Posted on 08/08/2005 8:49:04 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
Good point. I meant "free market" to include not paying taxes to support a government system, whether or not one uses the system. Sort of like a "free market" for retirement pensions would not have mandatory contributions to Social Security, in addition to which one can privately save for retirement. WE can get rid of the part that doesn't work (the government system) to free up resources for the part that does work (the private system).
>>>They are NOT our descendant as I had always been taught.
LOL!! Good catch. What I MEANT, was we are not their descendant.
As though "the critter evolved" is somehow vastly more important than "what the critter is now."
I wonder what Mr. Darwin thought when he was suddenly in the presence of his CREATOR....
Well -- would you support paying taxes to support a fully vouchered or privatized system? One where the government owned no schools, but funded every child's education, at least to a minimum per year.
Bravo and true!
I'd start by asking where it was taught that "neantherdal" man was our descendant.
oh bleep!!
and since evolution is really a theory coming out of a secular humanistic mindset...why can't ID or even creation science be "mentioned" in the same breath as all being potentials for origins?
To believe that there is no life Santa Claus other than what one sees is a religion. Not beleiving in Santa Claus Atheism or Secular Humanism is a religion no different than any other.
As Philip Johnson points out this battle is first and foremost a battle for the definitions of what is "science." If a secular atheist can define science on his materialistic terms, then the outcome of any discussion with a "creationist" is pre-determined. So why bother?
Well honestly, I happen to believe there is a lot of misinformation on both sides. You cite a "Catch 22" from the secular evolutionist community for sure, but some creationists put up theology as science, using their limited apprehension of Genesis texts to rule out scientific evidence as discovered.
At the heart of the debate seems to be a lot of false claims by the evolution teachers. The biggest false claim being presented as "science" is that we can construct of decent scenario for the origin of life, that it has been done. It hasn't and it can't!!!
Life alone gives birth to life! That's a fair analysis.
Those on FR that I've talked with know that evolution does not solve the origins of life.
The rejection of ID as an explanation of the origin of life cannot be addressed by "evolutionists."
Secondly, the idea that the Genesis account of our origins, six days of work for God and a day of rest, should be taught as part of a science curriculum is also very much clouding this debate. I don't believe Genesis should be used in a science class.
(For the record I a method-questioning creationist)
Once I receive and rerun your experiments, we can begin.
And what is the list of evolutionist experiments that have proven their concept of spontaneously happening life?
When was the last Big Bang reproduction?
I am referring to their lack of willingness to public debates with the best minds of both sides, not private debates or public debates on a forum such as this one.
There's a free market for education today. No one HAS to attend the government school.
These two statements don't hold up. First, government schools are not a free market, and should be. They are monopolized by the Secular Humanists and Atheists, and defended as their turf.
Second, talk to the working poor about HAVING to attend the government school! They have little choice, and the monopolists (who pretend to be such choicers) don't even want them to be able to move or compete within the local government schools in their own school district, let alone compete across districts, or with private schools.
In fact what I'd insist on being taught is that atomic decay is measurable and these measurements consistantly show that it would take 4.5 billion years for half the atoms in a mass of U-238 to decay into Pb-206, which when based on samples found in nature and samples of other isotopes wtih different rates of decay, leads to a scientific consensus that the age of earth is 4.55 billion years old.
Further, I'd want it taught that measurements in the shift of the spectrum of light to the red of various celestial objects indicate the universe to be at least 8 billion years old.
If a student should challenge -- say by asking how the age could be determined without knowing the initial composition of the sample -- the teacher could say "very good, Bobby. You get a bonus point for thinking." If the student should insist, the teacher could point out the measurments and challenge the student in return to study hard and grow up to try to refute them -- hence encouraging a love of science.
Now, evolution is a different story.
Student: How do single-celled asexual bacteria could evolve into multi-celled sexual creatures.
Teacher: Mutations
Student: What kind of mutations?
Teacher: They were mutations in the genetic code.
Student: Well, how did they happen? How do they work.
Teacher: I just told you. Mutations, so shut up. What are you some kind of anti-science fundamentalist?
And there you have it.
True and well put.
However, as President, they are free to use the "bully pulpit" for whatever they choose. If the president wanted to have a press conference on just this...they could...and no one could truly have grounds to complain, although they are free to complain. They could just not vote for that president.
You win...you get the "bully pulpit"...end of story.
The missing link between what and what?
Great.
Student: How do single-celled asexual bacteria could evolve into multi-celled sexual creatures. Teacher: Mutations Student: What kind of mutations? Teacher: They were mutations in the genetic code. Student: Well, how did they happen? How do they work. Teacher: I just told you. Mutations, so shut up. What are you some kind of anti-science fundamentalist?
So you're against crappy science teaching. Me too.
When I was in high-school biology, we compared various green algae, from single celled ones, to multicelled undifferentiated ones, to multi-celled differentiated algae. You could see through the microscope that individual cells of Volvox looked very similar to single-celled algae like Euglena. It wasn't hard, therefore, to see how multicellularity could have evolved.
The origins of life are not part of the TOE.
When was the last Big Bang reproduction?
The origins of the universe are not part of the TOE.
Oh by the way (sorry for the second follow-up), with zircons, for example, we know that uranium chemically incorporates into the structure and lead does not, so we have the initial composition.
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.