Alas, poor Ohio .... EvC related news

No, I did. I showed how it would necessitate the closure of all schools. Moreover the "Christian doctrine of origins", if there is such a thing, is not contradicted by the theory of evolution.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-29-2004 05:53 PM

It's not, though. It's based on evidence.We understand your "equation" all too well - taken to it's logical conclusion, there can be no public schools at all.Moreover, human origins is not an appropriate subject for religious discourse. It's the purview of science. Just because a religion takes a position on it does not make it a religious subject. In this case, it's religion infringing on the purview of science.There can be no legitimate conflict between the state, science, and religion when religion has overstepped it's bounds. Actually, we all did, including myself twice, and your point was refuted. You haven't addressed those rebuttals; you've simply repeated your argument. Repetition doesn't make you more right.(edited to fix embarrasing spelling error quoted by NN. )This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-06-2004 04:23 AM

What's the difference between Dark Star and one whose objections to evolution are based on absolutely nothing scientific?Oh, right. Absolutely nothing.

I doubt that I have the expertise (in bullshitting) to engage any "professional" entanglement with the rabid anti-Darwin crowd.I'm thinking, though, about becoming a high school biology teacher. It's a deplorable state of science education today when it turns out graduates like you. Since macroevolution is supported by a weight of evidence, what possible relevance would degrees and doctorates have? There is no debate. "Debate" is when both sides present evidence that supports their arguments.What we have going on here is biologists presenting evidence, and ideologues like you presenting pseudo-intellectual claptrap. There's no debate among scientific circles that evolution occured and that the modern theory of evolution - including what you term "macroevolution" - represents the most accurate model of the history of life on Earth. Really? I've got a list of 400 people of relevant scientific background who are convinced - and that's just the people named "Steve." Funny that that doesn't seem to stop them from working in macroevolutionary fields, advancing macroevolutionary conjectures, testing macroevolutionary hypotheses, and publishing macroevolutionary papers.Is it coherent to you that these men and women devote their lives to a fraud? I'm sorry, which quotes were those? So far you've presented one, and it didn't say what you said it said. Keep trying, though. I've got plenty of time on my hands; we'll do every one of your "thousands" of quotes one by one.