“In a free society, it should be perfectly acceptable to question what is taught and to allow for differences of opinion,” GOP gubernatorial candidate Jim Barnett said last week, defending the Kansas State Board of Education’s actions on evolution. “I believe it’s a disservice to limit the scope of what can be considered.”
Fine, but that wasn’t the issue. Teachers and students were already free to question and debate the merits of evolution, as long as schools didn’t promote religion.
But the state board’s job was to set public school science standards for the entire state. And such statewide standards should be based on what the experts consider to be the best science, not the personal religious views of board members.
Would Barnett, a physician, want medical school standards to include remedies that nearly the entire medical community rejects?
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
231 Comments
Damn right!
Who’s he to tell me that blood-sucking leeches don’t purge the patient of an over-abundance of black bile?
Every devout reader of the Bible knows that an epileptic seizure is caused by evil spirits. Nothing prayer and fasting can’t handle . . .
So does Barnett, like the creationists, question whether or not the earth revolves around the sun and whether or not we lived with dinosaurs like on the Flintstones? Someone who is completely clueless about basic scientific facts can’t possibly govern.
In my civics class, it is hammered that making threats of bodily harm to the head of government is federal offense. Thus, Barnett is allowing somebody to question this rule? How about the taboos? And how about in regard of religious teaching on same-sex marriages, is that questionable too then?
>Fine, but that wasn’t>the issue. Teachers and>students were already>free to question and>debate the merits of>evolution, as long as>schools didn’t promote>religion.
That’s not freedom, stupid. Creation is the opposing viewpoint to evolution and it should be allowed as a *theory* as well as evolution being allowed as a *theory*. A school is full of books anyway, some of them being purely fabricated fairy tales that are complately welcome in the classroom. Please explain why it is acceptable to read and recite Harry Potter and do a term paper on wicca but the Bible is shunned. It makes no sense to me, but then neither do Government schools.
I’m voting for Jim Barnett
>Someone who is completely >clueless about basic>scientific facts can’t>possibly govern.
You mean scientific theories.
You also fail to mention that many scientific theories mirror what the Bible already says.
>Every devout reader of the>Bible knows that an>epileptic seizure is>caused by evil spirits.
Hysteria and sarcasm will get you nowhere.
Don’t mind Bill, he’s just suffering from what Jim Barnett calls “a case of the vapours.”
Those mean liberalsTELL THE TRUTHour conservative valuesdon’t allow us to.
Topeka — Calling her an “elitist” and a “big-government liberal,” the state school board’s chairman on Friday criticized Gov. Kathleen Sebelius over her proposal to strip the board of its power to set education policy.
Steve Abrams, an Arkansas City Republican who is part of the Kansas State Board of Education’s conservative majority, took the Democratic governor to task for suggesting that its adoption last year of science standards seen as anti-evolution had damaged Kansas’ economic development efforts.
Abrams also attacked Sebelius for saying that the state has to deal with negative publicity created by the board, just as it does with the anti-gay picketing of the Rev. Fred Phelps Sr. and his followers.
“The governor owes the Kansas State Board of Education as well as the citizens of the state of Kansas an apology,” Abrams said in a statement sent by e-mail to news organizations across the state. “Personal insults from this liberal governor are the only arguments she can make due to the lack of her own accomplishments.”continued….
If this guy takes the truth as an insult, then I guess it is!!
In regard to evolution Charles Darwin himself renounced the theory of evolution stating that they had never found the fossil remains of any animal in transition.The reason the so called mainstream sceintists would not attend the hearings on intelligent design is because they know that their junk science will not hold up in the light of the truth.I had a conversation with a man of good intellectual dcapabilities about evolution and he cited how animals evolve to maintain a place in their environment and I said that isn’t evolution that is simply adaption.If anyone can be taught on the complexity of the DNA molecule and still say that it evolved by chance they are totally intellectually challenged.
What’s the point here?
As a physician, Barnett knows a lot more biology than the vast majority of WEBloggers, and far more than Ms. Sebelius. But he’s not going to win next month, because Ms. Sebelius is doing an adequate job. Not an excellent job. But Kansans don’t demand excellence. Indeed, they don’t WANT excellence. Achieving it requires TOO MUCH WORK.
Evolution constitutes a very small part of the high school curriculum. The construct that humans represent the “highest result” of evolution is scientifically-unsound hubris . (See M.B. Saffo, “Accidental Elegance, How Chance Authors the Universe”, American Scholar 74 (3), 2005. ) If we assume a combination of natural selection and chance-based mutations, living organisms at any given time represent those whose characteristics correspond to their environment. For all we know, there may have been “higher IQ” beings on earth than Homo sapiens in distant past epochs.
The main thing about science is, Kansas doesn’t do very well in it. There are approximately 2000 National Academy of Sciences members nationwide. These are senior scientists in a broad variety of disciplines who have proven themselves to think originally and insightfully. They guide Congress on matters of scientific policy and shape the evolution of scientific research.
Essentially, 2000 members for a 300 million population represents 6 2/3 members per 1 million Americans. Kansas has approximately 2.8 million citizens. If it were “average” in science, it would have around 18-19 NAS members. It has 2 (TWO) NAS members, or .7 NAS members per 1 million population, which is to say ONE-TENTH of the American per-capita-population average. Both of Kansas’s NAS members, by the way are evolutionary natural historians. Charles Michener, an octagenarian, was elected in 1965. Thomas Taylor, a septuagenarian, was elected in 1994.
Our left-side neighbor Colorado has 32 NAS members. Colorado has approximately 4.6 million citizens, or 7 NAS members per million, slightly above the national per-capita-population average. 18 have been elected since 1990 (vs. 1 for Kansas) and 7 since 2000 (vs. 0 for Kansas).
Our right-side neighbor Missouri has 23 NAS members, with a state population of approximately 5.8 million, giving it a 4 NAS member/1 million population count. However, it has 11 members elected since 1990, and 3 since 2000.
New Mexico has 9 NAS members with a population of 1.9 M, or just under 5 per million. It has 4 members elected since 1990, and 3 since 2000.
Utah has 8 NAS members with a population of 2.3 million, or just under 3 per million. 6 have been elected since 1990, and 4 since 2000.
Iowa has 8 members per 2.8 million population, or 2.8 per million population. 7 have been elected since 1990, and 3 since 2000.
Oklahoma has 2 NAS members. One was elected in 1999, the other in 2002.
Kansas isn’t going anywhere in science.
How about technology? The National Academy of Engineering has about 1800 members, including a broad mix of university engineering professors, industrial leaders, consultants and government engineers.
Kansas has 4 NAE members . Colorado has 50. New Mexico 20. Utah 14. Oklahoma 15.
