schools to question evolution

BoyntonStu · #1 04-22-2005, 07:55 PM

From a recent newspaper:

19 states are considering proposals that would require schools to question evolution, which are nothing less than proposals to inject religion into the curriculum. But why stop there? Why not introduce such skepticism into astronomy and have the sun revolve around the earth or have the earth stand still? These are questions that Clarence Darrow put to William Jennings Bryan at the so-called Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925. Amazingly, they still linger.

Boyntonstu
If he died he was no God.
If he did not die, he did not sacrifice.

weasel · #2 04-23-2005, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyntonStu

From a recent newspaper:
19 states are considering proposals that would require schools to question evolution, which are nothing less than proposals to inject religion into the curriculum. But why stop there? Why not introduce such skepticism into astronomy and have the sun revolve around the earth or have the earth stand still?

If he died he was no God.
If he did not die, he did not sacrifice.

This is intriguing, Boing Stew. Do you have any links to articles so we can read more? If this carries through, it would be a big hit against the religion of evolution. So why are you so afraid of people being given the opportunity to critically evaluate ideas? Rational, intelligent people can assess the truth to a concept; if it holds water, then these kids will accept it--if it doesn't, it will be rejected.
Why does skepticism/critical thinking automatically mean that misguided theories like earth-centrism will take over? You have it backwards. I group it in the same category as evolution - once it is treated objectively and not shoved down our throats, it will be tossed out like every other inadequate theory.

btw - your endquote is all wrong. death is not the end of being.

BoyntonStu · #3 04-23-2005, 12:13 PM

Why does skepticism/critical thinking automatically mean that misguided theories like earth-centrism will take over?

Are you insulting the folks that believe strongly that it is true?

You have it backwards. I group it in the same category as evolution - once it is treated objectively and not shoved down our throats, it will be tossed out like every other inadequate theory.

Who is forcing a 'theory" down anyone's throat?

Are you also saying that 'creationism' is also a theory and that 'creationism' must be verified as all other scientific theories?

btw - your endquote is all wrong. death is not the end of being.[/quote]

Please state your factual evidence for your re-definition of death.

Are you attempting humor, or did you intentially distort my name?

BoyntonStu

If he died, he was not God.
If he did not die, then he did not sacrifice.

trbish · #4 04-23-2005, 02:42 PM

Charles Darwin: "To have the unthinking masses believe all that I say would be a calamity...."

Dr. Michael Denton, a microbiologist without commitment to conservative Christianity or biblical creation, challenged the evolutionary community in his book Evolution:"A Theory in Crisis"...

He wrote: "The complexity of the simplest cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event. Such an occurance would be indistinguishable miracle."

Mathematicians have serious doubts about evolution. Statistically impossible.

Mathematician I.L. Cohen writes " We now have a debate within the scientific community itself; it is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice"............."every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong"

BoyntonStu · #5 04-23-2005, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trbish

Charles Darwin: "To have the unthinking masses believe all that I say would be a calamity...."

Would that be you? I belong to the thinking class.

Dr. Michael Denton, a microbiologist without commitment to conservative Christianity or biblical creation, challenged the evolutionary community in his book Evolution:"A Theory in Crisis"...

He wrote: "The complexity of the simplest cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event. Such an occurance would be indistinguishable miracle."

On what factual evidence did he base his OPINION (his theory)?

Mathematicians have serious doubts about evolution. Statistically impossible.

Statistically impossible? On what basis did he arrive at his statistics? What are the statistics? 1 in a billion? 1 in a trillion? How many stars are there?
Betcha more than that.

Mathematician I.L. Cohen writes “We now have a debate within the scientific community itself; it is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice"............."every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong"

This Mathematician is writing about Evolution. Perhaps he ought to state opinions about the fantasy world of abstract numbers which NEVER EVER represent reality. Maybe I should ask a Mathematician about what kind of dental implant I should use?

How many believe and for how long it is believed is not a criterion for accuracy.

BoyntonStu

If he died, he was not God.
If he did not die, then he did not sacrifice

weasel · #6 04-23-2005, 07:34 PM

B -
Yes, I wrote your name like that on a whim. Didn't think it was a big deal. Look, I just wanted to join your discussion of evolution and the classroom. Can't do that without answering each other's q's. I hope you'll answer some of my earnest questions and not just respond with more questions. Yes, creationism is as unprovable as evolutionism- can you demonstrate either using the scientific method?
You are correct about the math guy - math does not adequately reflect or explain reality, as demonstrated by the problems inherent in Einstein's theory of relativity. However, the statement about complexity is critical: Darwin based his whole theory on the presumption that cells are mere blobs of 'protoplasm.' Being that the very foundation is false, the whole idea must be quashed.

"Please state your factual evidence for your re-definition of death."
No. You first.

"How many believe and for how long it is believed is not a criterion for accuracy."
Correct. Please apply that to evolution.

weasel · #7 04-23-2005, 07:40 PM

Yes, evo is shoved down our throats. It is presented as fact when it is not fact, merely a concept. Then why does it seem that evolutionists will not meet creationists to honestly discuss/debate the issue?
I know he's not the perfect example, but consider "Dr. Dino," a Bible-believing creationist (http://www.drdino.com). He challenges any scientist, science teacher, or what-have-you to meet him in a debate. He even offers to pay such persons. You can read for yourself what the results have been.

Dr. Dino offers 250,000 to anyone who can empirically prove evolution.
The Veritas organization offers 50,000 for the same thing. I have an application if you want one.

#8 04-23-2005, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyntonStu

If he died, he was not God.
If he did not die, then he did not sacrifice

Only Begotten Son of God. Read John 3:16. (if you read)

Is your statement above factual? If so, what are the facts? Or, is your statement above just an arbitrary opinion. You know what they say about opinions...

Bob

BoyntonStu · #9 04-23-2005, 10:05 PM

[quote=weasel]Yes, evo is shoved down our throats. It is presented as fact when it is not fact, merely a concept.

Let me understnd you. Schools teach the THEORY of Evolution.

In teaching the Theory of Relativity are they teaching the FACT of Relativity?

In a similar vein, are they teaching the FACT of Evolution?

I think not. You have your FACT words and your THEORY words confused.

Switching to Creationism. Is it a THEORY of Creationism that you wish to teach in schools as a rebuttal to the THEORY of Evolution? Or do you wish to present Creationism as a rebuttal to the THEORY of Evolution?

BoyntonStu

If he died, he was not God.
If he did not die, then he did not sacrifice

BoyntonStu · #10 04-24-2005, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by weasel

Yes, evo is shoved down our throats. It is presented as fact when it is not fact, merely a concept. Then why does it seem that evolutionists will not meet creationists to honestly discuss/debate the issue?
I know he's not the perfect example, but consider "Dr. Dino," a Bible-believing creationist (http://www.drdino.com). He challenges any scientist, science teacher, or what-have-you to meet him in a debate. He even offers to pay such persons. You can read for yourself what the results have been.

Dr. Dino offers 250,000 to anyone who can empirically prove evolution.
The Veritas organization offers 50,000 for the same thing. I have an application if you want one.

Can you empirically proove that electrons exist?

That God exists?

BoyntonStu

If he died, he was not God.
If he did not die, then he did not sacrifice