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

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dgevert

Senior member
Dec 6, 2004
362
0
0
So let's review. Genx87 has:

Claimed an entire group of people are "rabid lefties" because they want to defend scientific education,
Showed total ignorance of the the concept of a scientific theory,
Made false claims about the philosophical origins of American government,
Claimed that teaching kids about science that has been accepted for over a hundred years is "indoctrination,"
Insisted that we teach kids pseudoscientific theories as if they have as much scientific validity as real science,
And then claimed that those who accept modern science are the zealots here.

I think his own posts speak pretty well to my point here.
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
Originally posted by: 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?
Evolution doesn't directly address that point since its more narrow in scope than many religious beliefs are, but other scientific theories do. Its worth noting that evolution DOES NOT actually address how life was originally created, this is addressed seperately by the theory of abiogenesis.
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/abiogenesis.htm

Its possible to believe that god created the first simply cell lifeform on earth, and from that point on the natural process of evolution created more advanced lifeforms without God intervening in any way.

If you want to know the latest scientific views on how the world has created before the creation of life, I can probably find some decent links through a google seach.
 

dgevert

Senior member
Dec 6, 2004
362
0
0
Oh, and on top of all that, he doesn't even know what evolution *is* or claims. :disgust:
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: dgevert
So let's review. Genx87 has:

Claimed an entire group of people are "rabid lefties" because they want to defend scientific education,
Showed total ignorance of the the concept of a scientific theory,
Made false claims about the philosophical origins of American government,
Claimed that teaching kids about science that has been accepted for over a hundred years is "indoctrination,"
Insisted that we teach kids pseudoscientific theories as if they have as much scientific validity as real science,
And then claimed that those who accept modern science are the zealots here.

I think his own posts speak pretty well to my point here.
Well, it's the m.o. of fundie Christians. They thrive on things that challenge their faith. When they feel they have "won" a debate, they see it as validation that their faith is just.
 

Tommunist

Golden Member
Dec 1, 2004
1,544
0
0
Originally posted by: 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.

1. evolution doesn't say how the world was created
2. if schools teach creationalism in a non-scientific class for the sake of studying religion that's fine (provided it isn't mandatory)
3. There are many parts in the bible about the creation of everything that don't jive with observation so I'm left no choice but to consider a literal translation of the bible to be false.
4. How is "The creation of the Universe" a "valid point of Creationalism"? For all we know the Universe could have always been here - that's something that hasn't been figured out yet.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
And, Creationists? Which method of creation is the right one? The Bible offers two creation stories in Genesis.

BTW, I think anyone who thinks the book of Genesis is a blueprint for the creation of the universe should read this:
Who Wrote the Bible? - Richard Elliott Friedman
 

Cobalt

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2000
4,642
1
81
Originally posted by: 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?

No, they aren't valid anymore because this country isn't 100% Christian anymore.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
You missed the point.

You completely missed the point.

Whatever, zealot.

Just cant stand people who have an open mind do you?

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

How about opening your mind to the possibilty that creationism is a valid theory? Nobody is asking you to dump what little is left of your brain.

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

Please do, you have been so effective upto this point.

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?

Yes this has been bastardized also. He was assuring the baptists that another religion would not become the state sanctioned religion. I believe the other religion was called the congregationalists or something.

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.

One classic example of christian values being placed into our govt is the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. This sounds awfully like 'The lord is our lawgiver, the lord is my judge, the lord is our king" from Issaiah 33:22

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

That doesnt mean it wasnt founded on Chrisitan principles. Dont let your closed mind block out everything.

1) Learn how to quote.

I have so many replies I can only do so much. If you dont like it simply dont respond.

2) How is that a valid set of evidence showing that Creationism is a valid scientific theory?

It is a faith thing. Where is the proof it didnt happen that way?
And where is the proof evolution created the universe and this world?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: conjur
1) Learn how to quote.
I have so many replies I can only do so much. If you dont like it simply dont respond.
Two people you are replying to is so many replies? :roll:

2) How is that a valid set of evidence showing that Creationism is a valid scientific theory?
It is a faith thing. Where is the proof it didnt happen that way?
And where is the proof evolution created the universe and this world?
Ah, so, you don't have any valid set of evidence that Creationism is a valid scientific theory. "Just because" is not scientific. Also, you again distort the meaning of evolution. Evolution does not attempt to describe the origin of life and the universe itself.

You should really exit this thread now. You have summarily pwn3d yourself and made yourself look the fool.
 

Tommunist

Golden Member
Dec 1, 2004
1,544
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87

2) How is that a valid set of evidence showing that Creationism is a valid scientific theory?

It is a faith thing. Where is the proof it didnt happen that way?
And where is the proof evolution created the universe and this world?

