Intelligent Design/Evolution War:4-20-06 Georgia Governor signs Laws putting Bible Class in all schools and Commandments

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Just yesterday evolutionary theory had to be reformulated because of some fossil remains. Facts don't need to be readjusted continually.

Evolution is a theory. Creationism is a theory. Simply stating this in no way endorses one or the other. The judge, in this case, is being just another liberal activist judge.

Oh ya, I got a haircut a month ago and already my hair has evolved and now I need another cut!!!

1. you don't understand what a theory (in scientific terms) is
2. you don't understand what evolution encompases as you just demonstrated by trying to say that those fossil remains required that some part of evolution theory needed to be "reformulated"

Out of curiosity. Is there anything they could find that WOULD prove evolution wrong in your mind? Think about that and then think twice next time you feel like throwing around the word zealot.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Just yesterday evolutionary theory had to be reformulated because of some fossil remains. Facts don't need to be readjusted continually.

Evolution is a theory. Creationism is a theory. Simply stating this in no way endorses one or the other. The judge, in this case, is being just another liberal activist judge.

Oh ya, I got a haircut a month ago and already my hair has evolved and now I need another cut!!!

1. you don't understand what a theory (in scientific terms) is
2. you don't understand what evolution encompases as you just demonstrated by trying to say that those fossil remains required that some part of evolution theory needed to be "reformulated"

Out of curiosity. Is there anything they could find that WOULD prove evolution wrong in your mind? Think about that and then think twice next time you feel like throwing around the word zealot.

Evolution is a fact. The exact workings of evolution is what the theory is.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

The stickers ascert that evolution is possibly incorrect when it is about as close to being correct as we can prove anythign to be in the natural world.

The stickers imply that evolution has something to do with the "origin of living things" which is misleading again because evolution is not the entire story. It simply explains one part of it.

Evolution says you can take a cat, make it live in the ocean, and millions of years later it will have fins. That's not laughable to you? Is that observable scientific fact? :roll:

Also, real quick. How long according to the theory of evolution has mankind, in our current form, been in existence?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Just yesterday evolutionary theory had to be reformulated because of some fossil remains. Facts don't need to be readjusted continually.

Evolution is a theory. Creationism is a theory. Simply stating this in no way endorses one or the other. The judge, in this case, is being just another liberal activist judge.

Oh ya, I got a haircut a month ago and already my hair has evolved and now I need another cut!!!

1. you don't understand what a theory (in scientific terms) is
2. you don't understand what evolution encompases as you just demonstrated by trying to say that those fossil remains required that some part of evolution theory needed to be "reformulated"

Out of curiosity. Is there anything they could find that WOULD prove evolution wrong in your mind? Think about that and then think twice next time you feel like throwing around the word zealot.

Evolution is a fact. The exact workings of evolution is what the theory is.

Macro evolution has never been observed. If you believe it's a fact it's only because you have faith that it must be so.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Just yesterday evolutionary theory had to be reformulated because of some fossil remains. Facts don't need to be readjusted continually.

Evolution is a theory. Creationism is a theory. Simply stating this in no way endorses one or the other. The judge, in this case, is being just another liberal activist judge.

Oh ya, I got a haircut a month ago and already my hair has evolved and now I need another cut!!!

1. you don't understand what a theory (in scientific terms) is
2. you don't understand what evolution encompases as you just demonstrated by trying to say that those fossil remains required that some part of evolution theory needed to be "reformulated"

Out of curiosity. Is there anything they could find that WOULD prove evolution wrong in your mind? Think about that and then think twice next time you feel like throwing around the word zealot.

I didn't throw around the word zealot - in fact I think this is the first time I've said it in a long time: how fun!

Given that we've observed evolution to some degree and all the evidence so far supports it I guess it would take some evidence against it for me to think it is incorrect.

Since we have all the pieces right in front of us supporting the theory it's hard not to see the validity of it. I would actually be quite shocked to find someone who doesn't have some sort of faith based blocking mechanism in place who doesn't see the truth in evolution.

The other issue is that if you are to deny evolution you also have to essentially deny genetics, some probability, and some physics.

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinorMacro evolution has never been observed. If you believe it's a fact it's only because you have faith that it must be so.

This claim is false.

