Posted on 02/19/2009 4:06:47 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Narrative Summary
4. Would you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory?
(Click excerpt link for responses)
5. Charles Darwin wrote that when considering the evidence for his theory of evolution, “…a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with Darwin’s statement?
(Click excerpt link for responses)
6. I am going to read you two statements about Biology teachers teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of view—Statement A or Statement B?
Statement A: Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.
Statement B: Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.
(Click excerpt link for responses)
(Excerpt) Read more at evolutionnews.org ...
I don't think so. Please explain why you think I did?
A sentence is composed of words.
It is you that distorted his post. His post:
is clear that he is referring to your “game” and not making a direct quote from you posts.
Because you're intellectually arrogant and spiritually dead.
You asked.
Because you're intellectually arrogant and spiritually dead. You asked.
Translated: You can't explain so you make a personal attack.
The title of this thread is somewhat misleading. By inserting “Overwhelming support for teaching both sides of Evolution debate”, one may assume that the “sides” in question are those that are generally debated here: evolution vs. creation. However, the survey instead questions whether scientific evidence should be presented in support of and in oppostiion to evolution. Of course it should—that’s good science. As creation has no scientific foundation, it is really not the counterbalance to evolution that the title implies.
Posted by GGGs. What else.
If it weren't for the stifling combination of the two cited deterrents, you could and would get it.
Please. Genesis 1 states that animals were created before man but Genesis 2 states that animals were created for companions for Adam AFTER he found Adam lonely.
BTW, didn't God know that Adam would be lonely without Eve when he created Adam?
Didn't God know that animals would not be a satisfactor companion for Adam?
The darwinists predicted a tree of life. Creationists predicted an orchard of trees. Darwin’s tree of life is being hacked down. Creationist prediction strengthened.
Creationists predicted catostrophism. Darwinists predicted uniformitarianism. Catastrophism is on the rise. Darwinism diminished, creation strengthened.
Creationist predicted that the genome is mostly functional, Darwinists predicted that the vast majority of the genome is leftover “junk” from our evolutionary past. We now know that the genome is at least 93% functional. Darwinism deminished, creation stengthened.
Etc, etc, etc.
==Do you think you can prove ID?
Do you think you can “prove” Darwin’s fanciful creation myth?
I’m down with that. Excellent point!
Creationists believe in evolutionary trees. I agree execept for the YEC'rs.
LOL Genesis 1: 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
----
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
You creationists got the the order wrong. First you make the Sun then you get the light. Also putting plants on the Earth before there is a sun doesn't make any sense either.
Now back to you. Do you have any evidence at all that plants were growing on the Earth before the Sun existed?
==Psalm 104:5 He laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be moved forever
If an historian recorded that America laid the foundations of the steam engine, so that it should not be moved, would you assume that the author meant that steam engines remain stationary?
Do you think it can be disproven by simply declaring it so often enough?
I would think they had it backwards because a steam engine is built so that is should be moved.
My question is how, once one accepted that the ‘proper’ scriptural interpretation was that the Earth did not move, would one disabuse himself of that notion?
Obviously the majority of the Christian world changed their mind on the issue over the centuries. What was the mechanism of change?
I don't consider a historian to speak for God. We are talking about God's word or do you just consider the Bible to be a history text?
That depends on the context. He might have recorded that it should not be moved, but plate techtonics says it did anyway.
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.