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

Skip to comments.

Ga. school board OKs teaching creationism
CNN.com ^ | Friday, September 27, 2002 | CNN

Posted on 09/27/2002 5:59:21 AM PDT by Heartlander

Edited on 04/29/2004 2:01:19 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) --A suburban Atlanta school board Thursday night voted unanimously to allow teachers to introduce students to different views about the origins of life, among them creationism.

The Cobb County Board of Education, the state's second-largest school board, approved the policy change after limited discussion, calling it a "necessary element of providing a balanced education."


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


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: crevolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 681-699 next last
To: gore3000
Actually, theories on the evolution of bat echolocation, the characteristics of the platypus and the other 'examples' you provided do exist. Your ignorance of the existence of these theories are not evidence against evoluiton.
141 posted on 09/27/2002 8:30:20 PM PDT by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: SwordofTruth
Time to invoke Godwin's Rule.

As the first to bring up Hitler or the Nazi's in a non-political, non-WWII context, you are declared the loser.
142 posted on 09/27/2002 8:31:24 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
The Scientologists will finally get equal time with the Christian, Wiccan, Hopi, and Chukchi Creation stories. These are all of equal scientific validity.
143 posted on 09/27/2002 8:36:49 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: hoosierskypilot
"the first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred."

And spontaneous generation is considered by science to be an impossibility

.

144 posted on 09/27/2002 8:38:16 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: stanz
So the fossil record, the molecular clock, Potassium-Argon dating and Mitochondrial DNA don't count.

They count as observations that support the theory, but they are not proof. According to the scientific method I learned, proof follows controlled, reproducable experiments that demonstrate the predictions implied by the theory.

145 posted on 09/27/2002 8:38:41 PM PDT by dmcnash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Blah, blah, blah…” Laziness”, an excuse, justifiction…. Blah, blah, blah… What’s this? Video tape – nope, he just put my text in bold (anticlimactic) …
Blah, blah, blah… Maybe, among your other failings, you don't know the meanings of words. Look up "anthropomorphic," and ask yourself what proven-to-exist entity in the universe "looks" at things and "says" things.
Note to self: prove Vade exists and is not a mythological being who makes assumptions, interjects words, and misses the point of analogies (may be tough)…
Blah, blah.. Please restrict your reply to non-imaginary beings. (may be tougher than first thought)
Blah, blah, Your arguments from relentless, ineducable ignorance are not science. How ironic…
Blah, blah, blah… There have been selection pressures operating to increase the sophistication of nervous systems since ‘before’ there were nervous systems. Classic and bizarre! – (no intelligence before intelligence though?)
Blah… There are far, far, far fewer synapses in the brain. Oh, you probably mean visible-to-the-naked-eye-on-a-cloudy-night stars A human brain packs ten trillion cells, the number of stars in the Galaxy…
Blah, blah… you have no problem with naturalism being taught in school…
Blah, blah… Many Christians are perfectly good at science and have no problem with evolution. Yes, they don’t attribute every thing to purely natural causes though – which has been my point…
Blah, blah… wait, what’s this?
Me: You believe science should only be limited to purely natural explanations (naturalism)
You: There is no way for science to do anything else.
146 posted on 09/27/2002 8:39:38 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: hoosierskypilot
G.A. Kerkut, the eminent British evolutionist, wrote a book entitled, "The Implications of Evolution." He listed seven nonprovable assumptions upon which evolution is based. At the very top of his list (note: his list; not mine), was this statement: "the first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred." (1960, p.6)

He was wrong. Evolution does not rely on any specific life origin hypothesis. The original life forms could have been zap-poofed into existence by some divine entity and that would have no bearing on the validity of evolution.
147 posted on 09/27/2002 8:40:19 PM PDT by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
astrology, flat earth, out-of-body travel, palm reading, reincarnation, and pyramid power

Don't laugh. I suspect some of that garbage is being taught today.

148 posted on 09/27/2002 8:40:40 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: SwordofTruth
Hitler was no Christian. He hated Christianity. link
149 posted on 09/27/2002 8:46:38 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
I'd love to find out who Godwin was. He should get a plaque or something.
150 posted on 09/27/2002 8:51:37 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Some more Hitler quotes.
151 posted on 09/27/2002 8:56:03 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: SwordofTruth; Physicist
You call yourself a Physicist then make a statement to prove your nothing more than an ignorant buffoon.

You’re kidding! Right?

Evolution is the linchpin of all modern biology. From DNA studies, the fossil record, radioactive decay chains, geological morphology, continental drift, etc. (in fact most branches of science), point to evolution as being the best model to describe the diversity of life here on earth.

152 posted on 09/27/2002 9:01:05 PM PDT by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Karl_Lembke
Charles Darwin (1809-1882) was born into wealth and able to have a life of ease. He took two years of medical school at Edinburgh University, and then dropped out. It was the only scientific training he ever received. Because he spent the time in the bars with his friends, he barely passed his courses. Darwin had no particular purpose in life, and his father planned to get him into a nicely paid job as an Anglican minister. Darwin did not object.

But an influential relative got him a position as unpaid "naturalist" on a ship planning to sail around the world, the Beagle. The voyage lasted from December 1831 to October 1836.

… During horseback travels into the interior, he took part in their ceremonies and, as a result, something happened to him. Upon his return to England, although his health was strangely weakened, he spent the rest of his life working on theories… {to explain life without need of a creator}.

After leaving South America, Darwin was on the Galapagos Islands for a few days. While there, he saw some Finches, Darwin's finches which had blown in from South America and adapted to their environment, producing several sub-species. He was certain that this showed cross-species evolution (change into new species). But they were still finches. This theory about the finches was the primary evidence of evolution he brought back with him to England.

Darwin, never a scientist and knowing nothing about the practicalities of genetics, then married his first cousin, which resulted in all seven of his children having physical or mental disorders. (One girl died after birth, another at 10. His oldest daughter had a prolonged breakdown at 15. Three of his six sons became semi-invalids, and his last son was born mentally retarded and died 19 months after birth.)

His book, Origin of the Species, was first published in November 1859. The full title, On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, reveals… {‘his’ underlying concepts}

Side note:
Karl Marx (1818-1883) is closely linked with Darwinism. That which *Darwin did to biology, Marx with the help of others did to society. All the worst political philosophies of the 20th century emerged from the dark cave of Darwinism. Marx was thrilled when he read Origin of the Species and he immediately wrote Darwin and asked to dedicate his own major work, Das KapitalDas Kapital, to him. Darwin, in his reply, thanked him but said it would be best not to do so.

In 1866, Marx wrote to Frederick Engels, that Origin of the Species contained the basis in natural history for their political and economic system for an atheist world. Engels, the co-founder of world communism with Marx and *Lenin, wrote to Karl Marx in 1859: "Darwin, whom I am just now reading, is splendid" (C. Zirkle, Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene, 1959, p. 85). In 1861, Marx wrote to Engels: "Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural selection for the class struggle in history" (*op. cit., p. 86). At Marx’s funeral, Engles said that, as Darwin had discovered the law of organic evolution in natural history, so Marx had discovered the law of evolution in human history (*Otto Ruhle, Karl Marx, 1948, p. 366).

Note: The above was to show why many associate Darwin with Marx. In Darwin’s defense, I do not believe he intended to establish communism with his theory.

Back to his book:
In his book, Darwin reasoned from theory to facts, and provided little evidence for what he had to say. Modern evolutionists are ashamed of the book, with its ridiculous arguments.

Darwin’s book had what some men wanted: a clear out-in-the-open, current statement in favor of species change. So, in spite of its laughable imperfections, they capitalized on it. Here is what you will find in his book:

Darwin would cite authorities that he did not mention. He repeatedly said it was "only an abstract," and "a fuller edition" would come out later. But, although he wrote other books, try as he may he never could find the proof for his theories. No one since has found it either.

When he did name an authority, it was just an opinion from a letter. Phrases indicating the hypothetical nature of his ideas were frequent: "It might have been," "Maybe," "probably," "it is conceivable that." A favorite of his was: "Let us take an imaginary example."

Darwin would suggest a possibility, and later refer back to it as a fact: "As we have already demonstrated previously." Elsewhere he would suggest a possible series of events and then conclude by assuming that proved the point.

He relied heavily on stories instead of facts. Confusing examples would be given. He would use specious and devious arguments, and spent much time suggesting possible explanations why the facts he needed were not available.

Here is an example of his reasoning: To explain the fossil trans-species gaps, Darwin suggested that species must have been changing quickly in other parts of the world where men had not yet examined the strata. Later these changed species traveled over to the Western World, to be found in strata there as new species. So species were changing on the other side of the world, and that was why species in the process of change were not found on our side! To explain the fossil trans-species gaps, Darwin suggested that species must have been changing quickly in other parts of the world where men had not yet examined the strata. Later these changed species traveled over to the Western World, to be found in strata there as new species. So species were changing on the other side of the world, and that was why species in the process of change were not found on our side!

With thinking like this, who needs science? But remember that Charles Darwin never had a day of schooling in the sciences.

Here is Darwin’s explanation of how one species changes into another:
It is a variation of Lamarck’s theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics (*Nicholas Hutton III, Evidence of Evolution, 1962, p. 138). Calling it pangenesis, Darwin said that an organ affected by the environment would respond by giving off particles that he called gemmules. These particles supposedly helped determine hereditary characteristics. The environment would affect an organ; gemmules would drop out of the organ; and the gemmules would travel to the reproductive organs, where they would affect the cells (W. Stansfield, Science of Evolution, 1977, p. 38). As mentioned earlier, scientists today are ashamed of Darwin’s ideas.

In his book, Darwin taught that man came from an ape, and that the stronger races would, within a century or two, destroy the weaker ones. (Modern evolutionists claim that man and ape descended from a common ancestor.)

Note: This is what was attractive to Marx and Hitler… Once again, in Darwin’s defense, I do not believe this to be his intent.

He developed a chronic and incapacitating illness, and went to his death under a depression he could not shake (Random House Encyclopedia, 1977, p. 768).

153 posted on 09/27/2002 9:02:48 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
Hooray!!!!!!
154 posted on 09/27/2002 9:04:14 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
I think most of those were covered in my link. Never forget: Timothy McVeigh was an anti-government libertarian atheist. :-)
155 posted on 09/27/2002 9:04:19 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
The first expected poster shows up.
156 posted on 09/27/2002 9:04:56 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SwordofTruth; whattajoke
You are indeed a joke, just like the religion of evolution.

Interesting personal attack. Do you think that lends credibility to you argument?

157 posted on 09/27/2002 9:06:11 PM PDT by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Karl_Lembke
Outright lie. It doesn't matter if you didn't know it was a lie: -5 points

If we catch you quoting liars, we will treat you as a liar yourself.

Great, Scientific American has met the first criteria, and those citing the article that has the lie are therefore "liars" by your estimation.

158 posted on 09/27/2002 9:14:17 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Michael Godwin observed that in any internet-based discussion of any subject (at the time the primary discussion medium was USENET, but it applies for any medium) the probability of a comparison or linking reference to Hitler or Nazi Germany being made approached 1. He further stated that the person making such a reference or comparison immedeately conceded the debate.

Godwin's Law does not apply when the person making the reference or comparison is doing so in a deliberate attempt easily weasel out of the debate (so that he can declare "Hah, you can't win so you resort to stupid 'conventions'), much like washing your car to make it rain does not work. Also, I believe that the law does not apply in discussions about World War II, Hitler or the Nazi regime.
159 posted on 09/27/2002 9:21:07 PM PDT by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Thanks!
160 posted on 09/27/2002 9:32:18 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 681-699 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