Posted on 01/07/2002 3:16:27 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:32:03 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court declined Monday to be drawn into a debate over the teaching of evolution in America's public schools.
The refusal is a victory for schools that require teachers to instruct on the subject even if the teacher disagrees with the scientific theory.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
(crickets sound...chirp, chirp)
(crickets sound)
Ah yes, the ole bi-lateral brain trying to define a quasi-dimensional cosmos, truelly amazing...LOL
No one knows the absolute truth except the sociopathec delusional fool.
Indeed it is "good stuff"! Thanks. However, you are far and above me in this branch of science! :)
Not true at all. Would you want your teacher also teaching that the earth was flat and rested on the back of a tortise? Same diff.
The data proves quite the contrary. It proves that man did not descend from monkeys. It proves that man has no known relatives from which he descended. It proves that evolutionists constantly falsify information, borrow bones from tens of miles away, and make up phony drawings to support their theory. One can go to almost any site where "proof" of evolution is claimed and not see a single bone to back up the claims made.
How enlightening... (ho, hum)
Where are all those geeks that are descended from Gorilla Snot? - They should love this logic-killer thread.
Well, yes, then you are a "creationist," but in this sense so is (virtually) any theist.
In my view the bible teaches (in the main, though its testimony on the matter does vary considerably) that God is deeply involved in the governance of all aspects of the "natural" world, so that a true biblical theist should see no fundamental conflict between a full-bodied theism and a "naturalistic" understanding of the world's history and operation.
For example the bible claims, of babies developing in the womb, that God "knits [them] together of bone and sinew," and that He "forms [their] inward parts" (which, interestingly, does not seem to inspire any opposition to teaching embryological development as a purely natural process). The book of Amos says that God "creates" the wind, using the same term that fundamentalists insist only refers to ex nihilo creation in Genesis (but no one denies that wind has a physical cause).
But in spite of all this, antievolutionists arbitrarily draw a line at the creation of species, especially humans, and assert or assume that naturalistic theories of evolution "leave God out". (Funny that God can create individual humans in the womb by natural means, but couldn't, according to the fundies, manage to create the species itself in like manner.)
Considering that the sophistication and subtlty of (antievolutionary) creationists is actually less, in these respects, than the primitive sheepherders who wrote The Bible, maybe we could refer to them as "cretinists," and allow other theists to reclaim the "creationist" title? Somehow, though, I think the "cretinists" would object. :-)
No, not the same diff. That the earth is a sphere and is not on a tortoise has been incontrovertibly proven. That evolution is true has not. In fact, many evolutionists themselves have disagreed with some of the basic tenets of evolution such as the fossil record proving it. DNA research has also shown how nearly impossible it is for new genes to arise by random chance. It is evolution which is being disproven on a daily basis, not creationism.
Not true at all. Would you want your teacher also teaching that the earth was flat and rested on the back of a tortise? Same diff.
B-a-a-a-d analogy! Hawking's example (a flat world resting ona an infinite number of tortoises) was from physics and astronomy, and bore on knowledge that did not require leaps of faith, in order to support theories so shaky that folks (e.g., Gould) had developed immunization strategies to shield them from criticism.
Apparently, you are a true believer.
LOL! Same old gore! Literally and always the same old gore. Do you have some kind of strange mental condition that causes your brain to reset every five minutes and forget the 50 previous occasions that your claims (e.g. the one here obviously referring to "Lucy's" knee) have been refuted?
When such evidence arises, it is destroyed, called false, misdated or otherwise falsified. The so called "scientists" that dig up bones have very much a self interest in backing up evolution. In fact, most of evolution work is government funded (no private enterprise would pay for such garbage - they want stuff that gets results not bull duty) and they would lose their moolah if they came up with the wrong conclusions.
Same old Stultis, only insults but no refutations. That man did not descend from monkeys is now well proven and well acknowledged scientific fact and you are a very dishonest person for insulting me when you know I am telling the truth.
However, I am not surprised to see you blatantly lie. All the evolutionists seem to be quite adept at it.
BTW - seems you are performing your usual duty of carrying water for Patrick Henry - or are you just another handle which he uses to gang up on creationists all by himself?
Seems you evolutionists keep trying to tell people that they can believe in God and believe in evolution at the same time, but once in a while as in the above, you let out the truth which you try to cover up so hard - that evolution and religion are totally incompatible. Heck, any clear minded person with an ounce of common sense can see the blatant atheism of the evolutionists so I am not sure why you folk bother to tell such lies - guess like with Clinton, lying is just part of your natures.
The above is the biggest evolutionist lie of all. Darwin had absolutely no scientific proof of his theory - NONE AT ALL - and I dare you and your fellow evolutionists to prove my statement wrong. Let's see if you can discuss facts and refute statements with proof instead of sophistry.
Too much LSD back in 'Nam?
Of course.
One of the problems is that evolution education needs to be modernized and properly presented to avoid the invitation of conflict from people who obviously hold different views. One of LeFake's criticisms, for example, was the inclusion of Heackle Embryos in the biology textbook.
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.