Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Options
1…693694696698699…822

Comments

  • Options
    #20852
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    J C wrote: »
    ...evolution is a 'weasel' word ... that is given whatever meaning suits the evolutionist !!!:D

    Just because you constantly change the meaning of evolution to suit your silly little arguments doesn't mean everyone does.


  • Options
    #20853
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    Just because you constantly change the meaning of evolution to suit your silly little arguments doesn't mean everyone does.
    ...Evolution is about as meaningless and evidentially challenged as it comes!!!:):D


  • Options
    #20854
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    J C wrote: »
    ... WHY should RepublicanEagle keep his beliefs to himself on science and schools ...
    ... are schools and science to become some kind of Evolutionist 'Sacred Cows' or Atheist Humanist 'Temples'?...:(

    ....with only Evolutionists (and Creationists children) allowed to enter them????:(:)

    No, it's because Creationism is about as valid as the Stork theory for babies.


  • Options
    #20855
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    liamw wrote: »
    No, it's because Creationism is about as valid as the Stork theory for babies.
    ...do you really think that the idea that Pondslime will produce Human babies ... if you wait long enough, is somehow more believable than a Stork hatching its own baby chicks????:eek::D
    Ge 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


  • Options
    #20856
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by RepublicanEagle
    There are no transitional fossils.


    Sam Vimes
    There are millions....


    .... As we said, please do some reading
    ...I did some reading ... and I found this from the former Evolutionist and Senior Palaeontologist at the British Natural History Museum, Dr Colin Patterson (1933 – 1998):-

    These gaps (in the fossil record) might be due to failure in fossilization, or to mistakes in the genealogy, or to wrongly identified fossils; or they could be (and have been) taken to show that the theory of evolution is wrong. Evolution (1978) p.133

    Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test. Evolution (1978) pp.145-146
    Please note that the investigations as described by Dr Patterson are actually Forensic Science and as Dr Patterson correctly points out they are not part of Operative Science ... as is claimed by Evolutionists ... especially when they want to justify teaching their Article of Faith in schools or when they want to have a teacher sacked for mentioning ID.

    Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science. The Listener October 8, 1981 p.392
    ...and this is the stuff they are using to 'force feed' school-children with the religious philosophy of Atheistic Humanism ... and they're starting ever younger with the brain-washing now going to be compulsorily applied to four year old toddlers in Britain ... with the full force of law!!!:eek:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article6923157.ece
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/nov/08/evolution-primary-school-curriculum-education

    ... and here the BHA welcomes the brainwashing of primary school children of all faiths with their philosophy ... and apparently without any explanation of its obvious SCIENTIFIC and LOGICAL deficiencies.
    http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/press-releases/education/bha-welcomes-inclusion-of-evolution-in-primary-school-science-$1339449$365873.htm

    I think that it is a pretty safe bet that the Atheistic Humanists won't be quoting Dr Patterson to Britains school children!!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #20857
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    The British Humanist Association is the national charity representing and supporting the interests of ethically concerned, non-religious people in the UK. It is the largest organisation in the UK campaigning for an end to religious privilege and to discrimination based on religion or belief, and for a secular state.
    ...as this thread proves, some Atheists have no problem with crass job discrimination AGAINST other faiths (especially Christians like myself) ... or the achievement of legally enforced privilege for THEIR OWN unfounded philosophy in public schools ... and its compulsory teaching to four year olds of ALL faiths ... and the sacking of any teacher who has the temerity to question any of this nonesense!!!!!:(

    ...what a great big load of naked hypocracy !!!!:(


  • Options
    #20858
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Malty_T wrote: »
    No JC that's because you haven't even bothered your arse over the course of this entire thread in trying to understand what evolution actually means. Instead, you've chosen to accept point blank what creationists tells you it is because it suits your ideological position. Evolution has a precise meaning.
    ...Let me quote the late Dr Colin Patterson (1933 – 1998) Senior Palaeontologist at British Museum of Natural History on his 'crisis of faith' in Evolution :-

    "One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let's call it a non- evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden realization for over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.

    Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, "I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school."     "Evolutionism and Creationism" November 5, 1981 p.1

    Yes, I think that it is a pretty safe bet that the Atheistic Humanists won't be quoting Dr Patterson to Britain's infant school children ... or their parents!!!! :eek::):D


  • Options
    #20859
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ... and for those who may maintain that Materialistic Evolution isn't a 'revealed' religion based upon faith alone (in the sufficiency of materialist processes to explain everything), Dr Patterson has the following words of wisdom:-

    "I want to consider the way in which these two alternative world views-evolutionism and creationism have affected or might affect systematics and systematists.
    Gillespie's book is a historian's attempt (to) explain the amount of space that Darwin gave to combating the creationist arguments. Gillespie shows that what Darwin was doing was trying to replace the creationist paradigm by a positivist paradigm, a view of the world in which there was neither room nor necessity for final causes. Of course, Gillespie takes it for granted that Darwin and his disciples succeeded in this task. He takes it for granted that a rationalist view of nature has replaced an irrational one and of course, I myself took that view (up to) about eighteen months ago. Then I woke up and realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way.".     Evolutionism and Creationism" November 5, 1981 p.2

    "Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you’ve experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that’s true of me, and I think it’s true of a good many of you in here." "Evolutionism and Creationism" November 5, 1981 p.4


    ...HOW does this stuff achieve the status of a State Protected Religion ?

    ... what are the mainstream Christian Churches doing as the Athesitic Humainsts 'pull the wool over their eyes' ... while simultaneously castigating everything about their beliefs to high heaven?

    ...is it just like this thread ... and they are conspicuus by their SILENCE???:eek:

    ... while the Evolutionists are conspicuous by their vociferousness ... up until yesterday, at least!!!:eek:


  • Options
    #20860
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    Yes, I think that it is a pretty safe bet that the Atheistic Humanists won't be quoting Dr Patterson to Britain's infant school children ... or their parents!!!! :eek::):D

    I dunno. I would support passing on the following quotations:

    "I was too naive and foolish to guess what might happen:
    the talk was taped by a creationist who passed the tape
    to Luther Sunderland... Since, in my view, the tape was
    obtained unethically, I asked Sunderland to stop circulating
    the transcipt, but of course to no effect. There is not much
    point in my going through the article point by point. I was
    putting a case for discussion, as I thought off the record,
    and was speaking only about systematics, a specialized field.
    I do not support the creationist movement in any way, and in
    particular I am opposed to their efforts to modify school
    curricula. In short the article does not fairly represent my
    views. But even if it did, so what? The issue should be
    resolved by rational discussion, and not by quoting
    'authorities,' which seems to be the creationists' principal
    mode of argument."


  • Options
    #20861
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    J C wrote: »



    Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, that is true?

    That if one specimen of creature is born stronger/faster/smarter than his kin or born with an immunity to a disease effecting his species, he should be able to live longer, collect more resources, have more mates and parent more children than his/her inferior brethren. Passing his traits to the next generation.

    Thus is the basis of Natural Selection.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #20862
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    That if one specimen of creature is born stronger/faster/smarter than his kin or born with an immunity to a disease effecting his species, he should be able to live longer, collect more resources, have more mates and parent more children than his/her inferior brethren. Passing his traits to the next generation.

    Thus is the basis of Natural Selection.
    ...however, NS isn't 'Pondkind to Mankind' Evolution ... which is what is taught in Science Classes.

    NS is capable of explaining the 'survival of the fittest' within and between Created Kinds and modern Species ... BUT it isn't capable of explaining the 'arrival of the fittest' ... i.e. the production of the living organisms, in the first place nor the production of the mega-bit Complex Specified Information that is present in their genomes!!!!


  • Options
    #20863
    chozometroid
    Registered Users Posts: 626 ✭✭✭chozometroid


    J C wrote: »
    ...however, NS isn't 'Pondkind to Mankind' Evolution ... which is what is taught in Science Classes.

    NS is capable of explaining the 'survival of the fittest' within and between Created Kinds and modern Species ... BUT it isn't capable of explaining the 'arrival of the fittest' ... i.e. the production of the living organisms, in the first place nor the production of the mega-bit Complex Specified Information that is present in their genomes!!!!
    lol.....even if I agree with you, I share in the atheists' pain, having to hear the same argument over again which they continually dismiss as nonsense. I'm not sure if repeating it enough times will beat it into their heads, though. :confused: Perhaps try another angle?


  • Options
    #20864
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    J C wrote: »
    NS is capable of explaining the 'survival of the fittest' within and between Created Kinds and modern Species ... BUT it isn't capable of explaining the 'arrival of the fittest' ... i.e. the production of the living organisms, in the first place

    Utter Failpalm.

    Why should NS have anything to do with abiogenesis? Apples and Oranges JC, apples and oranges. It may have something to do with abiogenesis, but it doesn't necessarily have to.


  • Options
    #20865
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    I dunno. I would support passing on the following quotations:

    "I was too naive and foolish to guess what might happen:
    the talk was taped by a creationist who passed the tape
    to Luther Sunderland... Since, in my view, the tape was
    obtained unethically, I asked Sunderland to stop circulating
    the transcipt, but of course to no effect. There is not much
    point in my going through the article point by point. I was
    putting a case for discussion, as I thought off the record,
    and was speaking only about systematics, a specialized field.
    I do not support the creationist movement in any way, and in
    particular I am opposed to their efforts to modify school
    curricula. In short the article does not fairly represent my
    views. But even if it did, so what? The issue should be
    resolved by rational discussion, and not by quoting
    'authorities,' which seems to be the creationists' principal
    mode of argument."
    ... please note that Dr Patterson didn't deny that he was having a 'crisis of faith' in Darwinism ... nor that he said what he meant - and meant what he said, in the quotes in my posts above.

    I never claimed that Dr Patterson was a Creationist ... but his opinions on the weaknesses of Evolution are all the more devastating because he isn't a Creationist, who might be expected to say these things!!!
    His professional opinion as the Senior Palaeontologist at British Museum of Natural History DOES carry significant authority ...
    ... even though, on the one hand the Evolutionists deny that 'scientific authority' matters ... they ALSO continuously question my valid conventional scientific qualifications ... and they dismiss other Christian posters out of hand on scientific matters, if they don't have conventional scientific qualifications.

    ... come on guys you want the best of both worlds ...

    ... come to think of it ye DO have the best of both worlds ... ye are treated as a 'Religion' for the purposes of the GCSE Religion Course ... and as a 'Science' for the purposes of the GCSE Science Course...

    ...and while ye hypocritically call for the 'separation of church and state' ye are busy setting up your very own State Protected Religion of Materialistic Evolutionism in order to further your Atheistic Humanism agenda ... which is now targetted firmly at four years olds of every other faith as well as your own ... within the state school system!!!:(:eek:


  • Options
    #20866
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    What defines a Kind, exactly?
    Surely if it is an actual term it has a definition.


  • Options
    #20867
    oceanclub
    Registered Users Posts: 3,411 ✭✭✭oceanclub


    JC; just a tip, but using lots of bolding, capital letters, exclamation marks and ellipses don't constitute an argument. They just make you look like a hyperactive kook.

    P.


  • Options
    #20868
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    ...however, NS isn't 'Pondkind to Mankind' Evolution ... which is what is taught in Science Classes.

    NS is capable of explaining the 'survival of the fittest' within and between Created Kinds and modern Species ... BUT it isn't capable of explaining the 'arrival of the fittest' ... i.e. the production of the living organisms, in the first place nor the production of the mega-bit Complex Specified Information that is present in their genomes!!!!

    Malty_T
    Utter Failpalm.

