Personally, I don't know what the kerflufle is all about.
I mean, after all, we do have proof that dogs evolved from sharks:
(Don't we?)
Posted on 06/27/2008 2:04:21 PM PDT by EveningStar
For people so sure of themselves, y'all sure seem eager to quiet the opposition. Your definition of science includes evolutionary philosophy. My definition of religion includes evolutionary philosophy. Both depend on faith in order.
I believe in the Creation as a single event, over whatever time it took. I can picture "God said" as synonomous with BANG!
I can see the formation of our universe as His Word became solid, and formed into islands flinging through the ether. I can see "God said" in the land rising out of the seas. When, I don't know, but mI believe His Hands molded it.
By that, I do not propose He has physical hands, I see it as the forces He set in motion. We call the study of those things, "science". Science is an accepted thing, among the educated. But, not all things proposed are accepted by all. You really can't fool all of the people, all of the time.
Man is still trying to ignore God. But, man can't keep Him out of our lives. Is the study of life bad? Of course not. But, to ignore those who believe differently than you, is both ignorant and hypocritical.
Your belief system is based on speculation. It is accepted by faith. I have a lot of recorded observations, that I can use for reference. But, according to your liturgy, they were written by mortal men...
I guess you were there!
I will allow evolution to be taught, but not as science. It would be included as one explanation among many.
Well, if you actually READ the Bible, and see what the order of events are in Creation, you would have to admit that the two are NOT compatible.
Go ahead, Read Genesis 1-3 again.
Then, as you read, write down what was created on what day.
THEN, go to any evolutionary fairy tale and write down what happened when and on what day.
I expect them to be taught science, too, not the fairy tale of evolution
the designed appearance, the failure of just one function proving that new mechanical systems cannot operate with out, the failure of function unless complete systems are intact (ingestion of energy, the digestion or functional breakdown of energy to be used to support functional ife, and the necessity of expelling waste) all thos are irreducible functions as a system alone, and without anyy of them, you HAVE NO LIFE
Goodness, let alone the ability to pass on to the next random chance accumulation of molecules the ability to have sex? To reproduce a similar organism?
All by chance?
Evolutionists are fools, the smarter we get, the more obvious it was ALL by design, and NONE of it by chance
That is a fqalse statement::
‘Creationism’
m + e + t + i = abiogensis
Yeah, thats what I was trying to tactfully point out.
Hate to be the one to break it to you, but evolution is the current state of science.
And Behe's irreducibility has already been discredited, so you might as well stop using it. But even Behe himself had to admit:
"there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred"At least he was more honest than the other creationists/IDers who perjured themselves on the stand under oath to God in that same case to try to protect the ID agenda.
I have to disagree in an absolute sense, as it could be right. But that is a question that I don't think science can answer since it deals with belief and faith.
Belief and science don't belong together. There is only level of acceptance as to the validity of the science after having looked at the evidence in a detached, deductive manner. You corrupt the science when you bring belief, faith, emotion, agenda or other outside influences -- just look at the man-made global warming hysteria.
Cool, I like that.
Since evolutionists claim they have no start point, would you agree that the first organic form it could address was probably single-celled?
I am with regard to geology. So are the legislators who wrote this bill, since they've obviously excluded it. And you've already submitted explicitly that we have the right do that if we want to.
I did not see that EXCLUDED. Maybe they did not think it was necessary, but it is not relavant. They are a local body, making a local decision. States do still have rights.
Maybe you will help me with my quandary?
Since evolutionists claim they have no start point, would you agree that the first organic form it could address was probably single-celled?
I know. But we can't show that this is a normal, cyclic event if we have to throw out all the evidence that goes back more than 6,000 years. If the only evidence we're allowed to consider is what's occurred in recorded history, and with directly observed climatic readings the debate is heavily weighted in favor of a conclusion that GW is caused by industrialization.
I didn't see anything explicitly excluded. If they intended to include everything, why didn't they just say so?
Are you not prepared to argue your doctrine?
Now he’s gone and done it.. Angering the Darwinoids...and the high priests of totalitarian science.
Go Bobby!
That sounds reasonable, but viruses are considerably simpler than even single-celled organisms and they deal with those, so I don't know if that's a fair assesment.
But none of that addresses the disagreement over teaching creationist geology.
What is the source of nourishment for viruses? Is it organic or inorganic material?
Your only objection seems to be that it conflicts with your religious beliefs. You can choose to hold religious beliefs that are contrary to the physical evidence, but you cannot demand that the rest of us do, or that the physical evidence be made to comply.
That's a question for a biologist.
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.