Posted on 10/14/2002 4:59:49 PM PDT by RCW2001
| The Associated Press
|
| COLUMBUS, Ohio Oct. 14 — A state school board panel Monday recommended that Ohio science classes emphasize both evolution and the debate over its validity.
The committee left it up to individual school districts to decide whether to include in the debate the concept of "intelligent design," which holds that the universe is guided by a higher intelligence. The guidelines for the science curriculum simply put into writing what many school districts already do. The current guidelines do not even mention evolution. "What we're essentially saying here is evolution is a very strong theory, and students can learn from it by analyzing evidence as it is accumulated over time," said Tom McClain, a board member and co-chairman of the Ohio Board of Education's academic standards committee. Conservative groups, some of which had tried and failed to get biblical creation taught in the public schools, had argued that students should learn about intelligent design. But critics of intelligent design said it is creationism in disguise. On Monday, the committee unanimously forwarded a final draft without the concept in it to the full 19-member board. Board member Michael Cochran, who had pushed for intelligent design in the standards, said, "The amendment allows teachers and students in Ohio to understand that evolution really is a theory and that there are competing views and different interpretations. This allows them to be discussed." The Ohio school board will decide Tuesday whether to adopt the new standards or order that they be revised.
On the Net: Ohio Department of Education: http://www.ode.state.oh.us/ |
And, it sounds like the Fogu fish explains man. I wasn't aware of the genetic similarities you describe but that would appear to be a fairly strong prima facie case that man descended from water dwelling creatures.
No it does not. Selection does not create anything, we need creation here to account for these species and there is no way they could have come about by gradual descent from other species. Let's hear how it happened, you can 't just wave a magic wand and say abracadabra-shazam evolve.
And, it sounds like the Fogu fish explains man. I wasn't aware of the genetic similarities you describe but that would appear to be a fairly strong prima facie case that man descended from water dwelling creatures.
The point is that a creature supposedly so far removed from us has genes which are so like ours. If evolution were true, that would be impossible. Such similarity can only be due to intelligent design.
Playing stupid word games. That is not the definition of the theory of evolution. Period, paragraph, end of story. Because something is true does not mean it is evolution. Get that through your head.
Repeating two lies endlessly. You were proved wrong and you have not shown me to be a liar about anything. Do not ascribe to others your own lack of morals.
"A circle is not an ellipse."
"1720 is a very big number.
"Strong evidence = absolute proof."
Various quotes taken out of context...
"A circle is not an ellipse."
"1720 is a very big number.
"Strong evidence = absolute proof."
Various quotes taken out of context...
Sounds to me like rhetorical deceit then. Nevertheless it is not a definition of the word evolution either. Change is not evolution. Because each parent gives half their alleles to a progeny, with each birth there is a change in the mix of alleles in a population. This does not create new information, this does not change a species into another. That definition of evolution (from the fountain of evolutionist half-truths - TalkOrigins) is therefore false. It is not evolution at all. Now for the definition of the Theory of Evolution, here it is below in the very words of the great charlatan:
"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse;. a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows evolution."
From: Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
Which of course, with you being a sliming liar you cannot tell which they are or discuss them honestly.
You've been caught up in one of Anti-Pope GoreMMM the Intolerant's little fantasies which is based on his misreading and misinterpreting of past news releases. There is no significant relationship between the fugu fish and man. However, both species have had DNA samples sequenced which gives researchers an abiity of compare the two and look for analogous genes. Since the fugu genetics are relatively compact and identifiable, this has lead to tentative identification of "similar" genes in humans.
I suggest you treat each claim from the Anti-Pope as utter horsesh!t until or unless you can verify it yourself. Fortunately, this is only rarely more difficult than doing a quick internet search on Google.com. Try it with the fugu fish and genetics and you'll soon know a great deal more about the subject than the Intolerant One.
With you evos, the proof is always somewhere else where no one can see it. All you slimers can do is lie about people you can never discuss the facts. Let's see you show an 'out of context quote' from me. I do not cut anything off from the quotes and I almost always post a link to the whole article. You are just a sliming liar. You cannot refute my evidence so all you can do is attack the messenger.
Well they don't know what they are talking about if they limit the definition of evolution to "'evolution' is 'change in allele frequency over time'". That is a weasel definition used by Darwininians whenever some of their more preposterous examples of evolution are questioned. Any non-cloned parents having a child will produce a change in allele frequency over time.
Most non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution. Such confusion is due in large part to the inability of scientists to communicate effectively to the general public and also to confusion among scientists themselves about how to define such an important term.
Bait and switch, man. Don't fall for it. Those are his words. He knows it, but he sidesteps and evades responsibility for them by complaining that you don't have a link to the original post. Nevertheless, he does not deny that he posted them; changing the subject does not make documentation of his dishonesty go away.
Here is the link to start of the original wildly elliptical thread if any lurkers want to investigate the veracity of Junior's claims.
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.