Skip to comments.
Utah House kills evolution bill
Fort Wayne Journal Gazette ^
| 28 February 2006
| JENNIFER DOBNER
Posted on 02/28/2006 4:05:45 AM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 921-940, 941-960, 961-980 ... 1,541 next last
To: Doctor Stochastic
That's good. Actually, I do the unthinkable and use ice with Scotch. But I don't add water.
941
posted on
03/01/2006 10:43:49 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: js1138
If you've noticed, I have no plan to attempt to reconcile you to the Bible. It is ridiculous for you to make such a demand. That you have so keen a desire to make this demand ought to tell you more than I ever could.
942
posted on
03/01/2006 10:51:20 AM PST
by
Mamzelle
(daughters)
To: PatrickHenry
People who invent anti-ice rules don't live in Florida.
Although I do recall an aphorism dealing with mad dogs and Englishmen.
943
posted on
03/01/2006 10:53:00 AM PST
by
js1138
To: Mamzelle
This thread is about what should be taught in science class. If you don't like science I can't understand why you are posting here.
944
posted on
03/01/2006 10:54:40 AM PST
by
js1138
To: PatrickHenry
For political meetings (and the like), scotch on the rocks is the ideal drink. You can hold it forever and even when the ice melts, it only becomes scotch and water. That way, people don't keep filling your glass. Keeps a more nearly clear head.
945
posted on
03/01/2006 10:54:55 AM PST
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: Doctor Stochastic
Matrix theory wasn't that well know to physicists (or anyone else) in the early 1920s.Anyone? else??? Does that include Gauss? Certainly Born and Heisenberg had heard of Gauss. He'd figured out much of the ball of wax long before. And the ignorance was no excuse, solving linear systems was a basic concept in the pre-computer era. Heisey had his model, he just kept running into the fact that ab was not ba and he could not conceive of multiplication doing such a thing.
To: js1138
Try this:
947
posted on
03/01/2006 11:05:40 AM PST
by
balrog666
(Irrational beliefs inspire irrational acts.)
To: js1138
OK. Let me make the hugh mistake of ever thinking a FRevo argues in good faith--but that might be a useful demonstration to make.
First of all, why are you interested in Noah, when you should be interested in Noah's wife?
To: wyattearp; All
Just as a note to those that have doubts about the ability of the internet to change minds, 'thelodger'
,the author of this post, was a JW that was helped by the people at 'talkorigins.org' to understand the truth of evolution.
949
posted on
03/01/2006 11:07:09 AM PST
by
b_sharp
(Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
To: Doctor Stochastic
Wikipedia has some info for further research:
Scotch whisky. Tidbit: whisky (Brit spelling) means "water of life" in Gaelic.
950
posted on
03/01/2006 11:09:43 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: Mamzelle
First of all, why are you interested in Noah, when you should be interested in Noah's wife? Noah's wife would most likely not have a Y chromosome. I'm sure you knew that.
951
posted on
03/01/2006 11:12:02 AM PST
by
js1138
To: wyattearp
"I don't know the individual who wrote that. Mark is an intelligent, well read and reasoned person. He is not an evangelist in any sense of the word that I understand; he is simply concerned that evolution be expressed as truthfully as possible.
952
posted on
03/01/2006 11:15:40 AM PST
by
b_sharp
(Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
To: Junior; Mamzelle; Elsie
Elsie's a guy!
No doubt! ROFLMAO!
953
posted on
03/01/2006 11:15:50 AM PST
by
phantomworker
(It doesn’t matter what other people think or feel or say. “You are the only person who defines you.")
To: Quark2005
why haven't mathematicians jumped into the game and snatched up every Nobel Prize in physics, chemistry and medicine awarded over the last 100 years? I would argue that (a) they have in some cases, whether they actually call themselves mathematicians, and (b) the Nobel people like finished work that they can understand. It'd be like awarding the house painter for the hard work done on a Frank Lloyd Wright house. Most of the decent economics prizes have gone to people who style themselves mathematicians.
It's because the collection and analysis of data is not the intellectually trivial and rote undertaking you presume it to be.
If you like the wallpaper and the lace curtains, that's very true.
Ah, I'm kidding on that one. The physicists have finally figured out that remaining ignorant of any field of mathematics is going to hurt them. You'd be surprised the concepts that they use outside of the partial differential equations that they seem so fond of.
Econ is pretty much math and psychology and the gap is getting wider every day. The biologists, though, still treat mathematics like, "OK, what's 2+3? Thanks." Two days later: "OK, what's 4+8? Thanks. No! I don't need to learn the whole theory of addition!" Two days later: "I've got one for you. 7-5? Oh really? You can do that?"
To: Californiajones
If evolution cannot be reduced to a formula, then, how, pray tell, do Evos think that it should be taught to schoolchildren?
This is one of the most laughable statements I've heard on FR in a while. Apparently you believe that the only thing which can be taught to schoolchildren are formulas? How do you suggest the theory of heliocentrism be taught to schoolchildren? How do you suggest germ theory be taught to schoolchildren?
The answer, of course, is that it will be taught in the same way which any vast field of scientific knowledge and inquiry is taught to schoolchildren: By giving them a brief conceptual and factual overview of the current state-of-the-mainstream.
I'm constantly amazed at the singling-out of evolution, amongst scores of overwhelming accepted scientific theories, for bizarre objections.
955
posted on
03/01/2006 11:17:01 AM PST
by
aNYCguy
To: Elsie
Elsie, if you weren't a troll, I would tell you!
956
posted on
03/01/2006 11:17:31 AM PST
by
phantomworker
(It doesn’t matter what other people think or feel or say. “You are the only person who defines you.")
To: Fester Chugabrew
"Is the author of this rebuttal even slightly aware that instructions were given to coat the wood both inside and out?" I have no idea if Mark did consider that. I'm more interested in what you feel this extra coating would do? How would it help the ark survive the waters during the initial stages of the flood?
957
posted on
03/01/2006 11:19:01 AM PST
by
b_sharp
(Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
To: js1138
The real interesting info is in the X. That's where the discussion of the evo "Eve" comes from, and how groups of people with a common X "ances-tress" are identified. The Y actually loses some info in recombination, but the X is relatively inviolate.
To: js1138
Practice calls, but I'll check back.
To: Mamzelle
My question, though, is why every living male des not have the same Y chromosome. It's a simple question. There are no human beings not directly descended directly from Noah. There are no male survivors of the flood except Noah and his sons.
960
posted on
03/01/2006 11:23:11 AM PST
by
js1138
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 921-940, 941-960, 961-980 ... 1,541 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson