Skip to comments.
Bill Nye the Science Guy says creationism not good for kids
Reuters ^
| August 28, 2012
| Lily Kuo
Posted on 08/28/2012 3:39:34 AM PDT by rickmichaels
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 321-329 next last
To: tacticalogic; metmom; betty boop; MrB; Agamemnon
If it's correct scientifically, that should be sufficient for the purpose of a discussion of the science of it.Betty Boop was correct scientifically, not Darwinism. But way to give it the good old college try!
181
posted on
09/07/2012 11:19:18 AM PDT
by
tpanther
(Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
To: tacticalogic; betty boop; MrB; metmom; Agamemnon
The better question is of course: What scientific theory requires so many lawsuits to prop it up?
What is it exactly that makes that "the better question"?
More germain to the discussion, better exposure of what's really going on here. Re-read betty boop's fine points if you must.
182
posted on
09/07/2012 11:24:49 AM PDT
by
tpanther
(Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
To: tpanther
Betty Boop was correct scientifically, not Darwinism. But way to give it the good old college try! If that's all you've got, we'll just let it rest there.
183
posted on
09/07/2012 11:33:45 AM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tpanther
More germain to the discussion, better exposure of what's really going on here. Re-read betty boop's fine points if you must. I think betty is entirely capable of determining what questions are germain to her own discussions, and asking them.
You are of course, free to disagree.
184
posted on
09/07/2012 11:36:58 AM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tacticalogic; Alamo-Girl
Using lawsuits as a metric? Wow.Yeah, wow, liberalism on parade. It's the only way liberals can get their agenda's, in this case Darwinism, accepted. And you seriously thought somehow science was gonna be off-limits? Objective?
Just...
WOW!
185
posted on
09/07/2012 11:36:58 AM PDT
by
tpanther
(Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
To: tpanther
I kind of expected that it would be recognized that you can file all the lawsuits you want, and you can't trust a metric that lets you manufacture your own evidence.
Maybe that was too much to hope for.......
186
posted on
09/07/2012 11:39:41 AM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tacticalogic; Agamemnon
And here I ignorantly thought that since there hasn’t been scientific debate about the fact of evolution for 160 years that even Free Republic had caught up.
I guess not.
187
posted on
09/07/2012 11:42:32 AM PDT
by
whattajoke
(Let's keep Conservatism real.)
To: whattajoke
“...fact of evolution...”
There’s your problem, right there.
188
posted on
09/07/2012 11:52:41 AM PDT
by
MarDav
To: MarDav
No. Not at all.
I know you, and many others here disagree, but that doesn’t change a thing.
189
posted on
09/07/2012 11:56:22 AM PDT
by
whattajoke
(Let's keep Conservatism real.)
To: tacticalogic
It’s all Darwinism has, and why don’t you people rest when you’re shown the multiple flaws?
190
posted on
09/07/2012 12:10:30 PM PDT
by
tpanther
(Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
To: tacticalogic
I kind of expected that it would be recognized that you can file all the lawsuits you want, and you can't trust a metric that lets you manufacture your own evidence. Maybe that was too much to hope for.......,Darwinism.
There, finished it for you.
191
posted on
09/07/2012 12:14:20 PM PDT
by
tpanther
(Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
To: Agamemnon
If we are going to do a careful reading of scripture, God made man after His image and likeness. It does not say He ushered in a process that led, ultimately, to a creation that, through said process, resulted in a creature after His image and likeness (What kind of God would do such a thing? Which gives Him the greater glory?) The Pre-Fall notion that God implemented a system of evolutionary forces diminishes God and requires a “reading into” His word things that are not directly suggested by it.
The “Post-Fall” scenario is equally confounding. After God created all things...sin entered the world (through the disobedience of His creatures). This brought into effect the “force” (death) that counters God’s intention for His creation (life.) If the biblical principle of sin and sin’s consequence is true, then how can one conclude that God had put into effect a system that, now tainted by the flaw of sin, would result in an ever-improving, ever-evolving creation that exceeds what He originally brought into existence? Once more, God is diminished.
These things are spiritually discerned, as are all things pertaining to life and godliness, and only by faith can they be understood.
192
posted on
09/07/2012 12:17:00 PM PDT
by
MarDav
To: tpanther
There, finished it for you. That's the objective.
193
posted on
09/07/2012 12:18:20 PM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: whattajoke
Facts are facts...except when they aren’t. You can’t change the fact that evolution is not fact. It’s theory.
194
posted on
09/07/2012 12:19:30 PM PDT
by
MarDav
To: tacticalogic; TXnMA; betty boop; tpanther; metmom; Alamo-Girl; MrB; hosepipe; GodGunsGuts
Did your theology teach you that? I am informed not only by my theology.
I am also informed in this present discussion by your stark inability to hold up your side of the debate.
FReegards!
195
posted on
09/07/2012 12:23:19 PM PDT
by
Agamemnon
(Darwinism is the glue that holds liberalism together)
To: Agamemnon
If you were doing that well, I don’t think you’d be having to resort to personal attacks.
196
posted on
09/07/2012 12:26:35 PM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: MarDav
You cant change the fact that evolution is not fact. Its theory.
This again? I appreciate your interest. As such, I'll indulge you, even though you've surely read this before.
Here is a nice, short and very clear explanation about the fact - and theory - of evolution.
If you are disinclined to click on that, here are the most relevant paragraphs:
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.
Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.
Yes. While I absolutely know that you, and many others here, simply cannot accept that evolution is as accepted at heliocentrism, germs-cause-disease, the earths crust is made up of plates, etc, it IS. And has been for over a century.
We still have plenty of people who disbelieve heliocentrism. They would argue that "it's only a theory." They may even point to a Bronze Age religious text as "proof."
And they'd be just as wrong as creationists.
197
posted on
09/07/2012 12:31:42 PM PDT
by
whattajoke
(Let's keep Conservatism real.)
To: whattajoke; TXnMA; betty boop; tpanther; metmom; Alamo-Girl; MrB; hosepipe; GodGunsGuts; MarDav
And here I ignorantly thought ... Ignorant thought is what is expected of those that espouse evolutionary dogma.
So glad to see you acknowledge the ignorance of your thought processes right up front and with your first posting to this thread.
... the fact of evolution ...
... a "fact," which you simply do not have, and no evolutionist who was ever acquainted even casually with the scientific method would ever claim as fact. Chalk that up to yet one more ignorant posting form you.
... Free Republic had caught up.
More correctly, FreeRepublic has caught on to the posers, and continues to distinguish itself apart from the Darwin Central retreads such as yourself, "Paradox," "tactalogic," et. al, who try to impress readers with conservatism they parrot for convenience, but in reality is something quite foreign to their collective world-view.
198
posted on
09/07/2012 3:41:42 PM PDT
by
Agamemnon
(Darwinism is the glue that holds liberalism together)
To: tacticalogic; TXnMA; betty boop; tpanther; metmom; Alamo-Girl; MrB; hosepipe; GodGunsGuts; ...
If you were doing that well, I dont think youd be having to resort to personal attacks. Playing the victim card are we now?
Do your self-inflicted wounds some how taste better to you, just because you are the only one who will lick them?
You Darwinist liberals are all the same.
199
posted on
09/07/2012 3:44:08 PM PDT
by
Agamemnon
(Darwinism is the glue that holds liberalism together)
To: MarDav
Well written and well-reasoned, MarDav!
FReegards!
200
posted on
09/07/2012 3:46:00 PM PDT
by
Agamemnon
(Darwinism is the glue that holds liberalism together)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 321-329 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson