for which there is no third-party reference. For example, one of the reasons we accept the existence of Julius Caesar is because, not only did he leave us some of his writings, he was mentioned by numerous contemporaries (including his enemies) in their writings. For the same reason, the Sumerian list of their earliest kings is taken with a grain of salt because there is no third-party reference to them.
Do you deny the resurrection? Can a man who was crucified get up from his tomb after three days and then ascend into heaven? Another physical impossibility for which we have no evidence other than the testimony of the evangelists.
Well, because there is no Roman record of Jesus, his execution, and subsequent disappearance -- and Romans kept records of everything -- one would be required to take the story with a grain of salt, if one were being intellectually honest.
From our viewpoint the flood was obviously a physical impossibility. You can't pull the oceans up from their bed and spread them over the earth, can you? That is a physical impossibility, isn't it?
Not an impossibility, but the lack of evidence for such an event is very indicative the entire account is fictitious. Would you believe it if someone claimed he moved a mountain overnight from point A to point B if there was no corroborating evidence?
Yet Jesus and Peter both attested to the fact of its occurrence.
Nope. A writer claimed they both attested to it. There is a difference, though you refuse to see it.
So am I going to believe You or my "lying" eyes? Well, since the only physical evidence I have is the words on the page of the Bible that it either occurred or didn't occur, I suppose I'll have to believe my "lying" eyes. I wasn't there. You weren't there. Jesus was. He is my eyewitness.
Once again, you are attributing to a book facts not in evidence. You have no evidence it is the Word of God, or even that it was divinely-inspired. You CHOOSE to believe that way. One does not need "to be there" to decipher events from readily-apparent clues. Cops and doctors do it all the time. What you are engaging in is a form of special pleading.
Now who are you going to believe? You're lying eyes, or Jesus Christ, the Creator and sustainer of all things?
I'm going to believe the evidence. Period. You can put your faith in hearsay if you'd like; that's your right. But understand why other people will not and why quoting from the Bible to reinforce your point is counter-productive in most cases.
Close, but not quite accurate. Werner Heisenberg did re-invent matrix multiplication (from combinations of Fourier series), but Max Born did show him the matrix theory quite early in the game. Matrix theory wasn't that well know to physicists (or anyone else) in the early 1920s.
Police dogs may be an exception in somc cases.
Show me a 2000 year old Bible, or better yet a 6000 year old original manuscript.
But hey, I've learned to expect invincible ignorance from you.
Elsie's a guy.
You're learning.
My theory is they know they're wrong seven ways from Sunday, but they cannot bring themselves to throw off their old paradigm and adopt a new one because so much of what makes them "them" is wrapped up in the old paradigm.
"Know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Kinda ironic, isn't it?
So earth's 7 billion came from another continent? Elsie, why don't you just think one of your arguments through once in a while. You've had the idiotic flaw in that one pointed out before.
That should be your not you're.
Is that all you got out of that? The reason that it needs more work is that it is giving much higher numbers than are reasonable. The reason for this is because it allows for women to have children every year from age 13 to 55, there is no infant mortality, no childhood disease, etc. Work needs to be done on it to REDUCE the population, not increase it.
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.