Posted on 10/23/2009 8:18:13 PM PDT by john in springfield
Why would that in any way mitigate an out of context citation?
Not in your post 10 which is why I posted 367. I repeat "Apples/oranges. If anything those numbers show a drop in people who believe in evolution, because the previous answers allowed a person to have belief in evolution with God guiding the process. Therefore you would add two separate groups to end up with believers of evolution, those that believed God did not have a hand and those that believed he did. The last gallop poll had the total at 50%." Once more, a 50% belief in 2008 to a 39% belief in 2009 is most certainly a drop. Thus "Apples/oranges".
BTW, what is the percentage of Christian schools teaching YEC?
Apples to apples then. Creationists went from 44 to 25%.
Yes, that chart. "Apples/oranges"
BTW, what is the percentage of Christian schools teaching YEC?
I have no idea. I don't pay for those. I do pay for public schools. Therefore, I think it is no business of the federal government what is taught in the public schools. That is a state and local issue.
Every case I have seen it has been the school board. That is about as local as you get.
Doesn't make sense. You pay federal taxes also.
Can you do anything but post strawmen?
(rhetorical question)
Yes, for things constitutionally provided for, like armies, navies, and air forces.
Kitzmiller was a federal case, to name one.
We can see which side of the bell curve you’re sliding down!
Are you saying it is unconstitutional for communities to take your money without your choice to pay for public school systems?
Would they? - All of them?
You’re putting your evo friends theories in jeopardy now :o)
No, that is still "Apples/oranges". They are two different questions. What is not an "Apples/oranges" comparison is the one that RightWingNilla pointed out, and that was the rise from 9% to 14% in the evolution group during the period from 1982 to 2008. Part of that rise could have come from those that believed in evolution with God directing it plus some who were previously in the group "other/no opinion". That is because those who did not believe in evolution remained constant as a percentage over the period involved.
No. It is pretty clear that I stated that the federal government had no business in the decision of what should be taught in the public schools.(I should add that does not apply to schools provided by the federal government for federal employees outside of any state's territory.)
What about sea snakes, whales and dolphins?
Must have fed them the unicorns.
I live in the real world, and I've been engaged in these creation-evolution debates for the better part of the last 40 years.
I have also had the privilege of knowing and working with some of the best and most accomplished minds in their therapeutic fields, particularly in pain and cancer vaccine development research.
These evo-dweebs wash up here on FR and try to make it seem as though "those-in-the-know" in modern science have no misgivings about materialistic models. All they are really saying is that for all their talk they don't have enough experience living in the real world, or simply haven't acquired sufficient mental maturity of their own to be able to separate what is fact from fantasy.
Their insecurity is obvious. Their lips are planted squarely on Darwin's backside to the point that their mental growth is stunted and their view of life never improves, as a result. They are the ultimate Darwin suck ups, because they derive their identity, self worth, and what ever position they deceive themselves into thinking they have from what emanates from Darwinism's backside. They live among the ugly meaningless voids of their opportunistic, miserable, and pointless little existences. Some show up around here pretending to be conservatives, but their pathologically smarmy, snarky, bottom feeding bilge betrays them as the worthless, liberal, atheistic, snot-nosed agnostics they are at heart. Many are Darwin Central retreads and some are just DU plants, and newbie-trolls. None are true conservatives.
Darwinism leaves some of the most brilliant and intellectually honest scientists I've known utterly cold, and they find the whole thing leaves them intellectually empty, and unfulfilled in its purposelessness. Life scientists in health care are largely driven by purpose. The purpose of research and practice is to have meaning and meaning defines a therapeutic purpose. To design a therapeutic strategy for healing based upon models of consistency is to restore health by restoring system order. Order and randomness are mutually exclusive concepts. A healthy body is well ordered machine functioning at a top level of its performance.
It may interest you to learn that many of the esteemed scientists with whom I work confide their strong doubts about Darwinism as any kind of a credible foundational model upon which to design a therapy, because of what they observe as implying... there's that word again.... design. Life, for all intents purposes and by every credible observation simply doesn't work any other way.
I have also busted enough academic posers and incompetents in my years in the fields of healthcare and life sciences too. Not unsurprisingly they also tended to be Darwin's biggest defenders. Some are even posting on this thread right now.
As I said earlier: NONE are true conservatives.
BUT, true conservatives are ready to tear them a new one just the same.
bkmk
“That there remains free thought is a testimony to the truth and the strength of God’s Word”.
Ummm, you should be very wary of pinging bop to a post mentioning God’s Word...because he’s already clearly told metmom, GGG and myself that understanding Biblical scripture as being the Word of God, is mere idolatry.
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.