29 Evidences for Macroevolution
Observed Instances of Speciation

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Tommunist

The stickers ascert that evolution is possibly incorrect when it is about as close to being correct as we can prove anythign to be in the natural world.

The stickers imply that evolution has something to do with the "origin of living things" which is misleading again because evolution is not the entire story. It simply explains one part of it.

Evolution says you can take a cat, make it live in the ocean, and millions of years later it will have fins. That's not laughable to you? Is that observable scientific fact? :roll:

Also, real quick. How long according to the theory of evolution has mankind, in our current form, been in existence?

evolution doesn't say that at all haha - you'd have to take a whole cat population first off and 2nd off since it would take a long time for the population to adapt to their environment the population would probably die off first. But for the record mammals whose ancestors lived on land have adapted to live in the water as can be seen by some "legacy" hardware (some useless bone structures) kicking around in some sea mammals.

 

[Genx87]

Sounds to me like the rabid left overreacting as usual.

Evolution is a theory omg /gasp!

Takes faith on both sides of the fence to believe any of this. If you believe otherwise you are nothing more than a closed minded zealot.

Yeah i threw zealot in there for Infohawks sakes

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Sounds to me like the rabid left overreacting as usual.

Evolution is a theory omg /gasp!

Takes faith on both sides of the fence to believe any of this. If you believe otherwise you are nothing more than a closed minded zealot.

Yeah i threw zealot in there for Infohawks sakes

Uh, no, because this is a typical attempt by the Religious Right to try to sneak controversy/doubt into an issue that really contains none. It's not an honest thing to do. If you believe otherwise, you are the zealot here. The creationists are trying to sneak it in any way they can that they believe evolution to be false.

Oh, and it does you no good to claim others are "close minded zealots" when your first sentence was about the "rabid left," Conservative.

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: Tommunist
evolution doesn't say that at all haha - you'd have to take a whole cat population first off and 2nd off since it would take a long time for the population to adapt to their environment the population would probably die off first. But for the record mammals whose ancestors lived on land have adapted to live in the water as can be seen by some "legacy" hardware (some useless bone structures) kicking around in some sea mammals.

Isn't it typical though? Evolution's loudest critics are almost always those who know the least about evolution.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Sounds to me like the rabid left overreacting as usual.

Evolution is a theory omg /gasp!

Takes faith on both sides of the fence to believe any of this. If you believe otherwise you are nothing more than a closed minded zealot.

Yeah i threw zealot in there for Infohawks sakes

This site is meant for you, Genx87.

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/factortheory.htm

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Sounds to me like the rabid left overreacting as usual.

Evolution is a theory omg /gasp!

Takes faith on both sides of the fence to believe any of this. If you believe otherwise you are nothing more than a closed minded zealot.

Yeah i threw zealot in there for Infohawks sakes

I'm a bit of a "doubting thomas" if you will but I can still bring myself to see that evolution is valid. The beauty of it is that it doesn't require us to make any jumps past a bunch of facts that we now know. If you want to throw in God doing anything manually whatever - that's the faith part but evolution is correctamundo

 

[Genx87]

Uh, no, because this is a typical attempt by the Religious Right to try to sneak controversy/doubt into an issue that really contains none. It's not an honest thing to do. If you believe otherwise, you are the zealot here. The creationists are trying to sneak it in any way they can that they believe evolution to be false.

It is a theory, not fact. It is stirring a discussion on two theories on how this world was created. I thought schools were put in place to do this and not indoctrinate a single side of an argument?

Oh, and it does you no good to claim others are "close minded zealots" when your first sentence was about the "rabid left," Conservative.

On this issue I can look at both sides of the fence and agree. Most rabid lefties cant possibly fathom the idea of a god and creationism. Likewise most rabid righties cant fathom the idea of evolution.

Now can you look at both sides?

This site is meant for you, Genx87.

Not quite because unlike you I can look at creationism and evolutionism and see valid points in both.

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: Genx87
It is a theory, not fact. It is stirring a discussion on two theories on how this world was created. I thought schools were put in place to do this and not indoctrinate a single side of an argument?

It is both fact AND theory. It is not a theory "on how this world was created," however. What's next, are you going to claim that teaching kids about gravity is indoctrinating them against the crazy "theory" that the only thing keeping us from floating into the sky is god's will?

On this issue I can look at both sides of the fence and agree. Most rabid lefties cant possibly fathom the idea of a god and creationism. Likewise most rabid righties cant fathom the idea of evolution.

Now can you look at both sides?

Seeing as how about 10-15% of all humanity is atheist, and there are many more liberals than that, your claim about "rabid lefties" is BS. Likewise, there are plenty of conservatives who accept evolution.

I think the liberals aren't the zealots here...

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Just yesterday evolutionary theory had to be reformulated because of some fossil remains. Facts don't need to be readjusted continually.

No, facts do not, but per the scientific definition, theories do have to be modified or abandoned in the light of emerging facts.

I presume you're talking about the discovery of mammal remains that indicate its last meal was some kind of dinosaur. That doesn't disprove evolution in any way. All it does is shift the time scale.

Evolution is a theory. Creationism is a theory.

NO! Creationism is NOT a theory. As I posted, above

It takes only one contradiction to disprove a theory. Got one that refutes evolution?

The only "intelligence" in a speculative Trojan horse like in "Intelligent Design" is the directed, intentional effort by its proponents to cloud the definition of the word, theory with the more colloquial, less precise usage. The concepts presented by "creationism," "creation science" or "intelligent design" are contradicted by the physical evidence of the history of this planet and the observed universe. They fail out of the gate as a scientific hypothesis or proposition.

The judge is simply keeping religious dogma out of publically funded secular educational system. That's not liberal. In fact, it's about as conservative and constructionist as one could be about the meaning of the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Uh, no, because this is a typical attempt by the Religious Right to try to sneak controversy/doubt into an issue that really contains none. It's not an honest thing to do. If you believe otherwise, you are the zealot here. The creationists are trying to sneak it in any way they can that they believe evolution to be false.

It is a theory, not fact. It is stirring a discussion on two theories on how this world was created. I thought schools were put in place to do this and not indoctrinate a single side of an argument?

Oh, and it does you no good to claim others are "close minded zealots" when your first sentence was about the "rabid left," Conservative.

On this issue I can look at both sides of the fence and agree. Most rabid lefties cant possibly fathom the idea of a god and creationism. Likewise most rabid righties cant fathom the idea of evolution.

Now can you look at both sides?

This site is meant for you, Genx87.

Not quite because unlike you I can look at creationism and evolutionism and see valid points in both.

1. evolution doesn't say how the world was created - it provides a mechanism for new forms of life
2. by scientific standards creationalism is not a theory so it shouldn't be taught in a science class
3. i'm not a rabid lefty (at least I hope I don't have rabies - I have been frothing at the mouth lately though) and I can see both sides of this but I'm afraid creationalism MUST concede on points where science has shown it to not be true. Is it possible that some sort of God exists? Sure. Is it possible that this God created everything? Sure. Science however has shown that creationalism as put in the bible is not correct. If you want to say the bible isn't literal than that leaves it open still but a literal translation no longer works.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur
This site is meant for you, Genx87.

Not quite because unlike you I can look at creationism and evolutionism and see valid points in both.

Name *one* valid point in Creationism.

 

[dgevert]

Just yesterday evolutionary theory had to be reformulated because of some fossil remains. Facts don't need to be readjusted continually.

The fact that all species have a common ancestor does not have to be 'readjusted continually.'

By "some fossil remains" I assume you are referring to the recent discovery of a dinosaur in a mammal's belly? You do realize the dinosaur in question was a mere 5" long, I assume, and the mammal was the size of a large cat? Or did you just latch onto this piece of news because some creationist with an agenda was promoting it as proof against evolution?

 

[chess9]

Trust me, HOP knows nothing about evolution. I'd be surprised if he spelled it correctly.

-Robert

 

[Genx87]

It is both fact AND theory. It is not a theory "on how this world was created," however. What's next, are you going to claim that teaching kids about gravity is indoctrinating them against the crazy "theory" that the only thing keeping us from floating into the sky is god's will?

Does the Bible address gravity? I dont seem to remember that from when I read it. Maybe if you can point me to the part that does talk about then we can have a meaningful discussion on that subject.

Seeing as how about 10-15% of all humanity is atheist, and there are many more liberals than that, your claim about "rabid lefties" is BS. Likewise, there are plenty of conservatives who accept evolution.

Yeah they are rabid lefties. And of course there are plenty of conservatives who accept evolution. You are speaking to one right now

I think the liberals aren't the zealots here...

Because you are looking at this thread with a narrow mind.

The judge is simply keeping religious dogma out of publically funded secular educational system. That's not liberal. In fact, it's about as conservative and constructionist as one could be about the meaning of the U.S. Constitution.

This country was founded on christian values. Should we toss that out too because the left has bastardized the meaning of seperation of church and state?

 

[Genx87]

1. evolution doesn't say how the world was created - it provides a mechanism for new forms of life

So how did the world get created according to evolution?

2. by scientific standards creationalism is not a theory so it shouldn't be taught in a science class

Probably a valid point but I would like our schools to be a little more open-minded.

3. i'm not a rabid lefty (at least I hope I don't have rabies - I have been frothing at the mouth lately though) and I can see both sides of this but I'm afraid creationalism MUST concede on points where science has shown it to not be true. Is it possible that some sort of God exists? Sure. Is it possible that this God created everything? Sure. Science however has shown that creationalism as put in the bible is not correct. If you want to say the bible isn't literal than that leaves it open still but a literal translation no longer works.

How?

Name *one* valid point in Creationism.

The creation of the Universe.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Genx87
It is a theory, not fact. It is stirring a discussion on two theories on how this world was created. I thought schools were put in place to do this and not indoctrinate a single side of an argument?

I think there is still some confusion about what the word theory actually means in scientific terns. The overwhelming evidence supports the theory of evolution and debunks creationism, which really doesn't have any legitimacy over the very large number of creation stories that have been believed by religions in the past, other than there happen to be more Christians and Jews in the US. While minor components of the mechanics of evolution might have to revised, this does not mean that the basic elements of the theory of evolution are in any doubt. The theory of evolution belongs in a science classroom, creatinism doesn't given the utter lack of scientific basis behind it. If you can an alternative to the theory of evolution with sufficient science behind it to make a convincing alternate theory, you may teach it in the classroom. Keep in mind that especially before college, its not that uncommon for decisions to be made to simply teach the most widely held view in the academic community on an issue, and not confuse things too much by mentionery all the alternate views. Creationism might belong in a class about religion, but that's entirely different than what we're talking about here.

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Does the Bible address gravity? I dont seem to remember that from when I read it. Maybe if you can point me to the part that does talk about then we can have a meaningful discussion on that subject.

You missed the point.

Yeah they are rabid lefties. And of course there are plenty of conservatives who accept evolution. You are speaking to one right now

Whatever, zealot.

Because you are looking at this thread with a narrow mind.

Should I be like you, and leave my mind so open my brain falls out then?

This country was founded on christian values. Should we toss that out too because the left has bastardized the meaning of seperation of church and state?

Oh for pete's sake, must I educate you on that, as well?

Do you know nothing of Madison's vetos, which set the first precedents for the separation of church and state? Precedents which, might I add, have been upheld by our courts for hundreds of years?

Do you know nothing of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists?

This country was NOT founded on Christian values. It was founded on the principles of classical liberalism, a philosophy that rose out of the Age of Enlightenment and a group of deist philosophers. I suppose since you already have demonstrated your ignorance on the subject, I need to explain what a deist is too. Deists believe in a creator god who created the universe and then left it. Most of them were deists because there simply were no alternate explanations at the time.

Funny how a country supposedly founded on Christian values doesn't reference god in the legal document formulating its government, no?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur
Name *one* valid point in Creationism.

The creation of the Universe.

1) Learn how to quote.
2) How is that a valid set of evidence showing that Creationism is a valid scientific theory?

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: Genx87
So how did the world get created according to evolution?

Evolution doesn't address that topic. Open a biology book sometime.

Probably a valid point but I would like our schools to be a little more open-minded.

Open-minded? Towards what? You want to let every pseudoscientific crackpot theory into our science classrooms just so we can be "open-minded?" Science classes should teach SCIENCE. Creationism isn't science. Period.

Maybe we should teach our kids that when they sneeze, they're really blowing out evil spirits. That idea is as scientific/valid as creationism is. Or don't you want us to be open-minded?

The creation of the Universe.

And this is a valid point how? Last I recall, the argument from ignorance was a logical fallacy, not a "valid point."