Kansas isn’t going anywhere in technology, which depends on science.
The preceding are the most important metrics in figuring out how a state is doing in science. Kansas gets an “F” in science.
But for those who want to focus on the relitigation of Scopes, let’s consider this. Scopes was fought in 1925 in Tennessee. Today Tennessee has about twice the population of Kansas (5.8 million). If Tennessee were in the same scientific-advancement state as Kansas, it would have 4 NAS members and 8 NAE members. It has 10 NAS members and 14 NAE members. 6 of its NAS members have been elected since 1990, and 3 since 2000.
Let’s look at North Carolina, a Bible Belt state that has developed major initiatives in science and technology starting in the 1960’s. Its 8.4 million population would predict, that if it were as scientifically advanced as Kansas, it would have 6 NAS members and 10 NAE members. But it has 44 NAS members and 30 NAE members.
Science isn’t about larnin what’s in the textbook. It’s about testing new ideas in laboratory investigations, applying them in useful ways, and debating ideas using evidence and reason.
Kansans don’t have a clue what science is, primarily because Kansas doesn’t attract adults who DO science and then promulgate to young people what science IS.
Good point heartlander. The whole Creationism thing is just one symptom of KS anti-science bent. As for Sebelius’s personal knowledge of science I know that she seeks out advice from scientists on this and other scientific issues.
Many years ago N Carolina made a committment to scientific excellence with its “reasearch triangle”. Kansas should do the same - KU-KSU-WSU.
Ted, that’s a completely laughable post.You state that the vast majority of scientists do junk science.You couldn’t back that up if you had to save your life.Whoever your intellectual source is, well they are just blowing smoke.Their only evidence is lack of evidence.You listening to Joel?
Tracy..you gotta admire the originality of the argument. I think I can sum it up:
Since we cannot understand how human life works, that PROVES there is a Christian God.
Interesting logic, don’t you think?
raptor,
Indeed. I believe it’s called the ‘argument ad ignorantum,’ otherwise known as the ‘argument from ignorance.’
As for Ted, there’s LOTS of evidence for transitional species. All the creationist objections are piffle.
ID does not have any or the requirements of a theory.I’m so sick of this teach the controversy crap.There ain’t no controversy, that’s why real scientists refused to participate in this monumental farce.This whole farce has been exposed over and over again, by judges, scientists and even clergy.People with the capability of abstract thought should be smart enough to admit that:THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION to this ‘movement’ is evangelizing in school. There is NO OTHER reason to promote this. PERIOD.
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/Berman012604.htm
excerpts from the link:
The ID movement initially focuses on disproving evolution and allowing for the possibility of an unspecified designer in science (perhaps God, perhaps aliens from outer space). They claim that scientists have a naturalistic bias and that ID is scientific and not religious, despite the fact that it does not provide any description of the designer, nor any mechanistic model by which the design was effectuated. At best, this is disingenuous, as we will see from their own words.
This movement attempts to distance itself from its close relative, Genesis-based Creation Science. The goal of the creationists is to provide scientific support for the literal truth of the stories in Genesis. But at least they have a model: Genesis. And they are honest about their religious basis. Unfortunately for them, evidence conclusively demonstrates that the Genesis account is not a scientifically valid theory for cosmology, geology, physics, or biology.
When students are dealing with the basic question of where life came from, the theory of a creator should be discussed. That is all the science standards were attempting to include. Read them. Quite your ranting.
Theory of a creator? What? We were sprung from Buffalo poop? Popped out of somebody’s forehead? Teach the science. I am still voting for him. I guess you can’t have everything.
OK!
Theory does NOT mean idea.Theory is the top of the knowledge ladder!A theory is a hypothesis that has been robustly confirmed through observation or experimentation. Like the the Theory of Universal Gravitation. just because the apple falls 1000 times one cannot conclude that it will always fall.
Naming themselves ID Theory does not make it a theory for the same reason that naming you child president does not make them the president.
Evolution is a theory because it is backed up by 150 years for geological, biological, genetic and microbiological evidence. ID has no evidence supporting it,at all. ID is the same steaming load Creationists have been trying to force down our throats for decades.
If you don’t understand evolution, then pick up a book.
Its issues like this that make me un-proud that i’m from Topeka.
Ugh.
Niall Shanks impressed upon me the importance of at least TRYING to get through to people how scientific research actually works. I don’t really have his patience or style, unfortunately. But, anyway: A quick search for “scientific method” on Google turned this up:
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
Creationism/ID supporters: please read the link above, and comment. I think that might lead to a more productive discussion.
turner - which creator should they consider? All of them?
TURNER–I have read the standards.YOU quit whining.
Why don’t you click the link I provided and attempt to refute ANY of it?EVOLUTION IS ACCEPTED.THE JURY HAS VOTED.ID IS BREATHTAKINGLY INANE–AND DISINGENOUS.
I have no problem with a science teacher mentioning ID, creation, whatever ya’ wanna call it,In then they should also tell the TRUTH, that it is not science, there is absolutly no way to even form it into a theory.IT’s NOT SCIENCE.End of discussion/move it to a philosophy or literature class where it is pertinent to the subject they are teaching in that class.This whole thing is a monumental farce created to bring evangelism into the schools.Ho-hum.There’s some men ya’ just can’t reach.
By Dr. Marshall Berman
The Intelligent Design (ID) movement is a reincarnation of a 200-year-old idea that goes back to William Paley. That theologian wrote that the existence of a watch is tantamount to the existence of a watchmaker, since natural forces could not have created a watch. By analogy, he claimed that complex living things should require direct, divine intervention by a creator. That argument – as science – has been demolished by two centuries of scientific progress.
This essay discusses the plans and intentions of the “modern” ID leaders, frequently in their own words. Many ID advocates believe they are doing “God’s work.” But in doing so, consciously or unconsciously, they are jeopardizing the nature of science itself, our education system, and even our form of government. They do not understand that the cause many of them promote would, if successful, terminate many of the freedoms that they and we currently enjoy.
It is time for those who cherish our republic and our freedom to take a strong stand against those who would prefer a theocracy, not in Iran or Afghanistan, but in the United States.
continued….link in post above.
Granted, Darwinian evolutionary theory is accepted in the scientific community. But is it the truth????
Certainly, that has not been proven.
The mechanism of gravity has also not been proven. That is why we should be teaching “intelligent falling”
“Granted, Darwinian evolutionary theory is accepted in the scientific community. But is it the truth????”
Outie, what other possible standard for teaching something as science do you need? When the reality of something is repeatedly confirmed by the scientific method, why is that not enough?
Current evolutionary theory is the best info we have.Unless God transcends into our world and shows us proof otherwise.I will take biblical creationism as a metaphor until ID advocates can actually produce evidence.Saying that life is too complex to have been evolved without an intelligent creator is an IDEA, not a theory.
Ben: You can repeat,observe and record gravity experiments. Trying to figure out what happended in the distant past is a whole different matter. Darwinian evolution is science’s best guess about what happended.
But even though it is unproven, it is treated with the same faith and fervor by some, as the most ardent “Jesus freak” displays. I think that is hardly a scientific attitude.
outlander - that is why we use geological evidence. ALL theories are our best guess at what is happening. That is what we do; we call it the scientific method.
outie-what? It’s unscientific to debunk ID’s claims? Pshhaa!
Now, in wich I blatently steal from Josh Rosenau @ Thoughts From Kansas:
Inspirationit’s only a theory…: On the Shoulders of Giant Mistakes…:
Consider the following excerpt from a letter written by Isaac Newton to Reverend Dr. Richard Bentley in 1692, in which he describes some of the implications of his Law of Gravitation…
“To your second query I answer that the motions which the planets now have could not spring from any natural cause alone but were impressed by an intelligent agent. For since comets descend into the region of our planets and here move all manner of ways, going sometimes the same way with the planets, sometimes the contrary way, and sometimes in cross ways in planes inclined to the plane of the ecliptic at all kinds of angles, it’s plain that there is no natural cause which could determine all the planets both primary and secondary to move the same way and in the same plane without any considerable variation. This must have been the effect of counsel.”
I’ve been thinking about this for a while, and I think it’s time to discuss my theory of intelligent falling.
I was inspired to question the Newtonist dogma on “gravity” when I learned that science cannot explain the movement of three things at once. Sure, Newton’s “laws” can explain how two things move, but Newtonists can’t explain how a third object would affect that movement.
Newtonism would be great if there were only two objects.
But Newton cannot explain even this one object: The Pioneer Spacecraft.
Newtonism would be great of it could explain the Pioneer anomaly.
Of course Newtonists claim they can predict the motion of planets and such, but if they can’t predict the motion of three objects, it’s clear this is a lie. Afterward, they can explain why they were wrong, but close only counts in horeshoes and hand grenades. Did a Newtonist ever predict where a comet would come into existence?
Newtonism would be great if they could explain where the planets come from.
Newtonism would be great if they could tell were gravity comes from.
Newtonism would be great if they knew what gravity was.
There’s a lot of little “if”s in Newtonism, and a lot of debate about “gravity.” I think those little “if”s add up to one big IF: Intelligent Falling.
IF holds that the motion of the planets and stars around the earth is too complex to be explained through natural processes alone. There must be a Pusher. If a person is just walking along and suddenly falls down, you expect that happened because he was pushed.
I believe that angels push the planets around, and control the falling of objects toward one another. If this is true, there’s no reason to teach our children the unBiblical falsehood that the earth moves around the sun. If the Pusher wanted the sun to move, there’s no reason that it couldn’t.
Newtonism is in crisis, and our children should be taught the controversy. If Newtonists can’t explain what gravity is, why not accept their “saint”’s recantation above and acknowledge that Intelligent Falling is the only credible explanation for the universe.
Please demonstrate to me how the scientific method has been employed to prove evolutionary theory. Certainly there are parts of the theory that are conjecture, and can’t be tested.
Actually, we don’t disagree on much here, Rage, Ben, Tracy. I think that it is fine to teach Darwinian evolutionary theory in science class as science’s best theory about how we all got here.
Just don’t make it more than it is. Don’t teach my child that this is the definitive truth, when it can’t be proven.
Out, what you call “fervor” is actually frustration. What’s at issue goes far beyond the narrow issue of evolution. Your redefinition of legitimate science would throw out much of biology, paleontology, geology, physics etc. etc.
You also missed Ben’s point. Despite the well-established theory of gravity, gravitons have yet to be experimentally detected. We can indirectly infer their existence, however.
Evolution, on the other hand, HAS been directly observed. In fact, bacteria are evolving resistance to current antibiotics at a alarming rate. It’s believed that if we don’t develop evolutionary strategies for new antibiotics, we could be in a world of hurt.
To do that, you need researchers. It helps to have students who understand evolution (and how science works) in the first place. Telling them that a philosophical construct like ID is equivalent to science won’t help.
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=intelligent+falling&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D1f9118241a53180f%26clickedItemRank%3D1%26userQuery%3Dintelligent%2Bfalling%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.theonion.com%252Fcontent%252Fnode%252F39512%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DMyNS%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theonion.com%2Fcontent%2Fnode%2F39512
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New ‘Intelligent Falling’ TheoryAugust 17, 2005 | Issue 41•33
KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held “theory of gravity” is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.
Definitive truth of what?
outlander - I would be happy to lend you some of my old textbooks on the subject.
Evolution is a definitive SCIENTIFIC truth. But no scientific truth–not even gravity–is set in stone. New evidence can lead to new conclusions.
Are we in agreement?
Rage: No one can deny that micro-evolution occurs. But to use that to build the whole theory of common descent requires some major assumptions and some big steps the over gaps in evidence.
Guys, I have to get some work done. Be back later.
intelligent fallingIntelligent falling (IF) is a supernatural explanation for the tendency of masses to attract each other that has its roots at least as far back as Isaac Newton. It has recently been brought to public attention as a satirical response to the ongoing “intelligent design” (ID) debate. It proposes that the scientific explanation of gravitational force cannot explain all aspects of the phenomenon, so credence should be given to the idea that things fall because a higher intelligence is moving them.
In a letter to the Reverend Dr. Richard Bentley in 1692, Isaac Newton wrote: “To your second query I answer that the motions which the planets now have could not spring from any natural cause alone but were impressed by an intelligent agent.” In The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design[1], Stephen C. Meyer refers to this statement as “Newton’s famous postulation of special divine intervention to stabilize the orbital motion in the solar system” in developing his argument of the methodological equivalence of naturalistic and non-naturalistic (i.e. supernatural) theories. In David Snoke’s Natural Philosophy: A Survey of Physics and Western Thought, for example, the notion of physics as natural philosophy based on Christian theology and biblical study is revived.
Modern IF “advocates” cite reasoning which closely parallels the arguments used to support “intelligent design”. They assert that theories explaining gravity are not internally consistent nor mathematically reconcilable with quantum mechanics; gravity is, therefore, a “theory in crisis”. They hold that IF should be taught in school along with the theory of gravity so that students can make “an informed decision” on the subject …
more …
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=intelligent+falling&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D1f9118241a53180f%26clickedItemRank%3D14%26userQuery%3Dintelligent%2Bfalling%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.answers.com%252Ftopic%252Fintelligent-falling-1%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DMyNS%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.answers.com%2Ftopic%2Fintelligent-falling-1
out - that is why we call it RESEARCH!
For me, it is the combination of the fossil record and the genetic similarities that “seals the deal” insofar as the scientific theory of evolution is concerned. Research is needed, as one of the hallmarks of scientific theory is the ability of the theory to be shown to be false, as new data are found. This “falsification” is why ID cannot rise to the dignity of a scientific theory; IMHO, it does not qualify as a hypothesis.
Misunderstanding of the above are reasons why I am of the opinion that we do such a lousy job in educating our students. Anyone who has a high school diploma from an accredited public high school should have a basic understanding of the scientific method, the lack of such understanding is shown whenever an attack is made on any scientific theory on the basis it is just a “theory”.
Very thoughtful post Vaughn.Wish I could think in a clear straight line.Oh well, onward through the fog!!
outie, I believe they will present what evidence is available and teach our children what to do with that evidence.In science, you never present the conclusion first!!We want our children to be able to grasp the facts as presented, not speculation as to origins of life.Once they have the evidence, they can do their own speculation, AKA theory.
A restated post from above:
“Granted, the notion that the earth is round is accepted in the scientific community. But is it the truth????”
“Certainly, that has not been proven.”
Those photos from the moon, could have been faked, after all.
Dawkins, a prominent biologist, asserts that the proof supporting the theory of evolution is on par with the proof that the earth is spherical and not flat. Of course that will not be enough for some people determined to say the threory is not true. So much energy expended with so little merit…http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6210151
I would only ask that those who insist upon disagreeing with the theory of evolution only be honest about the source of their disagreement. Surely, that is not asking too much, is it?
Well, talkorigins has an extended discussion of the macroevolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
I gather the references to “origins” that anti-evolution activists often mention refer not to the origins of life but the origins of human beings.
I guess common descent offends the view that God put us here as something special, apart from the other creatures on the planet. Science, of course, doesn’t address that at all. That is a question that belongs in the domain of theology.
And maybe it’s easier to call macroevolution a lie or a grave error than to contemplate one’s faith and existence in the light of what science has found.
One, of course, is free to be skeptical of or even reject such findings, but that is far different from pretending that the evidence is shaky–or, even worse, suppressing the information.
Welcome to the Flat Earth Society Homepage! Please, be our guest. Just sit back at your computer, and let us do the talking. We’ll tell you who we are, what we’re doing, and what we’re accomplishing in the world. You can look at some of our latest theories and insights, and, if you’re interested, you can even become an honorary member of the Flat Earth Society. So stick around.
Mission Statement-Background information on the Flat Earth SocietyThe Flat Earth Society’s purpose - why we do what we doWhy a Flat Earth?Why we don’t believe the world is roundScientific data and measurements backing up our claimsFighting the “Evidence”-Dispelling common myths about “proof” regarding round earth theoryUncovering the conspiracy to withold the truth from the publicCurrent Events-What the Flat Earth Society is doingWhat you can do to help out in your own communityJoin the Flat Earth Society-Become a member of the Flat Earth SocietyHelp dispel heretic notions and re-educate the masses!
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=flat+earth&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3Def0f12ad9ec9b6aa%26clickedItemRank%3D1%26userQuery%3Dflat%2Bearth%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.alaska.net%252F%257Eclund%252Fe_djublonskopf%252FFlatearthsociety.htm%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DMyNS%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alaska.net%2F%7Eclund%2Fe_djublonskopf%2FFlatearthsociety.htm
more …
Aim: To carefully observe, think freely rediscover forgotten fact and oppose theoretical dogmatic assumptions. To help establish the United States…of the world on this flat earth. Replace the science religion…with SANITYThe International Flat Earth Society is the oldest continuous Society existing on the world today. It began with the Creation of the Creation. First the water…the face of the deep…without form or limits…just Water. Then the Land sitting in and on the Water, the Water then as now being flat and level, as is the very Nature of Water. There are, of course, mountains and valleys on the Land but since most of the World is Water, we say, “The World is Flat”. Historical accounts and spoken history tell us the Land part may have been square, all in one mass at one time, then as now, the magnetic north being the Center. Vast cataclysmic events and shaking no doubt broke the land apart, divided the Land to be our present continents or islands as they exist today. One thing we know for sure about this world…the known inhabited world is Flat, Level, a Plain World.We maintain that what is called ‘Science’ today and ’scientists’ consist of the same old gang of witch doctors, sorcerers, tellers of tales, the ‘Priest-Entertainers’ for the common people. ‘Science’ consists of a weird, way-out occult concoction of gibberish theory-theology…unrelated to the real world of facts, technology and inventions, tall buildings and fast cars, airplanes and other Real and Good things in life; technology is not in any way related to the web of idiotic scientific theory. ALL inventors have been anti-science. The Wright brothers said: “Science theory held us up for years. When we threw out all science, started from experiment and experience, then we invented the airplane.” By the way, airplanes all fly level on this Plane earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
“Micro deosn’t prove macro”
How ignerant is this idiot? Humans live to see only a couple generations, so any change will virtually unnoticable. But for bacteria and insects that have a much faster reproduction rate the changes are much more apparent, ie resistance to drugs. If you want to see a species evolve something macroscopic you should ask your intelligent designer to let you live a couple million years.
IF your religious ideas do not match what is observed in nature. It is your religious ideas that are wrong. Blaming nature for ruining your wishful thinking is the most bss aackwards thing a person could do.
“You mean scientific theories. You also fail to mention that many scientific theories mirror what the Bible already says.”
Bill, do you know what a theory is? A theory is based upon facts, so your comment really doesn’t make sense. Creationism isn’t a theory, there are no facts to base one upon and creationism isn’t testable. If you can actually provide a testable model of creationism I’d love to hear it as I’ve been waiting for years for a creationist to present one.
The Bible does claim that epilespy is caused by demons, that unicorns exist, the Earth is flat and resides under a copper dome with the sun and moon, and placing reeds in front of animals will change their genetic structure. I’d love to have you point out where these “theories” as you like to call them have any base in fact.
Bill - I am certain that Harry Potter is relegated to fiction, not science.
Since Josh could be considered the Godfather of IF (intelligent falling), I’m sure he can answer any questions on the subject.link:http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/
doug..”The Bible does claim that epilespy is caused by demons, that unicorns exist, the Earth is flat and resides under a copper dome with the sun and moon, and placing reeds in front of animals will change their genetic structure.”
where?
The Bible also indicates that the value of PI is 3. (Kings3 7:23)
Flat earth - Daniel. A tree so tall that can be seen from everywhere on the earth - the earth would have to be flat for that to happen.
kansasam, I’m assuming you’re another Christian who hasn’t read the Bible and must appeal to the Atheist for an education. Funny how it is that the more well read someone is about scripture the more likely they are to not believe it.
The story of the “demon possessed” child that describes conditions of epilepsy is in Mark 9:14-29.
Unicorn is mentioned in Numbers 23:22 and other locations.
The flat earth is in numerous locations, here are but a few:1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Isaiah 45:18. There are many instances where the Bible reflects the Babylonian and Egyptian view of the Earth where the flat earth is encased under a dome but one example is in Job 37:18.
As for the reeds and the breeding of animals I was mistaken. Rods were placed before them. The story is in Genesis chapter 30 about the dispute between Jacob and Laban.
I’m sure if you took the time to actually study your religion you wouldn’t have to come to Atheists like me for your religious knowledge. All of this begs the question about why creationists want this sort of nonsense taught in the schools and why Barnett still believes this outdated nonsense.
Doug…
you know what ASSume does…I have read it multiple times…
I would no more come to you for religious knowledge than I would expect you to have any spiritual understanding of what is contained in God’s Word…
I do not have time now to refute your claims… but I can.. and I’ll get around to it…
Tracy,
The report from Topeka appears to have been heavily edited. Whether one agrees, or disagrees, I think it’s important to at least be aware of the actual content of what one is commenting on. We can thank sub-standard media reporting for making it necessary to post “actual content” on blogs like this one. Following is the actual wording of the Abrams response.
Cindy
—————-October 13, 2006
Response to Governor Sebelius’ statements about Ks State Board of Education
By Steve E. Abrams, chairman, Ks State Board of Education
The Governor owes the Kansas State Board of Education as well as the citizens of the State of Kansas an apology.
Personal insults from this liberal Governor are the only arguments she can make due to the lack of her own accomplishments.
It is predictable to have differing political beliefs and policy beliefs. I expect a big government liberal like our governor to oppose conservative politics. But to infer that the State Board of Education is responsible for the lack of Economic Development in Kansas is laughable. The State Board has authority regarding education policy and teacher accreditation, but none regarding Economic Development.
Trying to place her own lack of success in Economic Development on the State Board by comparing us to Fred Phelps is another one of the Governor’s liberal red herrings, similar to her claiming on TV ads that she held the line on taxes. To find the true reason for Kansas’ comparative lack of Economic Development, she might look at the high growth rate in State employees as well as the high tax structure in Kansas… items that she has a direct influence upon.
Her demand to place the Kansas State Board of Education under the authority of a Secretary of Education, who would be on her staff, is nothing more than an unadulterated power grab from the voters by an elitist. But that is typical of an elitist, thinking they know better than the voters.
We on the Board have differing visions about education in Kansas, but at least we have a vision. The Governor has yet to talk about her vision for Kansas; she apparently prefers innuendo, name calling, deflection of responsibility and an attempt for a power grab.
The Governor owes us all an apology.
THE ‘REPORT’ was from the LJ world, I believe.
Kansasam, reading something and comphrending something is two different things. There’s no need for you to refute the Bible on my behalf, I don’t invest much interest in works of fiction. I am impressed that you already have material to refute something you just heard about a few minutes ago. Therefore I can already ASSume (as you like to spell it) that you believe the entire Bible is inerrant regardless of the content.
By all means go ahead, I will be amused by yet another fundamentalist trying to dazzle me with their ASSumed knowledge.
Cindy, yeah, that wasn’t a real good move on the Gov’s part.
Still, even you agree that the board SHOULD NOT HAVE tampered with the recommendations for the science standards.
Turned our state into a laughable, money wasting circus with their “hearings”.
I do agree with what she is saying, but her delivery left some quite pissed. Most will say oh, well the truth hurts.
And still, nobody seems willing to tackle the question of why they insisted on this in the first place. It has been proven countless times, in countless ways, that ‘the controversy’ has absolutely nothing to do with science. The ULTIMATE end to this movement, and the only logical conclusion to this movement is, once again:EVANGELISM IN THE SCHOOLS. PERIOD.Nobody will come out and refute that if they are to be honest about this.
If the board and it’s supporters want God in the classroom, then let’s propose and debate that!!God, creationism, ID, and all its cousins ARE NOT SCIENCE.No matter how you dress it up in drag, it still does not work in science.There is no falsifiable evidence to support a theory or even a controversy.Now–is there anyone that can refute that the goal is religous, not scientific? ANYONE?
Before anybody even attempts to refute my claim that this is religous in nature, please read this from the ID supporters.
In their own words:
“The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a “wedge” that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the “thin edge of the wedge,” was Phillip Johnson’s critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe’s highly successful Darwin’s Black Box followed Johnson’s work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”
I’ve made this argument so many times, it’s getting boring.Cindy, you’re a religous woman, and I applaud your work and your convictions.I do believe you’ve been misguided by some well meaning individuals concerning the BOE.You want your children to think for themselves, and I want the same. The BOE has done a disservice to the state’s children, by being part of this ‘wedge’ that ID supporters have attempted in their tampering with the standards.
It is the people who believe that evolutionary theory is a reality who are ignorant. Mind you, it’s still just a theory, scientifically it’s not even a law. (e.g. law of gravity) Furthermore scientists believe it or not are just people, vulnerable to the same weaknesses as the rest of humanity. Just because some egghead tells you to believe in something doesn’t necessarily make what he says a reality. Read the Piltdown Man story and see what I mean.
I’m not ignorant (on this subject).And, Will you have not refuted anything or brought anything solid to this in favor of whatever view you have. If you wanna talk science then do so. If ya’ just wanna read insprational stories as fact, then I have no response.Read here:http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/Berman012604.htm
from the above link:
ID’s Current Strategies & Tactics
The Intelligent Design movement has already targeted several states in an attempt to alter the K-12 science standards. They have presented an array of arguments that are meant to appear “fair and balanced” but actually mask their true intentions. They want the definition of science altered to accommodate divine agency. They do not accept the essence of science; the foundation that has made it so successful as a special way of learning about the world: science as the search for natural causes for natural phenomena.
Here are some common tactics, many of which have already been employed in New Mexico, Kansas, Ohio, West Virginia, Louisiana, and many other states:
• Place ID advocates on school boards and science standards writing committees.
• Go as public as possible in print and visual media.
• Make the inclusion of ID in science classes seem like a free-speech and academic freedom issue.
• Make scientists seem like the dogmatists.
• Claim that “Darwinism” is a religion, but ID is science.
• Claim that “others” are biased, and that teaching ID is only fair.
• Cite popular poll results and ignore the scientific consensus.
• Refer to ID in scientific sounding rather than religious language.
• Redefine science to allow supernatural causes for natural phenomena.
• Settle for any change or modification in their goals, and declare anything as a victory.
• Create loopholes in state science standards, using innocuous- sounding language, to allow the presentation of socalled “evidence against evolution.”
Given the reactionary and theocratic nature underlying ID, one might think that most Americans would not lend much credence to the movement. But, in fact, ID has been spreading rapidly at both the state and national levels. The Discovery Institute now has state subsidiaries in Kansas, New Mexico, and Ohio. These subsidiaries began with the establishment of the Intelligent Design Network (IDnet) in Kansas, which has now branched out into New Mexico. New Mexico now has its own ID Web site: http://www.nmidnet.org/. The Kansas IDnet site is at: http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork. org/. IDnet also helped establish another state subsidiary in Ohio, Science Excellence for All Ohioans (SEAO), http://www. sciohio.org/.
ID advocates now sit on state and local boards, in state houses, and in seats of the U.S. Congress. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) is a strong opponent of evolution. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) is an ID advocate with close ties to CSC fellows. He introduced language in the U.S. Senate’s No Child Left Behind Act language that sanctioned teaching the “controversy” surrounding evolution; it passed the Senate by a preliminary vote of 91 to 8 (see http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/ index.php3?program=CRSCstories &command=view&id=1172 and http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis10 7/evolution_update0601.html). A primary author of that Senate language was Phillip Johnson! That language does not appear in the final NCLB act, but survived in the committee report. Furthermore, the law itself contains prohibitions against the federal government “mandating … academic achievement standards…” (NCLB, page 55). Santorum has also criticized President John F. Kennedy for his belief in the separation of Church and State (see Alan Cooperman, Washington Post, April 25, 2003, p. A04). Other Senators and Congressmen are openly or clandestinely supportive of ID’s claims. Antievolution rhetoric and actions are the wedge to moving the U.S. toward a theocracy. Underestimating the power and influence of the ID movement would be a grave mistake.
The ID movement wants to bypass scientific peer review and go directly into public school science classrooms. But ID includes no theory other than “The Designer Did It.” No scientific article promoting ID has ever been published in any mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journal. Nevertheless, they argue that it is legitimate science. To the ID supporters, supernatural interventions should be part of science. They want the scientific community to accept miracles as part of the scientific method, the exact antithesis of natural explanations of natural phenomena. But as we have seen, their objections to evolution are merely the “wedge” to ultimately completely overhaul all science, and eventually our culture. That is the real threat. Recognizing the threat is only the first step. All scientists, as well as teachers, parents, and citizens need to get involved in local and state efforts to develop strong, unequivocal science standards, to ensure high-quality textbooks, to improve science education at all levels, and to engage in politics as the need arises.
Dr. Marshall BermanPast Vice President, New Mexico State Board of Education
Sandia National Laboratories manager, retired
Founder and Past President, Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education (CESE)
Past President, New Mexico Academy of Science
Executive Director, retired, Council on Competitiveness, Washington DC
Past University of New Mexico-Sandia Distinguished Professor of Chemical and Nuclear Engineering
None of the above is untrue,And we see these tactics at work right here in our state.Please read the link, if you care at all about our children’s education.
Wow, to my knowledge the “law of gravity” has been “demoted” to a mere “theory” following the discoveries on relativity. On another note, I seem unable to recall any physical “laws” being proclaimed since around the dawn of 20th century, being superseded by the more correct word “theory.”
On the other hand, I still hav NOT heard anyone who can make distinction between micro- and macro-evolution. If micro changes do accumulate, say, a million trillion of them, can it be counted as a sizeable fraction of a change at the macro level? And that’s only 1 with 18 (24 using “English” English language) zeros.
Let’s get to the REAL point here.As described above in the ‘wedge’ document and it’s accompanying tactics.
The WHOLE PREMISE for the argument is disingenous, and thereforeA MOOT POINT.
Prove to me that this is not about religion in school,THEN we can talk about evolution and science.Until then, all the bla, bla about ID and the ‘controversy’, are secondary and unimportant.
“Almost from the outset, Woodward’s reconstruction of the Piltdown fragments was strongly challenged.”
That’s from Wiki, but it’s also common knowledge.
Will, comparing a crank hoax that never was accepted, to the work of thousands of scientists over 150 years is pretty damn ridiculous. You need to throw away that cheat sheet.
will - what you call the “law of gravity” is a theory.
I’m sorry I couldn’t read through the posts because there just go over the same baseless facts over and over again. I know of an island in the Atlantic that is inhabited by nothing but monkeys. They day someone finds one that is evolving into a human then I will stop believing in ID and the ‘theory’ of evolution will become fact.
Ksgrm
ID and creationism are nothing more than attempts by religious loonies to use our public schools as venues for their right-wing propaganda. They don’t constitute science in any meaning of the word. You want them taught? That’s what Sunday school is for!
Pat, I’ll keep it short, to obviously match your attention span, (and grasp of the english language):
Prove to me that this is not about religion in school,THEN we can talk about evolution and science.Until then, all the bla, bla about ID and the ‘controversy’, are secondary and unimportant.
Is it not reasonable to believe that human life is much too complex to have happened by chance?
Sigh. . . . TRACY is of course correct.
Posts like the one above illustrate the problem. Such critics don’t even dispute evolution; they dispute a ridiculous parody of evolution, specifically one where speciation happens in a single generation and where humans not only evolved from monkeys (false), but would inevitably evolve from them.
You can’t argue with someone when they’re determined to argue with themselves.
Again. The REAL POINT is not ID at all.The real point is religous doctrine in schools.
If you don’t want to debate that, then there is no point in debating evolutionary theory and the science standards.This movement does not even pretend that this ‘controversy’ is nothing more than a tool for religous fundamentalism.The time for touting ID is OVER.
Tracy, there are some people who want to discuss the creation of life. I don’t know that there is any God that we can know in any personal way, but I do believe that there was a creative force or creator. That does not seems like such a crazy notion.
turner, I have already addressed the fact that this is not even about evolution and Darwinism (whatever that is).
And what you are asking is about a very interesting but unprovable IDEA, not science.We celebrate this IDEA every Sunday. Amen.
Pat,The monkeys on that island are doing just fine as monkeys. They will evolve into whatever they need to when the need arises, or go extinct.Evolution has never said that man evolved from monkeys as they currently are, but simply that they share a common ancestor, something that genetic analysis has confirmed.I realize you don’t want them in your family tree, but they are there, nevertheless. Maybe you shouldn’t be selling them so short.
Turner, believe it or not,I agree!!!!Science is at present, totally inadequate to address what caused the ‘big bang’ and where the matter and energy involved in this origin derived from.If you believe in God as the one who set off the bang, then you have the same IDEA, that I have.The very nature of God prevents us from knowing about HIM.So for a logical minded christian, theistic evolution is a great avenue to pursue.
Sigh, so many wanna-be believers, yet of little faith, for by proving the existence of God, one does not have any need for faith. Let them relegate The Almighty to a mere watchmaker. I pity them.
Tracy, I don’t know that it is unprovable. But I do know that it should be discussed when we are talking about the very basic question of where life came from in a COMPREHENSIVE theory of evolution.
“…Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Orgin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account.”
Antony Flew–leading champion of atheism
Yeah, although it’s come under recent dispute, the prevaling view is that conditions prior to the Big Bang are not just unknown, but unknowable.
“It is the people who believe that evolutionary theory is a reality who are ignorant. Mind you, it’s still just a theory, scientifically it’s not even a law. (e.g. law of gravity) Furthermore scientists believe it or not are just people, vulnerable to the same weaknesses as the rest of humanity. Just because some egghead tells you to believe in something doesn’t necessarily make what he says a reality. Read the Piltdown Man story and see what I mean.”
1) Name the creationists who discovered the Piltdown fraud.
2) Do you know WHY the Piltdown fraud was discovered, and why it was inevitable that it would be? The Piltdown “fossil” created some real problems in light of other fossils.
3) There are actually quite a few hominid fossils, and primate fossils that, as they get older, show a mix of hominid and anthropoid characteristics until it is unclear whether they are closer to the chimp/bonobo line, the human line, or perhaps some other line close to the point of divergence. Later fossils clearly display features unique to hominids, including obvious signs of bipedalism, but also other traits which are clearly more similar to African great apes than to humans. These mixtures of traits can not and could not have been faked in the way that the Piltdown fossils were.
4)The meaning of theory in the scientific sense has been explained in this thread. Discussions about the validity of biological evolution (and politically, the issue all comes down to evidence of common ancestry between humans and other apes) are by definition scientific topics, and the scientific meaning of of the term theory is necessary if one is going to legitimately critique a theory. It is evident, Will, that you either still don’t know what the definition of theory is in the scientific sense, or you don’t want to accept it. Either way, your criticisms lack any sort of validity if you don’t know or accept the correct meaning of theory.
Where does the Theory of evolution ever purport to hypothesize on the origins of human life?
ANS: It doesn’t - and it never has. It’s a theory of species origination, not life origination.
To the Abrams people: you’ve apparently bought yourself a red herring introduced by ID proponents who wish to remove the teaching of evolution from public education and create a point of purchase for creationism. If they have to change the definition of science to do so, then fine.
Trouble is, science is not subject to democracy. Think about that carefully. As a tactic, redefining science in order to give ID a headstart in mainstream scientific thinking can’t work, no matter how boring today’s voters find science and the scientific method. The best you can do is suppress the scientific method in mainstream science, and you may end up having to kill a bunch of scientists to do so.
Such heavy handed tactics didn’t work on Galileo, and the Church is still paying all scientists dearly for it today. And I do mean dearly.
pedant–finally somebody GETS IT!!THANK YOU!This should not be and is not about science at all.What this is about, is the fundamentalist christians attempting to gain control in our schools.ALL OTHER DISCUSSION IS BESIDE THE POINT!!
ksag,You are mistakenly holding on to the belief that fact has some convergence with Truth. These people believe in Truth, and facts are just nuisances that get in the way. No matter what facts you present them with, they will continue to believe in the Truth, just as their daddies told it to them.
THE ENTIRE ID ARGUMENT IS UNDER FALSE PRETENSE.
They don’t give two hoots about science, they see it as a tool to further their agenda.
Even our friend CKD told the fundies on the BOE–Don’t go there.But noooooo—they just had to keep this going according to the tactics I listed above.
definitely correct jed they think that “facts are just nuisances that get in the way”
After all, as one of them said “same baseless facts over and over again” - obviously facts don’t matter!
And NOBODY is coming forward to dispute my claim that this is not about religion getting a foot in the door at our schools.NOBODY.
OOPS–CORRECTIONAnd NOBODY is coming forward to dispute my claim that this is about religion getting a foot in the door at our schools.NOBODY.
>Evolution is a theory>because it is backed>up by 150 years for>geological, biological,>genetic and microbiological >evidence.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is no evidence at all to support Darwinism. None.
and there is no evidence at all to support gravity. None.
>Evolution is a definitive >SCIENTIFIC truth.
No, it is a scientific THEORY. Truth has to be proven, and evolution has never been proven.
> But no scientific truth–not >even gravity–is set in stone. >New evidence can lead to new >conclusions.
Yes, like science taught us back in the 70’s that the universe had expanded to it’s fullest and was now beginning to contract. That theory has been “disproven” and the new theory is that the universe is still expanding.
The Bible has never been disproven.
Just an observation about the monkeys on the island changing if the need arises - this is called adaptation and not evolution. Also Tracy I don’t want school teachers teaching my children relegion but I do want them to know that evolution is just a theory and not supported by fact as Mr. Darwin asserted.
Ksgrm
>Bill, do you know what a>theory is? A theory is>based upon facts, so your>comment really doesn’t make >sense.
Then you are saying that Darwinism is not a theory since there are no facts to support it?
Bill - my “theory” that the entire universe was created last night at midnight cannot be disproven either.
>The Bible does claim that >epilespy is caused by demons, >that unicorns exist, the>Earth is flat and resides>under a copper dome with>the sun and moon, and>placing reeds in front>of animals will change>their genetic structure.
Please point out such scriptures.
Only a fool says there is no evidence of evolution by natural and artificial selection.
I can hold that evidence in the form of fossils in my hands!
A FAR greater leap is to try and prove the existence of some “god” thing. Show me the evidence for the existence of any god.
Flat - from Daniel - a tree tall enough to be seen from all the earth. That would be impossible with a globe.
>Bill - I am certain that Harry >Potter is relegated to fiction, >not science.
So this makes my point. If the science freaks believe that the Bible is also fiction, why is the Bible not allowed and Harry Potter allowed?
In schools I have visited the Bible is allowed.
>”The Bible does claim that >epilespy is caused by demons, >that unicorns exist, the>Earth is flat and resides>under a copper dome with>the sun and moon, and>placing reeds in front>of animals will change>their genetic structure.”
>where?
That’s what I’m wondering. I might have missed something but I’ve never read those parts. I’m waiting for his answer.
>The Bible also indicates>that the value of PI is>3. (Kings3 7:23)
There is no Kings3 in the Bible. There is no 3rd Kings in the Bible.