I'm starting to get annoyed....

evolution DOES NOT attempt to explain how the universe and/or world was created

BUT

it does go against the idea that all life in it's current form was created by God and placed here. If you want to have God in the picture in some form that's fine but you aren't living in reality if you can't see the validity of evolution.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Ah, so, you don't have any valid set of evidence that Creationism is a valid scientific theory. "Just because" is not scientific. Also, you again distort the meaning of evolution. Evolution does not attempt to describe the origin of life and the universe itself.

You should really exit this thread now. You have summarily pwn3d yourself and made yourself look the fool.

You have to be kidding me. This is taken right from your own link.

USA Scientist Credited with discovering lifes origins

 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
Originally posted by: Genx87
It is a faith thing. Where is the proof it didnt happen that way?
And where is the proof evolution created the universe and this world?
You're demonstrating a complete failure to understand what the theory of evolution actually is. It ONLY directly deals with what happened after life was originally created. It doesn't deal with the creation of the world and the universe, other scientific theories would be the ones to address these points. Admitedly scientists in general less confident on some of these than they are regarding the theory of evolution.

You seem to been assuming that believing in evolution is like a religion, and making false assumption about how many things the theory actually addresses.
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
Originally posted by: Genx87
Ah, so, you don't have any valid set of evidence that Creationism is a valid scientific theory. "Just because" is not scientific. Also, you again distort the meaning of evolution. Evolution does not attempt to describe the origin of life and the universe itself.

You should really exit this thread now. You have summarily pwn3d yourself and made yourself look the fool.

You have to be kidding me. This is taken right from your own link.

USA Scientist Credited with discovering lifes origins
It appears to be some lousy reporting involved here. It may be they were trying to simplify things by lumping abiogenesis in with evolution. Read my previous post again to see why you don't need to accept abiogenesis in order to accept the theory of evolution, and the two theories are seperate.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
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.

The answer is yes. Unlike zealots, people that espouse the scientific method are open to changing their minds. If evidence came about that showed evolution was a flawed theory would think evolution were wrong.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
You're demonstrating a complete failure to understand what the theory of evolution actually is. It ONLY directly deals with what happened after life was originally created. It doesn't deal with the creation of the world and the universe, other scientific theories would be the ones to address these points. Admitedly scientists in general less confident on some of these than they are regarding the theory of evolution.

Well I can probably admit that my view on the theory of evolution may be incorrect. I always thought it dealt with the creation of life on earth and sisequent growth.

If evolution does indeed only deal with life after the creation of the earth then Ill have to review my opinions on this matter as it is obvious they are flawed.

 

illustri

Golden Member
Mar 14, 2001
1,490
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
And, Creationists? Which method of creation is the right one? The Bible offers two creation stories in Genesis.

BTW, I think anyone who thinks the book of Genesis is a blueprint for the creation of the universe should read this:
Who Wrote the Bible? - Richard Elliott Friedman

I had Friedman for freshman humanities, very popular.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Ah, so, you don't have any valid set of evidence that Creationism is a valid scientific theory. "Just because" is not scientific. Also, you again distort the meaning of evolution. Evolution does not attempt to describe the origin of life and the universe itself.

You should really exit this thread now. You have summarily pwn3d yourself and made yourself look the fool.

You have to be kidding me. This is taken right from your own link.

USA Scientist Credited with discovering lifes origins
You're confusing exobiology with evolution.
 

dgevert

Senior member
Dec 6, 2004
362
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Just cant stand people who have an open mind do you?

No, I can't stand people who try to use that as a buzzphrase for themselves just because others see how retarded their ideas really are.

How about opening your mind to the possibilty that creationism is a valid theory? Nobody is asking you to dump what little is left of your brain.

Creationism *isn't* a valid theory. In scientific terms, it's NOT a theory at all!

Please do, you have been so effective upto this point.

Yes, it's a testament to how "open-minded" you really are.

Yes this has been bastardized also. He was assuring the baptists that another religion would not become the state sanctioned religion. I believe the other religion was called the congregationalists or something.

Typical reconstructionist re-writing of history.

What did Jefferson really say?

"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."

-- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808). This is his second use of the term "wall of separation," here quoting his own use in the Danbury Baptist letter. This wording was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause: Reynolds (98 U.S. at 164, 1879); Everson (330 U.S. at 59, 1947); McCollum (333 U.S. at 232, 1948)

One classic example of christian values being placed into our govt is the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. This sounds awfully like 'The lord is our lawgiver, the lord is my judge, the lord is our king" from Issaiah 33:22

What kind of crazy ad-hoc BS is this? How are a bunch of deistic philosophers supposed to be inspired by that when they were formulating a government that would be in direct opposition to the Christian monarchies of Europe?

Let's review some of the main concepts of our government:

Freedom of religion? Direct contrast to 1st Commandment. Don't think so.
Freedom of speech? From a religion whose god kills those who speak out against him left and right? Don't think so.
Freedom of press? See above. Don't think so.
Freedom from illegal search and seizure? The Bible's justice system is quite a bit more primitive than that.
Outlying of the powers of the federal government and state government's? Nope.

You have no case.

That doesnt mean it wasnt founded on Chrisitan principles. Dont let your closed mind block out everything.

Yes, how dare I reject ideas that have no basis in fact. Are you for real?

It is a faith thing. Where is the proof it didnt happen that way?
And where is the proof evolution created the universe and this world?

After having been shown repeatedly that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of the universe, solar system, planet, or even first organism, you still continue using this phrase. Are you a liar?

It is not science's job to prove a negative. That's impossible, just as it's impossible for you to disprove that I'm really getting my ideas from an ethereal, invisible pink unicorn (cheers to anyone who understands THAT reference! :-D) sitting beside me.
 

Tommunist

Golden Member
Dec 1, 2004
1,544
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
You're demonstrating a complete failure to understand what the theory of evolution actually is. It ONLY directly deals with what happened after life was originally created. It doesn't deal with the creation of the world and the universe, other scientific theories would be the ones to address these points. Admitedly scientists in general less confident on some of these than they are regarding the theory of evolution.

Well I can probably admit that my view on the theory of evolution may be incorrect. I always thought it dealt with the creation of life on earth and sisequent growth.

If evolution does indeed only deal with life after the creation of the earth then Ill have to review my opinions on this matter as it is obvious they are flawed.

sweet jesus success!!!! go P&N for educating someone!!!
 

dgevert

Senior member
Dec 6, 2004
362
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
You're demonstrating a complete failure to understand what the theory of evolution actually is. It ONLY directly deals with what happened after life was originally created. It doesn't deal with the creation of the world and the universe, other scientific theories would be the ones to address these points. Admitedly scientists in general less confident on some of these than they are regarding the theory of evolution.

Well I can probably admit that my view on the theory of evolution may be incorrect. I always thought it dealt with the creation of life on earth and sisequent growth.

If evolution does indeed only deal with life after the creation of the earth then Ill have to review my opinions on this matter as it is obvious they are flawed.

That's the first correct thing you've said all day.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Most rabid lefties cant possibly fathom the idea of a god and creationism.

Of course they can. In many cases, they believe in god. Others ask for evidence and see none. With creationism, there is no evidence.
 

Gigantopithecus

Diamond Member
Dec 14, 2004
7,664
0
71
The stickers were a joke to begin with anyway, revealing a complete lack of understanding of basic science and evolutionary theory on the part of whoever wrote them.

I think at least one person in this thread has already said that evolution is a fact. No one with any practical knowledge will dispute the fact that there are organisms that have gone extinct, or that there are currently living organisms that did not exist at some point in the past. (Such as humans, which have only been around about .1 to 1.8 million years, depending on whose theories of modern human origins you prefer.)

Darwinism, or the neo-Darwinian synthesis (which integrates what we now know about genetics and other biologies with Darwin's original ideas), is the mechanism through which evolution occurs. It is indeed a theory, and should indeed be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and criticized (that is the very essence of science).

The danger in teaching theories which attempt to explain the living world other than the neo-Darwinian synthesis is that they do not fit the facts, do not follow the scientific method, and are, therefore, not science. The state of science education in this country is already abysmal, I shudder to think what would happen if any form of creationism or 'intelligent design' was taught as an 'alternative theory' to neo-Darwinism.

The truly ridiculous side of this whole mess is the Judeo-Christian centric creationism that is exclusively forwarded by these anti-scientists in the United States. They need to realize that simply because they are the dominant faith in this nation, their creation story is a myth, like the creation myths of countless other cultures.
 

illustri

Golden Member
Mar 14, 2001
1,490
0
0
the judeo-christain creation mythos are rich and beautiful sets of worthy study that need to stay the hell out of scientific education
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
You're demonstrating a complete failure to understand what the theory of evolution actually is. It ONLY directly deals with what happened after life was originally created. It doesn't deal with the creation of the world and the universe, other scientific theories would be the ones to address these points. Admitedly scientists in general less confident on some of these than they are regarding the theory of evolution.

Well I can probably admit that my view on the theory of evolution may be incorrect. I always thought it dealt with the creation of life on earth and sisequent growth.

If evolution does indeed only deal with life after the creation of the earth then Ill have to review my opinions on this matter as it is obvious they are flawed.
:beer::beer:

At least you're man enough to admit.

Kudos to you!
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |