Posted on 10/07/2002 12:44:39 PM PDT by wallcrawlr
A suburban school board declares that evolution is just another theory
NEWT GINGRICH, while he was a Georgia congressman and then as speaker of the House, was known for his interest in scientific research. Some Georgians prefer a different approach. On September 26th the school board of Cobb County, in the north-western Atlanta suburbs, voted to amend existing policy to allow discussion of “disputed views of academic subjects”, specifically the idea that God created the universe in six days—Charles Darwin, Stephen Jay Gould and the rest of them be damned.
The vote came after a month of deliberation, at a meeting crowded with concerned parents. Some 2,000 of the county's residents signed a petition last spring to have the board put stickers on biology textbooks telling students that evolution is a theory, not a fact. “What they're trying to do is appease the religious right,” says Michael Manely, the lawyer representing a local parent who wanted the stickers removed.
The war between creationists and evolutionists had recently fallen quiet. In 1999, the Kansas state board of education dropped evolution from state examinations; but by 2001 the three most prominent anti-evolutionists had been voted out of office, and the decision quietly reversed. Of late, the Christian right has focused on other topics. But the anti-evolutionists' victory in Cobb County may stimulate similar-minded people elsewhere. In Ohio, the state board of education is under pressure to include “intelligent design”—the idea that the complexity of the universe proves the existence of the divine—when it issues a new science curriculum.
Cobb County's new policy argues that providing information on “disputed views” is “necessary for a balanced education” and will help to promote “acceptance of diversity of opinion”. A poll commissioned in 2000 by People for the American Way, a liberal-minded group, shows that many Americans think this way. Nearly half of the respondents believed that the theory of evolution had not yet been proved. And of those who believe in evolution—only a fifth wanted evolution taught alone—three-quarters liberally agreed that students should be presented with “all points of view” and “make up their own minds”. In this post-modern reasoning, evolution and the Book of Genesis are equally valid.
The losers have already begun worrying aloud that this will hurt Cobb County's reputation as a place where children can get a good education. Cobb's schools consistently rank above the state average, which is not saying much. But what happens if superior schools insist that previously accepted facts have become mere theory? No comment from Mr Gingrich, who now lives in Virginia.
Yeah, MAN/like you knOw what
goes on in like Area 51/Kennedy assassination/BLACK
helicopters/MAN. Froot/LOOPS/conspiracy/--you
know what they put in those things, man? It's like their turning our minds/ZOMBIES/aliens/dinner/proof/MAN.
I've spent a great deal of time looking at the evidence. I've come to the conclusion that the reason you can't prove evolution is pretty much the same reason you can't prove that the moon is made of cheese. The facts don't support it. On the contrary, the facts prove evolution to be impossible.
Georgia School Board Bans 'Theory Of Math'
COGDELL, GA—The Cogdell School Board banned the
teaching of the controversial "Theory Of Math" in its
schools Monday. "We are simply not confident of this
mysterious process by which numbers turn, as if by
magic, into other numbers," board member Gus Reese
said. "Those mathematicians are free to believe 3
times 4 equals 12, but that dun [sic] give them the
right to force it on our children." Under the new
ruling, all math textbooks will carry a disclaimer
noting that math is only one of many valid theories of
number-manipulation.
Courtesy of theonion.com
Be sure to alert me when it has testable predictions. At that point, I'll be happy to discuss where ID belongs in the science curriculum.
So even though we knew of Gamma-Ray Bursters in the 60's, we had no way of testing them until the 90's. Does that mean the questions and hypotheses concerning them weren't scientific?
No practical way to test them, or no way, period?
Well in that case, climate modelling is not a science either since no model has been able to successfully predict the past.
You say that like I'm supposed to disagree with you.
And as far as testable conditions are concerned, everything from experimentation to observation in the evolutionary arena has an unremovable ID bias.
Others have patiently explained this to you - I see no reason to continue to impress upon you that any such bias is strictly a figment of your imagination.
We can't measure the temperature of an absolute vacuum either. Is it not scientific then to search for ways to do so?
Non-sequitur.
Oh, and just how testable is the "Big Bang" theory?
Eminently testable.
Also one thing that you are skipping over here is what evolutionists say about the origins. At that point, it could arguably be stated that natural selection was not even in play.
Which is why abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory, per se. It makes no difference to the theory how life originated - evolutionary theory takes over at the point at which it exists. Whether it was a naturalistic means of abiogenesis, or whether God Himself zapped little microorganisms into existence, is irrelevant to the theory of evolution.
It has been proven by carbon dating that oil and coal are merely thousands of years old, not millions, as evolution would have you suggest.
The first law of thermodynamics rules out even the most remote possibility of evolution. That's right. A scientifically accepted LAW rules out the possibility that the THEORY of evolution could be correct. The first law of thermodynamics states that there can be no creation or annihilation of mass/energy. One form of energy can be converted into another form, one state of matter can be converted into another state, and there can even be matter/energy conversions. However the total amount of matter and energy remains constant. So much for the possibility that the universe just sprang into life by accident.
The second law of thermodynamics - this one is really good. To refute it, you have to be either completely ignorant of science, or a complete liar. This LAW tells us that anything which is organized, tends with time, to become disorganized. The increase in information required for a life form to evolve could not happen as this increase in information violates the LAW of thermodynamics.
The first law of biogenetics - doesn't it really bother you when a creationist uses the LAWS of your religion (science) in arguments against you? Anyway, the first LAW of biogenetics has 2 provable concepts to it: (a) Life can only come from life. (b) Like kind ALWAYS gives rise to like kind. In all the years of observing nature, no scientist, no person ever has seen this law violated or broken in any way.
Over the last 150 years, scientists have been carefully measuring the earth's magnetic field. These measurements have shown that the magnetic field decreases by half every 1400 years. Extropolate this backwards, and a mere 12,000 years ago, earth would have been a magnetic star, totally incapable of supporting ANY life, even the most simple bacteria.
Anywhere and everywhere on earth where granite is found, it contains mica. Mica is composed of 3 different isotopes polonium-210, polonium-218, and polonium-214. The shortest lived of these has a half life measure in at less than 0.002 seconds. The longest half-life is 3 minutes. This means that the granite was fully formed in a timeframe between a maximum of 21 minutes and a minimum of less than 1/2 second. Granite could not possibly take 300 million years to form, as evolutionists would like to believe. Science itself has proven the very notion to be silly and ridiculous.
These are all well known scientific facts. There are many others that equally invalidate the theory of evolution. The fact that so many people are willing to tenaciously hold on to their belief in evolution, in spite of the over abundance of scientific evidence that disproves it, is completely bewildering to me.
Yeah, that's a joke noooooooooooow. Just wait 20 years until the last of the WW2 generation are gone and it will be a reality (for the children of the sheeple anyway).
Really? How about a link then? Although, how is that related evolutionary theory??
The first law of thermodynamics rules out even the most remote possibility of evolution.[idiocy snipped]
Wrong!
The second law of thermodynamics - this one is really good. To refute it, you have to be either completely ignorant of science, or a complete liar. This LAW tells us that anything which is organized, tends with time, to become disorganized.
Wrong!
The first law of biogenetics [idiocy snipped]
Wrong!
Over the last 150 years, scientists have been carefully measuring the earth's magnetic field. These measurements have shown that the magnetic field decreases by half every 1400 years. Extropolate this backwards, and a mere 12,000 years ago, earth would have been a magnetic star, totally incapable of supporting ANY life, even the most simple bacteria.
Wrong!
Anywhere and everywhere on earth where granite is found, it contains mica.[idiocy snipped]
Wrong!
These are all well known scientific facts.
Wrong!
There are many others that equally invalidate the theory of evolution.
Wrong!
The fact that so many people are willing to tenaciously hold on to their belief in evolution, in spite of the over abundance of scientific evidence that disproves it, is completely bewildering to me.
Well, since you are 0-for-8 so far, maybe you're just spectacularly ignorant of science in general and evolution in particular.
Thank you. You proved me correct once again. To repeat:
The fact that so many people are willing to tenaciously hold on to their belief in evolution, in spite of the over abundance of scientific evidence that disproves it, is completely bewildering to me.
Your reply when faced with evidence that your religion is a fallacy is to simply reply "wrong". You sound like a demonRAT. Instead of making logical, sound arguments in support of your position, you went from 0 to 80 and went on the offensive with personal attacks. You are pitiful.
While I would truly love to have a meaningful, intelligent debate with you about this, I realize that is impossible, since your mentality prevents anything resembling intelligence.
Your lack of ability to refute the points in my post shows that it is you who is spectactularly ignorant of science in general and the fairy tale of evolution in particular.
He's a joke. I kept thinking a character in a Saturday Night Live sketch (Dana Carvey?) going "Wrong! Wrong!" would be an appropriate response.
Yes, it's just another creationist idiocy that depends on not understanding science. Granite is igneous rock - "300 million years" is a meaningless non-seqitur. Mica isn't composed of polonium. Polonium isotopes are daughter products of various radioactive decay trains and granites are relatively radioactive rock. Other than that Mrs. Lincoln...
No. the second law says the total entropy of system plus surroundings must increase in a spontaneous process. Entropy is a very carefully defined quantity which can loosely be associated with disorder, but what matters is that the total entropy changes. So, for example, there is no problem with beautifully ordered ice crystals growing spontaneously from a freezing fog, because in doing so they emit heat, which in flowing into the air disorders it. And there is no problem with a small amount of order (life) arising in the presence of a massive increase in disorder (the massive emisison of light and heat by the sun.)
Moving on down. Anywhere and everywhere on earth where granite is found, it contains mica. Mica is composed of 3 different isotopes polonium-210, polonium-218, and polonium-214. The shortest lived of these has a half life measure in at less than 0.002 seconds. The longest half-life is 3 minutes. This means that the granite was fully formed in a timeframe between a maximum of 21 minutes and a minimum of less than 1/2 second. Granite could not possibly take 300 million years to form, as evolutionists would like to believe. Science itself has proven the very notion to be silly and ridiculous.
http://www.mme.state.va.us/Dmr/GALLERY/HISTORIC/mica/mica_chem.html
See any polonium there?
And think about this. If mica was polonium, and polonium decays with a half life of 21 minutes, then if the granite is even a day old, there wouldn't be any polonium left, will there?
Etc. Don't they teach science in school any more?
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.