Try again.
>Flat earth - Daniel. A tree>so tall that can be seen>from everywhere on the>earth - the earth would>have to be flat for that>to happen.
Daniel what??? Chapter and verse please.
JR: The fossil in your hand is evidence of nothing more than that a life form once existed. It does not tell you how it developed, whether it was created or evolved. In fact, Darwin himself acknowledged that the fossil record (lack of transitional forms)speaks against his theory.
The evidence of God IS your hand.
I found it in the Catholic version of mine at home. Don’t know the chapter/verse for Daniel. That was given to me by an ordained minister some time ago.
Kings referred to an orb “10 cubits brim to brim, round all about … a line of 30 cubits compassed it round about.”
“23 He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits [a] from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits [b] to measure around it.”
Ben: That is hardly a statement of a mathematical principle. We aren’t talking exact measurements. Cubits weren’t even a precise unit of measure.
IMHO, that’s reaching a bit, my friend.
My point is that there is a lot of “not exact” stuff in there.
Your “God” must have had an interesting sense of creation.
A chimpanzee is more than 99% genetically identical to a human being. What was that a first try?
>The story of the “demon >possessed” child that>describes conditions>of epilepsy is in Mark 9:14-29.
Aha! But it does not say that epilepsy is caused by demons, only that demons can cause epileptic seizures. Thankyou for clarifying the bogus claim.
>Unicorn is mentioned in>Numbers 23:22 and other>locations.
King James:Num 23:22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of a unicorn.
Amplified:Num 23:22 God brought them forth out of Egypt; they have as it were the strength of a wild ox.
Old English referred to a wild ox as a unicorn.
>The flat earth is in>numerous locations,>here are but a few:>1 Chronicles 16:30,
1Ch 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
>Psalm 93:1,
Psa 93:1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is established, that it cannot be moved.
>Psalm 96:10
Psa 96:10 Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.
>Psalm 104:5,
Psa 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed forever.
>Isaiah 45:18.
Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
None of these scriptures refers to the earth being flat. Only that it is stable and cannot be moved. Don’t confuse that with revolve. Has the earth ever moved from it’s position (not counting revolve)?
>There are many instances>where the Bible reflects>the Babylonian and Egyptian>view of the Earth where the>flat earth is encased under>a dome but one example is in>Job 37:18.
Job 37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?
No flat earth and no dome.
>As for the reeds and the>breeding of animals I was >mistaken.
Well at least you admit to one.
>I’m sure if you took the>time to actually study>your religion you wouldn’t>have to come to Atheists>like me for your religious >knowledge.I really think you should devote more of your time to reading the Bible instead of thinking you know what it says when you don’t.
Dear Bible Thumpers:Stop it. When you try to make the Earth 5,000 years old you look and sound stupid. The Creation story is trying to make another point than the one you try to make with the Adam and Eve business. I guess one could say that between Adam and Eve and Moses family, we are all in-breds.
>THE ENTIRE ID ARGUMENT IS>UNDER FALSE PRETENSE.
>They don’t give two hoots>about science, they see>it as a tool to further>their agenda.
Obviously you’ve never heard of Christian Science.
Same Maker JR!
“Creation Science” is an oxy-moron. It is not science.
>and there is no evidence>at all to support gravity.>None.
You’re probably right. By all rights, being on the outside of a spinning globe, centrificle force should cause us to float out into space. However we are held to the earth by some force that is believed to be gravity. This has not been proven though.
It has also never been proven as to what force holds the atom together. The atom is a nucleus consisting of positive charged protons and neutral charged neutrons with negative charged electrons whirling around the nucleus billions of times every millionth of a second. The basic law of electricity states that like charges repel each other so the protons and neutrons have to be held together by the negative electrons but the electrons can be stripped from the nucleus and the nucleus will still hold together. How can this be? This basic fact has got scientists baffled.
>Bill - my “theory” that the >entire universe was created>last night at midnight cannot>be disproven either.
Your point in that sarcastic remark was…?
cetrificle force? must be quite a fickle force, for I have never heard of it…
Where does this fickle force belong amongst the strong, EM, weak, and gravity?
>I found it in the Catholic >version of mine at home.
There is no “Catholic” version of the Bible.
>Don’t know the chapter/verse>for Daniel. That was given>to me by an ordained minister >some time ago.
Oh well gee whiz I guess that proves it right there.
>Kings referred to an orb>”10 cubits brim to brim,>round all about … a line>of 30 cubits compassed it>round about.”
That reminds me of the measurments of Noah’s Ark. You sure the earth is being referred to there?
Bill, do you still believe in the raisin cake model of atom?
>My point is that there is a lot >of “not exact” stuff in there.
OK, so?
There are books in the Catholic edition that are not admited in the Protestant list. Now as a penance, say 10 Hail Mary’s, Bill!
>Your “God” must have had an >interesting sense of creation.
>A chimpanzee is more than>99% genetically identical>to a human being. What was>that a first try?
With comments like that God might have wanted to have not given it the second try.
Surprisingly, several Creation tales do mention of God’s trial and error approach.
>There are books in the>Catholic edition that>are not admited in the>Protestant list.
There is no “Catholic edition” of the Bible.>Now as a penance, say 10 Hail >Mary’s, Bill!
Mat 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
>Surprisingly, several>Creation tales do>mention of God’s trial>and error approach.
Where?
Bill–It is a common misconception that percentage of genetic material is a kind of indicator. It is not.
Catholic’s edition includes apocrypha, Protestant’s version does not. http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/catholic_protestant.htm
Check out “A Short History of Nearly Everthing” by Bill BrysonIt is facinating. Among other things you will learn is that scientists haven’t figured a lot of things out yet. They have figured out that the Universe is very, very old.
Today’s Christians, as evidenced on this topic. Criminy.
Keyrist, what’s happened to wisdom?
Get a clue. Your religion is a velvet rope. It’s very effective at pulling people to your god(s), its effectivity has been honed to a fine edge over two millenia. It’s far less effective at pushing anything anywhere - it’s actually terrible at pushing people to your god(s) - although dog knows you keep trying.
What you’re trying to do will be counterproductive to your ends in the long run.
It’s not a weapon, people. You can’t invoke your god(s) and magically somehow redefine science, make science something it’s not, that it can’t be. Your god(s) will never again hide from humans the only 100% effective improve-the-human-condition-by-yanking-bootstraps-program known to mankind: the scientific method.
If your god(s) are so powerful, let ‘em get in line like anybody else. Let’s see some evidence for creationism, or put a sock in this business of cramming your god(s) down our collective throat. Those are mutually exclusive choices, btw.