Someone finally put those Bible thumpers in their place! Evolutionists+1!

[JDub02]

Originally posted by: cobalt

Originally posted by: JDub02
evolution is as much a part of religion as creationism.

atheism is a religion and its theory on the origins of the universe is evolution
christianity is a religion and its theory is creation
What makes atheism a religion? There is no belief in a deity. And ffs get your head out of you ass. Big Bang != evolution. ABIOGENESIS != evolution.

there is absolutely no (read ZERO) scientific evidence to support evolution. anyone trying to pass it off as fact has an agenda.
There is evidence to support evolution, but not enough. Just observe. Hey because I can't explain where I came from I'm gonna say God just planted me here! Yeah!

edit: and by "evolution", I mean macro, we came from goo type evolution One more fscking time, abiogenesis != evolution, not micro in which a species will change over time aka survival of the fittest THAT is what Darwin observed as evolution.

Understood. But when you talk Darwin and the "Theory of Evolution", you're not talking about micro-evolution, selective breeding, whatever. No one denies "survival of the fittest" and a species adapting to its environment. Micro-evolution takes place on a generation to generation basis.

Abiogenesis, or whatever you want to call it, is what is being disputed in the lawsuit.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: baoytl
I wonder how some people would react if a similar sticker was placed on bibles.

:thumbsup:

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: cobalt

Originally posted by: JDub02
evolution is as much a part of religion as creationism.

atheism is a religion and its theory on the origins of the universe is evolution
christianity is a religion and its theory is creation
What makes atheism a religion? There is no belief in a deity. And ffs get your head out of you ass. Big Bang != evolution. ABIOGENESIS != evolution.

there is absolutely no (read ZERO) scientific evidence to support evolution. anyone trying to pass it off as fact has an agenda.
There is evidence to support evolution, but not enough. Just observe. Hey because I can't explain where I came from I'm gonna say God just planted me here! Yeah!

edit: and by "evolution", I mean macro, we came from goo type evolution One more fscking time, abiogenesis != evolution, not micro in which a species will change over time aka survival of the fittest THAT is what Darwin observed as evolution.

Understood. But when you talk Darwin and the "Theory of Evolution", you're not talking about micro-evolution, selective breeding, whatever. No one denies "survival of the fittest" and a species adapting to its environment. Micro-evolution takes place on a generation to generation basis.

Abiogenesis, or whatever you want to call it, is what is being disputed in the lawsuit.

Then it's a good thing the sticker was removed. Using the term evolution to mean the origin of life itself is dishonest and it's the basis behind Hovind's $250k bet for proving evolution.

 

[JDub02]

Originally posted by: conjur

Then it's a good thing the sticker was removed. Using the term evolution to mean the origin of life itself is dishonest and it's the basis behind Hovind's $250k bet for proving evolution.

I still think the judge is off his nut. #1 for this to even be in court is just crazy. This should be a matter between the parents and school administrators. #2 To rule that pointing out that "abiogenesis" is a theory and not scientific fact is somehow injecting religion into the picture just goes to show that the judge has an agenda.


BTW, Hovind's offer still stands, IIRC.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: rahvin
Ok lets get something straight. Evolution is a fact, it's an observed, documented reality of our world. The theory of evolution is how the observed fact of evolution occurs, natural selection is a key point of that theory and is NOT a fact. The theory of Evolution is our only scientifically based explanation of how the observed phenomenon of evolution occurs and as such it is the ONLY thing that should be in science books and taught in science class. Would the arguement be made that we should not teach newtonian physics exclusively in the public school system (Even though quantum and relativistic physics exist)? The science taught in our public school systems should be presented in a concrete manner, leave the critical thinking and evaulation to college courses.

The opinion expressed in the quote above is typical of the missunderstanding of evolution present in the US, acceptance is made of the theory and denied of the fact.

:thumbsup:

 

[Klandestine]

we were seeded by aliens, who doesn't know that?

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: Yossarian

Originally posted by: Fausto
Hehe...some of the reader responses in the local paper are hilarious.

are they available online? if not, please type them all out here for my entertainment

http://www.ajc.com/metro/conte...situation_in_cobb.html

 

[cosine17]

u just love pissin people off dont u.

on the other side.. evoluntionism is pretty rediculous imo. something to consider, why is it that believing in zeus and the gods of olympia considered to be utterly rediculous, yet believing that a snake talked and seduced a woman (ok i understand, its a woman and prolly not hard to pull off (no offense women. o snap double parenthasis, dont get lost)) into eating an apple that removed 2 people from a magical garden..

its just as rediculous.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: JDub02
edit: and by "evolution", I mean macro, we came from goo type evolution, not micro in which a species will change over time aka survival of the fittest.

you know what the difference is between macro and micro-evolution?

Time. That's IT.

There was a belief for a while that a given species was "rigid"...that is, genetics would automatically limit the maximum deviations from normal and constrain long-term genetic drift to virtually zero. However, this is simply not the case...just look at dogs. We have Great Danes and Chihuahuas, which have drifted so far from the "original" Canis Familiaris that they are reproductively isolated. If we were to encounter them for the first time today, we probably WOULD call them separate species.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: conjur

Then it's a good thing the sticker was removed. Using the term evolution to mean the origin of life itself is dishonest and it's the basis behind Hovind's $250k bet for proving evolution.

I still think the judge is off his nut. #1 for this to even be in court is just crazy. This should be a matter between the parents and school administrators. #2 To rule that pointing out that "abiogenesis" is a theory and not scientific fact is somehow injecting religion into the picture just goes to show that the judge has an agenda.


BTW, Hovind's offer still stands, IIRC.

And his offer will always stand because he's asking for the impossible. He has changed the meaning of evolution to mean how life was actually created and even how the universe itself was created.

Hovind is an idiot.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: JDub02
Would someone care to explain to me what makes creation any less valid than evolution?

It has no supporting evidence.

Yes, I already know evolution has no supporting evidence. That's why I can't believe everyone is blindly accepting a speculation. Are you all really that opposed to the notion of a higher power?

Aren't you so clever. :roll:


Give us *one* valid source of evidence that shows Creationism/ID is a valid scientific theory.

Hello???

 

[Siva]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: rahvin
Ok lets get something straight. Evolution is a fact, it's an observed, documented reality of our world. The theory of evolution is how the observed fact of evolution occurs, natural selection is a key point of that theory and is NOT a fact. The theory of Evolution is our only scientifically based explanation of how the observed phenomenon of evolution occurs and as such it is the ONLY thing that should be in science books and taught in science class. Would the arguement be made that we should not teach newtonian physics exclusively in the public school system (Even though quantum and relativistic physics exist)? The science taught in our public school systems should be presented in a concrete manner, leave the critical thinking and evaulation to college courses.

The opinion expressed in the quote above is typical of the missunderstanding of evolution present in the US, acceptance is made of the theory and denied of the fact.

:thumbsup:

I'm soooo happy there are some people who actually get it. The religious right scares me.

 

[Siva]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: JDub02
Would someone care to explain to me what makes creation any less valid than evolution?

It has no supporting evidence.

Yes, I already know evolution has no supporting evidence. That's why I can't believe everyone is blindly accepting a speculation. Are you all really that opposed to the notion of a higher power?

Aren't you so clever. :roll:


Give us *one* valid source of evidence that shows Creationism/ID is a valid scientific theory.

Hello???

If you are infering the Bible is a source of evidence that proves creationism, I think the words "valid" and "scientific" mean it isn't a proper source of information. I doubt you can find any evidence in a god or higher power through real science.

 

[Iron Woode]

even more good stuff:

By Peter

January 13, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this

This is a good decision. Regardless of what people?s personal beliefs are, the content of science courses should be determined by science, not personal opinion. Evolution is a well-established theory (I mean that in the scientific way, not the layman?s way) with a lot of data to back it up and none to refute it.

It?s what happened and children of creationists should learn it the same way that children of white supremicists should learn about Martin Luther King. If parent?s want to teach their kids that God created us 6,000 years ago or that the human race was seeded by aliens, that?s their choice, but tax dollars shouldn?t be spent towards these unproven theories.


By Ken

January 13, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this

One word suffices: Cobblodytes!


By Mick Rizzo

January 13, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this

P.S. Since we are talking about a science text, is there any scientific evidence of creationism??
Genesis accounts for creatures of the land and sea. I?m curious why God failed to mention the dinosaurs and skipped right to the animals that did not exist until millions of years later??


By Michael

January 13, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this

If you believe everything in the Bible to be fact, I?ve got some ocean-front property in Colorado you might be interested in.

Some of you hawking on ?just a theory? might want to re-read the AJC story. Scientific theory is something that has been proven with facts over the course of time. Theories are open to change when new facts are discovered, but they are hardly the flimsy ideas some of you make them out to be.

Keep'em comming!

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: Drekce
These judges are ridiculous. There is absolutely nothing in the wording of that sticker that could be seen as unconstitutional in terms of the "separation of church and state." Evolution IS a theory by every definition of the word.

Learn something about science before you dare comment on it.

Yes it is a theory by every definition of the word, the problem here is that you do not know what the definition of a theory is.

I think the stickers were a dumb idea, however in a sense what the stickers represented was okay in my opinion.

. . .This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.

That is a statement that should be applied to everything taught in school, not just biology. That is what teachers should instruct by default and we shouldn't need a stupid sticker to remind them.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Siva

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: JDub02
Would someone care to explain to me what makes creation any less valid than evolution?

It has no supporting evidence.

Yes, I already know evolution has no supporting evidence. That's why I can't believe everyone is blindly accepting a speculation. Are you all really that opposed to the notion of a higher power?

Aren't you so clever. :roll:


Give us *one* valid source of evidence that shows Creationism/ID is a valid scientific theory.

Hello???

If you are infering the Bible is a source of evidence that proves creationism, I think the words "valid" and "scientific" mean it isn't a proper source of information. I doubt you can find any evidence in a god or higher power through real science.

I believe his "Hello???" was a suggestion this his very being proves creationism. I'll let you sort out the fallaciousness of such a statement if you wish, because I tire of these arguments.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: SWScorch

Originally posted by: Drekce
These judges are ridiculous. There is absolutely nothing in the wording of that sticker that could be seen as unconstitutional in terms of the "separation of church and state." Evolution IS a theory by every definition of the word.

I have to agree, actually. Even though I am as non-religious as they come, I have no problems with said stickers. Evolution is a theory, simply because it is not something that can be proven. It is accepted as true, but cannot be proven, therefore, it is a theory. Oh well. I can see why they should be removed, but it wouldn't bother me if they stayed.

Just study the species on the Galapagos Islands and you pretty much get a proof. The variations can be seen over a couple of years. That's the closest to proof we get.

Sometimes I feel this country is stuck in the stone age.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: SWScorch

Originally posted by: Drekce
These judges are ridiculous. There is absolutely nothing in the wording of that sticker that could be seen as unconstitutional in terms of the "separation of church and state." Evolution IS a theory by every definition of the word.

I have to agree, actually. Even though I am as non-religious as they come, I have no problems with said stickers. Evolution is a theory, simply because it is not something that can be proven. It is accepted as true, but cannot be proven, therefore, it is a theory. Oh well. I can see why they should be removed, but it wouldn't bother me if they stayed.

Just study the species on the Galapagos Islands and you pretty much get a proof. The variations can be seen over a couple of years. That's the closest to proof we get.

Sometimes I feel this country is stuck in the stone age.

That's qualitative proof, and it's analogous to observing the proverbial apple falling from the tree to prove gravity; all it does is prove that it occurs, it doesn't prove how. This is the basis of this tiring argument that will gets regurgitated ad nauseum.

Search for the words evolution and allele if you wish for more proof that it does indeed occur.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: JDub02
Would someone care to explain to me what makes creation any less valid than evolution?

I'm not arguing religious semantics. I'm saying some unnamed higher power creating us as opposed to billions of years of random chance turning mud into people.

There are no proof or even a theory to support it and just the thought itself is weird.

Creation of the world:
Nothing > nothing > 'poof' > the world we see today.

 

[cHeeZeFacTory]

I wonder why these religion vs. science topics always sparks such a large debate.

to the dude the said pi = 3... if we really did assume pi is 3, skyscrapers will be crumbling and airplanes will fall from the sky.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: Ulfwald
These die hard religious zealots need to just sit back and realize that they are not going to use government to force their beliefs on other people's children.

I am a believer in Christ, and God, but that does not meam that I need to force that beliefe on other people at the point of a gun. If someone asks me what I believe, and why, I will share my beliefs and reasons for them. I also realize that the earth is a lot older than these zealots want to lead us to believe. I believe that when the Bible says "Let their be light." It is a metaphor for the big bang theory. Who is to say that 7 or our days is 7 of God's days, 1 of God's days could be 1 million years, and that is why the earth has evolved. I also believe that God created man through evolution, and that the day we became self aware and realized our seperation between us and other species, is when the casting of Eden happened.

The great flood, could that also be another type of sunami? and if it was, how did it really rain for 40 days and 40 nights? One show i watched descriped it as tectonic plate settling. Where there was a lot of underground water deep beneath the crust, and at one time the crust split, and as the plates settled, all the water was forced up and into the atmosphere coming back down as torrential rain, as well as the resulting earth quakes caused tsunamis larger than we have ever seen, thus flooding everything in "known" civilization.

Scientific theory and evidence has neither proved or disproved the existence of God, but it has a lot of evidence backing evolution.

I honestly do believe that there is a higher being who created us, but did so over time. Just the way we create things today, and they become better and more "evolved". Example, the computer, It started out as a machine with very basic and limited functionality, now they have "evolved" because of our intervention.

Please do not take this as me forcing my beliefs on you, just explaining some of my reasoning.

Edit:

If you want to know my take on the whole evolution vs. creation battle:

Schools should teach evolution and tell the students that this is a theory. Leave the teaching of creationism to churches and bible schools.

That's probably the best reponse from a Christian I've ever read. I myself is non-Christian (non creationist) and I do respect that answer because it does not exclude evolution over time.

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: cosine17
u just love pissin people off dont u rick.

on the other side.. evoluntionism is pretty rediculous imo. something to consider, why is it that believing in zeus and the gods of olympia considered to be utterly rediculous, yet believing that a snake talked and seduced a woman (ok i understand, its a woman and prolly not hard to pull off (no offense women. o snap double parenthasis, dont get lost)) into eating an apple that removed 2 people from a magical garden..

its just as rediculous.

This brings up something else: it wasn't an apple, it was fruit of the tree of knowledge.

Is it possible that knowledge is such a bad thing that people must be punished for seeking it? Christians think so.

It was stated that Galileo had ideas and theories that differed from known scientific theories at the time. The so-called known scientific theories are what the church told people of how things worked. There was little to no science involved. Earth was flat because it looked flat to the observer. Everything revolved around the earth because that's the way it looked. This was taught by the church. Galileo proved them wrong and was severely punished for it.

The church has no business judging science or trying to teach it.

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: JDub02
Would someone care to explain to me what makes creation any less valid than evolution?

I'm not arguing religious semantics. I'm saying some unnamed higher power creating us as opposed to billions of years of random chance turning mud into people.

There are no proof or even a theory to support it and just the thought itself is weird.

Creation of the world:
Nothing > nothing > 'poof' > the world we see today.

What you are saying is it defies common sense. That's the whole point of a religion: suspend common sense and believe something completely implausable because it will make you spiritually and morally superior.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
the school should be run the way the local parents want it to be run, not by a judge

education is a local matter for each community to decide

You can forget about federal and state funding then.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: SWScorch

Originally posted by: Drekce
These judges are ridiculous. There is absolutely nothing in the wording of that sticker that could be seen as unconstitutional in terms of the "separation of church and state." Evolution IS a theory by every definition of the word.

I have to agree, actually. Even though I am as non-religious as they come, I have no problems with said stickers. Evolution is a theory, simply because it is not something that can be proven. It is accepted as true, but cannot be proven, therefore, it is a theory. Oh well. I can see why they should be removed, but it wouldn't bother me if they stayed.

Just study the species on the Galapagos Islands and you pretty much get a proof. The variations can be seen over a couple of years. That's the closest to proof we get.

Sometimes I feel this country is stuck in the stone age.

That's qualitative proof, and it's analogous to observing the proverbial apple falling from the tree to prove gravity; all it does is prove that it occurs, it doesn't prove how. This is the basis of this tiring argument that will gets regurgitated ad nauseum.

Search for the words evolution and allele if you wish for more proof that it does indeed occur.

Well, this book explains it in detail. It has to do with how the available type of food from year to year affects the beak size of the Finch.