| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Josh Rosenau
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 437
Location: Oakland, CA
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:11 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| FL wrote: | | Quote: | | creating false doubts about the mundane. |
....and when it comes to the religion of evolution, any doubts raised are automatically false, of course |
No, just the ones that are actually and verifiably false.
| Quote: | | The scientific method itself, however, is not quite so......fervent about the matter. Scientific criticisms of evolutionary claims, problem areas backed up by documentation, ought to be placed on the table and not under it. |
Only if those criticisms are not false. The criticisms offered in the rejected Kansas science standards were false. The criticisms offered by Jonny Wells, Mike Behe and Billy Dembski are false. They have not earned a place at the table.
_________________
What's new at Thoughts from Kansas? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
FL
Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Posts: 615
Location: Topeka
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The criticisms of prebiotic chemical evolution claims in the 2005 Kansas Science Standards turned out to be true.....and extremely well-documented to boot.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Josh Rosenau
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 437
Location: Oakland, CA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No, they turned out to be either irrelevant or false. To the extent they were accurate, they were irrelevant, to the extent they were presented as relevant, they were inaccurate.
_________________
What's new at Thoughts from Kansas? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