    Why should NS have anything to do with abiogenesis? Apples and Oranges JC, apples and oranges. It may have something to do with abiogenesis, but it doesn't necessarily have to.
    ...I wasn't talking about Abiogenesis (see my opening sentence above which you left out of my quote) ... I was talking about the increase in CSI required to 'evolve' Pondkind into Mankind ... which the Atheists claim to have happened by 'evolution' and are planning to tell ALL four years olds is a 'fact' ... without a shred of evidence or logic to support such a claim!!!!:(


  • Options
    #20869
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    chozometroid wrote: »
    lol.....even if I agree with you, I share in the atheists' pain, having to hear the same argument over again which they continually dismiss as nonsense. I'm not sure if repeating it enough times will beat it into their heads, though. :confused: Perhaps try another angle?
    ...when the Atheists stop repeating their unfounded nonesense ... I will stop repeating my scientific refutation!!!:eek:

    ...anyway Chozometroid ... do you have NOTHING to say about the effective eclipsing of the 'Liberal Christian' Faith in Britain (which was already on the way out anyway) by the coup de grace that was deftly delivered by the Atheistic Humanists and their 'fellow travellers' within the said Liberal Churches ... by allowing Darwinism to effectively take over both the religion and the science classes in public schools on the 'origins' issue!!!!:(

    ...do you have NOTHING to say about the sacking of Christian teachers in America ... and now their possible sacking in Britain ... if they don't deliver the course on Darwinism without mentioning the dreaded word 'design' .. or questioning any of the tall tales that they will be forced to relate to innocent four year olds????

    Mt 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
    4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?


    Mt 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.


  • Options
    #20870
    oceanclub
    Registered Users Posts: 3,411 ✭✭✭oceanclub


    J C wrote: »
    ]
    ...do you have NOTHING to say about the sacking of Christian teachers in America ... and now their possible sacking in Britain ... if they don't deliver the course on Darwinism without mentioning the dreaded word 'design'????

    Do you think that science class should be given over to the creation myths of each and every religion? If not, then why should Christianity be given a special place that other religions aren't?

    P.


  • Options
    #20871
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    What defines a Kind, exactly?
    Surely if it is an actual term it has a definition.

    ...I have REPEATEDLY defined Kind for ye...

    .... for example here:-

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57871018&postcount=13576

    ...so do you support the enforced brainwashing of four year old Christian children with the prime Article of Faith of Atheistic Humanism?

    ...how about passing a law to compulsorily teach Atheists' children Christian Doctrine and Creation Science ... and sack any teacher who objects???


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #20872
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oceanclub wrote: »
    Do you think that science class should be given over to the creation myths of each and every religion? If not, then why should Christianity be given a special place that other religions aren't?

    P.
    ...I certainly DON'T think it should be given over unquestioningly to the myths with which Materialistic Evolutionists confuse themselves with.

    ...if you are going to indoctrinate my children with your unfounded worldview ... then I reserve the right to provide the well-founded scientific evidence for my worldview to YOUR children!!!

    ... your worldview can only result in nihilism for my children ... while my worldview can Save your children from eternal damnation!!!!

    ...I do, of course, respect your right to pass on your own philosophy to your children without interference from me ... but I expect that you will accord me a similar respect for my worldview!!!!


  • Options
    #20873
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    J C wrote: »
    ...so do you support the enforced brainwashing of four year old Christian children with the prime Article of Faith of Atheistic Humanism?
    I don't. I do support teaching them science though, including the dozens of scientific disciplines that contradict your religious beliefs of which evolution is one. If we were to refrain from teaching things in science class that conflict with your religious beliefs there wouldn't be a whole lot left tbh. Astronomy, physics, chemistry and the whole of biology (not just evolution) would be out to name a few
    J C wrote: »
    ...how about passing a law to compulsorily teach Atheists' children Christian Doctrine and Creation Science ... and sack any teacher who objects???

    No I wouldn't support that but then that's not science and so has no place in science class


  • Options
    #20874
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oceanclub wrote: »
    JC; just a tip, but using lots of bolding, capital letters, exclamation marks and ellipses don't constitute an argument. They just make you look like a hyperactive kook.

    P.
    ...thanks for the 'advice' ... which I plan to studiously IGNORE!!!:eek:


  • Options
    #20875
    oceanclub
    Registered Users Posts: 3,411 ✭✭✭oceanclub


    J C wrote: »

    ... your worldview can only result in nihilism for my children ... while my worldview can Save your children from eternal damnation!!!!

    Well, thanks for proving you actually are completely unbalanced. I pity any child who will be denied a proper education because of the irrational beliefs of their parent.

    P.


  • Options
    #20876
    iUseVi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    J C wrote: »
    ...thanks for the 'advice' ... which I plan to studiously IGNORE!!!:eek:

    Why? You would be more convincing. I don't get it.


  • Options
    #20877
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    iUseVi wrote: »
    Why? You would be more convincing. I don't get it.

    I don't think he would to be honest. If he wrote like a sane person people would focus more on what he's actually saying and it would become more apparent that the bolding, capitalisation exclamation marks and smilies etc are actually the most sane element of his posts


  • Options
    #20878
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I don't. I do support teaching them science though, including the dozens of scientific disciplines that contradict your religious beliefs of which evolution is one. If we were to refrain from teaching things in science class that conflict with your religious beliefs there wouldn't be a whole lot left tbh. Astronomy, physics, chemistry and the whole of biology (not just evolution) would be out to name a few
    ...you haven't even provided a definition of the 'evolution' that you are planning to indoctrinate every four year old with ... other than saying it is NS which explains NOTHING about how 'Pondkind could spontaneously evolve into Mankind'!!!'


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    ...how about passing a law to compulsorily teach Atheists' children Christian Doctrine and Creation Science ... and sack any teacher who objects???

    Sam Vimes
    No I wouldn't support that but then that's not science and so has no place in science class
    ... so you can give it ... but you can't take it!!!

    Here AGAIN is what Dr Patterson had to say about you claim that 'evolution' is part of science (and he was one of you guys):-

    Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test. Evolution (1978) pp.145-146

    Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science. The Listener October 8, 1981 p.392

    ...so surprise, surprise ... you are WRONG about every point that you have made ... and you expect Christians to provide beautiful innocent Christian four year olds so that Atheists and their fellow travellers can corrupt these childrens' GOD GIVEN worldview with their nihilistic and Anti-God outlook!!!:(

    God is not amused ... and this is what Jesus has to say about such people:-
    Mt 18:1 ¶ At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
    2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
    3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
    4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
    5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
    6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea


  • Options
    #20879
    oceanclub
    Registered Users Posts: 3,411 ✭✭✭oceanclub


    Have all of J C's 3,500+ posts been in this thread?

    :eek:

    P.


  • Options
    #20880
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    J C wrote: »
    ...you haven't even provided a definition of the 'evolution' that you are planning to indoctrinate every four year old with ... other than saying it is NS which explains NOTHING about how 'Pondkind could spontaneously evolve into Mankind'!!!'

    The plan is to teach the theory of evolution as it exists in modern science, which explains quite adequately how simple life can become more complex through an extended process of trial and error that selects beneficial mutations. I don't plan to teach them the creationist idea of evolution, ie that 'pondkind could spontaneously evolve into Mankind' because that's not what evolutionary theory says happened


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #20881
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    The plan is to teach the theory of evolution as it exists in modern science, which explains quite adequately how simple life can become more complex through an extended process of trial and error that selects beneficial mutations. I don't plan to teach them the creationist idea of evolution, ie that 'pondkind could spontaneously evolve into Mankind' because that's not what evolutionary theory says happened
    ...so WHAT EXACTLY does that weasel word 'Evolution' say in your humble opinion???:eek:

    ...and WHICH fairytale is it planned to teach these four year olds???


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement