Posted on 08/05/2009 11:15:25 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Today’s top-selling biology textbooks present evolution as the only scientific view of the history of life. Often these textbooks use faulty or deceptive evidences to support evolutionary ideas. Fortunately, students can easily equip themselves with free materials that dissect textbooks and reveal the truth...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
No, “indoctrination of school kids into Chrisitanity” is just more of your helpless liberal projections.
The reality of the matter is you liberals have been indoctrinating children into yourt religion of secular humanism with no room for Christianity.
Congratulations on your failures.
Now go sleep in your bed.
This reminds me of the various ways creationists get around the lines of evidence for evolution. We have a bunch of arrows pointing in the same direction, and rather than just assuming they point that way because that’s where the answer lies, they have to make up a reason that each one might not mean what it says.
And so here. Several passages in the Bible are most easily understood if you conclude that their writers thought they lived under a solid sky (as was common in the area at the time). It explains the curtain, the tent, the “sits above,” the windows, the “lights in the firmament,” all those descriptions. Instead, you have to find a separate way to explain how each one doesn’t actually mean that.
As I said, I don’t care enough to try to convince you otherwise. If you want to think it’s all metaphor and poetry, that’s fine with me. Just don’t then try to tell me I can’t apply the same standard to the six days and the created kinds.
— “My comment was ever so obviously about the QUANTITY of water available.”
What difference does it make how much water was available if the fountains are a metaphor anyway? First you say they’re a metaphor, then you say there was enough water available for them to be actual fountains. Forgive me for not getting what your point is.
“Do you think Mayr would state philosophically something contrary to what he believed to be scientifically so?”
—No, do you think Francis Collins would?
It’s not even clear if Mayr was disagreeing with anything I said. If he meant “intelligent design” in the sense that the DI and many others now use it, than I’m in agreement with him.
“That he published his ides in a philosophical journal seems an irrelevancy unless you are asserting Evolution is philosophy free.”
—One can imagine all sorts of philosophical implications for Darwinism (and for anything else) but while doing so one shouldn’t lose sight of what Darwinism IS: It’s the theory that evolution occurs via mutations and selection.
What’s to rule out the idea of God designing the laws of nature for the purpose of creating us via Darwinian evolution?
dingleberry:
Why even go that far? MIT......full of braniacs that learned evolution. Harvard Med School.....full of braniacs that learned evolution. Need any more?
projectoillogic:
The original assertion was that teaching evolution has damaged our academic and scientific accopmlishments, compared to the rest of the world. Once you start moving the goal posts, then it turns into a disagreement over where they should be moved to, the test is abandoned, and the original assertion gets by without ever having been tested at all.
This is a rather fascinationg exchange, because isn’t it the evo-liberals that dismiss the credentials of certain scientists trained at MIT, Johns Hopkins, Princeton etc. because certain scientists don’t conform to their liberal sensibilities?
www.dissentfromdarwin.org
First we see that only scientists can understand evolution, then when it’s pointed out to the evo-loons that they themselves often don’t have a science degree...
liberals move the goal-posts.
Then we see, well scientists were a bit hasty, it could only be the scientists that march lock-step with their liberal senibilites...
and liberals move the goal-posts again.
IN FACT, I’ve lost count how many times liberals have moved the goal-posts, so I simply gave up.
But NOW, they have the audacity to bring up “moving goal-posts”?
Liberals truly have no shame. None.
And notice the ENDLESS projections here...no the original assertion, and has always been on virtually every thread is this...
liberals demanding that ONLY evolution be taught i.e. to the exclusion of ID/creationism, the idea that evolution can not and never ever will be properly questioned, along with liberalism stomping God not just out of science class, but school in general, has resulted in abject failures across the board, both morally and academically in UNITED STATES public schools.
But a liberal never ever acknowledges their failures. They’re too self-absorbed and incapable of reasoning.
Yes, you’re just the most abused creature in the universe.
“What’s to rule out the idea of God designing the laws of nature for the purpose of creating us via Darwinian evolution?”
If you can make a case that He did, I’d like to hear it and then I’ll make my argument He did not.
I would assume both men no matter where they wrote said just what they meant and believed.
I find hard it hard to believe that grasshoppers could learn to write or had a set of ideas about the earth or that anyone would else would believe that but if you do, so be it.
You get a little antsy when people don’t just roll over, turn the other cheek, eh?
You'd never do that. Complaining is your life.
“If you can make a case that He did, I’d like to hear it and then I’ll make my argument He did not.”
—If I were attempt to argue for intelligent design using Darwinism, it wouldn’t be hard - I’d just use many of the same arguments that Creationists and IDers alread use, e.g. the “fine-tuning” argument: What are the odds that the laws of chemistry would be just right to cause life and evolution and finally us?
The argument against - unless I’m mistaken - is probably going to be based on the Bible? But that would just be an argument based on a particular interpretation of a single idea of intelligent design, not an argument that Darwinism it at odds against intelligent design itself.
“I would assume both men no matter where they wrote said just what they meant and believed.”
—But the point is, is that both men, both of whom are obviously quite knowledgeable of Darwinism, can have such a disagreement. And, of course, the reason why they can have such a disagreement (while afaik being in agreement on what the theory of Darwinism is) is because Darwinism is silent on the issue of whether there is purpose and design.
You'd never do that. Complaining is your life.
Oh I do that all the time, but not here, and as you're finding, Christians are pretty sick and tired of watching liberals dismantle the country.
And there you go again, it's the exposure of YOUR complaining you're going on about.
"religious attacks on science..."
"indoctrination of Christianity..."
that's all you insufferable projectionist Micheal Newdow type liberals DO is whine and complain.
And now you're whining because you got exposed.
Again.
Of course. You are the very essence of martyrdom. Every waking moment you are persecuted for your religions beliefs, tortured and harrased by the infidels and apostates - the pretenders to faith who don’t know the true God and the true Word like you do. They are jealous of your purity and virtue, and hate and despise you for it.
I think this best displays anything I can come up with as to how you treat anyone and everyone that dares bring up they'd prefer a world where their own children are taught the virtues of Christianity.
If someone speaks up for their own rights, you liberals smear and project and accuse them of indoctrination of ALL children against their will...and of course the next step is you accuse them of being too stupid to know anything about science...basically whatever it takes to shut down the debate. And it's PAINFULLY obvious you don't know WHAT to do when all your tricks don't work.
In fact, you should print this up in some kind of form letter and present this to anyone and everyone that dares insult your secular humanist liberal godless sensibilities, and cut to the chase, instead of boring and badgering them to death with your stupid irrelevant questions, strawmen and ENDLESS insufferable projections.
And I'd be willing to bet you simply don't have anything comparable in your bag of tricks that you break out for Jews, Hindus, Muslims...etc. because liberals hold a special kind of vitriol for Christians and, well, that just wouldn't be politically correct!
Isn't it amazing that I've made thousands of post on this forum in over ten years, and never had so much as a suspension? It must be the hand of Satan himself blinding the moderators to how truly evil I am.
Actually I'm glad you brought that up because JR has made it pretty clear he's on the side of the virtues of Christianity and he illustrates these virtues through tolerance, walks the walk if you will.
Meanwhile, you and your ilk have hi-jacked education and the judiciary, indoctrinatiing students with your bilge and if that's threatened you shut down any and all debate via lawsuits. So much for YOUR tolerance.
But what's TRULY amazing is you've not apparently allowed any of this to rub off on you in 10 years.
And while you're busily projecting about others' victimhood, I'd like to point out no one's called you evil or asserted as much, but Christian conservatives DO know liberalsim when they see it, so I'm also a bit shocked you've not learned that lesson in 10 years either.
OK, I'm not really shocked but...it is curious. You don't seem particularly stupid, so it must be something else. Willful ignorance perhaps.
I might suggest it could be some fault in your own perception, but that's not possible, An such ovservation would be projection.
Well, of course, you can suggest it, but again it's rather fascinating that you're incapable of holding yourself to the rules you set up for everyone else, ad nauseum, ad infinatum.
But sure, your observation may acocunt for 5% or so...and that's being generous...which still leaves out that pesky 95%... so what gives if you're indeed not stupid and not willfully ignorant?
Can you articulate, without the use of perjoratives and epithets, exactly what "rules" you think I've "set up", and how I am in violation of those rules?
How about the one you just posted...you know about MY self-unawareness?
I find that pretty comical btw, coming from someone as self-absorbed as you are.
What manner of "rule" did you take that to be?
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.