Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

JIMMY MONKEYS WITH EVOLUTION FOE
New York Post ^ | 1/31/04 | Reuters

Posted on 01/31/2004 2:47:59 AM PST by kattracks

Edited on 05/26/2004 5:19:21 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

January 31, 2004 -- ATLANTA - Former President Jimmy Carter yesterday blasted a top Georgia education official's bid to strip the word "evolution" from textbooks in some of the state's public schools. Kathy Cox, Georgia's school superintendent, has come under fire for suggesting that science books used in the state's middle and high schools carry the term "biological changes over time" instead of "evolution."


(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: Georgia
KEYWORDS: biology; creationuts; crevolist; evolution; jimmah; jimmycarter; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-102 next last
To: kattracks
This is just great. I'm on the same side of an issue as Jimmy the Dimwit. Back to the History Channel.
81 posted on 02/02/2004 9:08:53 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
I can see why you change the subject.

You clearly do not know what biological change is vs physical change. You mistake biochemical reactions or chemical reactions with biological change. One is in the realm of atoms and molecules, the other the realm of organisms and species. Biological change entails changes which will effect an organism's reproduction. Chemistry, biology, biochemistry, molecular biology are all different words or terms for a reason. They all mean specific things and relate to specific fields of inquiry.

And you have yet to tell us how "biologicial diversity of the fruit increases dramatically" when it rots. TIt is understandable why you have not elaborated on it because it is nonsense - pretty much equal to gibberish.

82 posted on 02/02/2004 11:10:46 PM PST by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
I can see why you change the subject.

You might want to check what this thread is about. I've about seen enough of this act.

83 posted on 02/03/2004 6:30:52 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
You might want to check out the subject we were discussing.

Come on, this isn't an inquisition on my part.

Why are you so defensive and close minded that you won't proffer ideas or friendly discussion?

The idea is maybe people can actually learn something aboiut science and spcifically biology.

84 posted on 02/03/2004 7:45:03 AM PST by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
The idea is maybe people can actually learn something aboiut science and spcifically biology.

No one on this thread is working harder than you are to forestall people from perceiving what is true. You cannot defend Cox's indefensible proposal. This is clear. Now stop prancing around naked.

85 posted on 02/03/2004 7:52:38 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
You cannot defend Cox's indefensible proposal

Neither can you.

In our discussion here we have not talked about that at all.

86 posted on 02/03/2004 8:14:34 AM PST by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
In our discussion here we have not talked about that at all.

Another lie. This thread is about nothing but.

I'm going to ask you yet again. Why is it necessary to lie?

87 posted on 02/03/2004 9:18:17 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
PatrickHenry remains aloof!
88 posted on 02/03/2004 9:35:54 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
It's possible to believe in the christian god and evolution.
Less loose threads than the atheist darwinites! But I suspect Carter's claims and sincerity. He's a phony.
89 posted on 02/03/2004 9:55:58 AM PST by metacognative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
The article that began this thread is about that. You and I haven't been discussing that.

We have been discussing the meaning of the phrase biological change over time and whether or not rotting fruit is an example of such. This article was the jumping off point, but we haven't discussed anything having to do with Georgia or textbooks.

90 posted on 02/03/2004 10:10:40 AM PST by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: metacognative
You keep trying to direct this toward personal attacks and tirades against some group of people you don't like.

I have consistently tried to focus on talking about science. I have mentioned what biological change means, how it differs from chemical or biochemical changes, which relates to the nature of biology and its core focus vs chemistry and its core focus and the subdisciplines that come from the relation between the two -- biochemistry and molecular biology.

The differences are subtle but important and, if one actually has an interest in science, worth discussing for enjoyment.

Why is it you just want to fight?

91 posted on 02/03/2004 10:24:41 AM PST by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: metacognative
I doubt Carter's sincerity as well, so we agree!
92 posted on 02/03/2004 10:28:35 AM PST by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Are you really willing to pretend you don't understand anything? Fine! Full credit! You don't understand anything.

In trying to pretend that the rotting of fruit is not "biological change over time," you are trying to defend Cathy Cox's proposed change as not replacing a precise term with a vague one. Of course, to do so you would have to also address every other instance of biological change over time which is not evolution, such as a zygote becoming a human. OK, you originally were pretending to defend the phrase against purported attempts to ban it. Cretin Science at its finest, that.

I have asked you why you lied about who is trying to ban what. First you lied, now you dodge. Why are you doing this? In the end, I'm not a wannabee biologist or a wannabee geologist or a wannabee physicist, I'm a guy who never used his old Psych major. What's the deal with a guy who walks in on a thread thinking he can lie about anything at all to anybody?

Hell, why am I reading the thread back to you? You can read, right? Straighten your own self out.
93 posted on 02/03/2004 12:44:03 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
PatrickHenry remains aloof!

You're OK, but tell those other loofs to stay out of my way!

94 posted on 02/03/2004 12:46:25 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
There is no proposal to ban that phrase. There is a proposal to ban the term "evolution." Are you having a problem?

Sort of like substituting "limb" for "leg". Actually I don't like the term evolution. It's pre-Darwinian and sounds like the working out of of a designed scenerio.

Natural Selection is incomplete, but would be preferal. The most accurate phrases are too long and wordy. Maybe we should bite the bullet and call it Darwinism.

95 posted on 02/03/2004 12:54:10 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Actually I don't like the term evolution. It's pre-Darwinian and sounds like the working out of of a designed scenerio.

I think we're stuck with it. The Darwinian sense of the word is in the dictionary and scientists use it.

96 posted on 02/03/2004 1:04:06 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
you are trying to defend Cathy Cox's proposed change as not replacing a precise term with a vague one

No I'm not.

I have pointed out how your example was wrong. You haven't responded.

97 posted on 02/03/2004 1:44:19 PM PST by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
I have pointed out how your example was wrong.

You did seem to try to claim that eating, metabolism, and excretion are not topics in biology. If you did, you're wrong. If you didn't, you didn't address that as being what happens to rotting fruit.

You haven't responded.

I'd rather marvel at the transparent dishonesty of your posts. Really. There's something about people who brazen things to ridiculous levels. You're a poster boy for the syndrome.

98 posted on 02/03/2004 2:44:49 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
You did seem to try to claim that eating, metabolism, and excretion are not topics in biology

No.

Still, you are not consistent with your own example unless you are suggestting the rotting fruit is eating.

Eating or being eaten are not examples of biological changes.

Of course, more insults from you.

99 posted on 02/03/2004 3:52:57 PM PST by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
... tell those other loofs to stay out of my way!

Half aloof is better than none.

100 posted on 02/03/2004 7:27:21 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Theory: a comprehensible, falsifiable, cause-and-effect explanation of verifiable facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-102 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson