Posted on 05/25/2006 7:02:37 PM PDT by Hoodat
The federal appeals court in Atlanta on Thursday declined to rule on the constitutionality of controversial Cobb County evolution disclaimers because the court said it did not have enough information to make the decision.
The ruling was the latest twist in a nationally watched case that has raised questions of local authority over schools and whether Cobb's sticker -- which called evolution "a theory, not a fact" -- runs afoul of the First Amendment.
The ruling means more arguments from lawyers and, perhaps, a new trial.
-snip-
The 11th Circuit noted that all parties in the case agree that some evidence presented to Cooper during a four-day trial is now missing. "The problems presented by a record containing significant evidentiary gaps are compounded because at least some key findings of the district court are not supported by the evidence that is contained in the record," Judge Ed Carnes wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at ajc.com ...
Because the creationists refuse to accept the consenus of the scientific comminity.
We're told constantly that everything in science is a theory and that nothing is ever proven. Science is self-correcting as new data comes in. Well, if it's self-correcting, then what was previously believed was wrong.
The *physics* and *gravity* comparisons to evolution are ludicrous. No way evolution is as well established as those are. Why don't evos ever compare evolution to relativity, string theory, quantum physics,... for example.
What is the consensus of the scientific community regarding the creation of energy and matter?
True. But also remember humans, and only humans, learned to use both fire and clothing to help keep warm. After those developments perhaps the need for full body hair for warmth diminished. Additionally, it's probably slightly healthier to have less hair, as there would be fewer parasites and things like that. To me it seems natural that we lost fur/hair because we really don't need it like animals do.
So we force on the unwilling majority the will of the few (who think they have the answers) through the power of the judiciary. Is that how a representative republic works? Someone, or some group, decides what's best for everyone else and forces it on them whether the majority wants it or not.
Except that hair/fur would protect against the elements better, like frostbite, and sunburn, and skin cancer. With the amount of time and energy people have expended over the years to keep warm, you'd think that hair would be an advantage. More energy could be channeled into feeding and raising young.
If hair kept them warm, they wouldn't need clothing and so would not likely think it up and start to wear it. The need would have only arisen AFTER the loss of hair and the need for other protection.
Someone, or some group, decides what's best for everyone else and forces it on them whether the majority wants it or not.
Alex Fleming and that bunch were fascists!
I suppose you can provide some articles to show us where they find this so amusing? I haven't read that anywhere except on FR from the evos who occasionally make that statement.
They probably don't find it amusing in the "Ha! Ha! Pie in the Face" funny. They more than likely find it amusing in the same way that a basketball team finds their opposing team bickering amusing.
I have talked to foreign scientists who have asked (rather timidly) if it was a "real" debate or not.
My guess is that one layer of fur (our own) wan't enough to fully protect against severe weather. Once animal fur was discovered, probably immediately after eating said animal, it was learned that thicker clothing works better. So, I could see a desire to wear furs even if you had your own. More is better when its freezing out. Also, in hot climates/seasons it's better to have the option to remove the warm clothing.
Please provide a proof (or a link to one) for the atomic theory of matter, or the special theory of relativity, or whatever "proven theory" you like.
Do they really recognize the actual state of evolution theory? Where on the sticker does it state that over 99% of biologists think it's correct?
btw, can you explain how a giraffe 'evolved'? I would love to hear the 'scientific' explanation for that one.
What's with the quote marks?
Here's an interesting discussion. Google on giraffe evolution if you're seriously interested.
That's why the politicians' names should be on it. Make a great campaign sign for the opposition.
Your link does not explain the 'evolution' of the series of valves that exist in a giraffe's neck. Without them, the giraffe would pass out every time it raised its head.
By the way, the atomic theory of matter has been proven. It is not based on some hypothesis of how things used to be, but instead on measuring how things exist now.
We haven't lost all our hair (just ask John Kerry) but we have less because our ancestors evolved on the savannah, where heat regulation is a prime concern. Having too much body hair is also a hindrance more than it is a blessing -- you can take off a winter coat when it's hot, but you can't as easily shave. That makes it easier for us to inhabit a wider variety of climates.
Savannah is really only hot in the summer.
14th century warning sticker: Heliocentrism is just a theory, and should not be accepted as fact.
15th century warning sticker: A "Round Earth" is just a theory, and should not be accepted as fact.
etc.
A lot of dumb people in Cobb County Georgia are trying to make sure their kids grow up dumb, too.
Pretty sobering isn't 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.