evolution sticker in textbook ruled unconstitutional [Archive]

spinningfreemanny

01-13-2005, 07:33 PM

amazing...

Judge nixes evolution textbook stickers
Disclaimer questioning theory ruled unconstitutional

NBC News
The Cobb County Board of Education required these stickers to be pasted into biology textbooks, saying that evolution "is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
The Associated Press
Updated: 1:12 p.m. ET Jan. 13, 2005ATLANTA - A federal judge on Thursday ordered the removal of stickers placed in high school biology textbooks that call evolution “a theory, not a fact,” saying they were an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

The disclaimers were put in the books by school officials in suburban Cobb County in 2002.

“Adopted by the school board, funded by the money of taxpayers, and inserted by school personnel, the sticker conveys an impermissible message of endorsement and tells some citizens that they are political outsiders while telling others they are political insiders,” U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper said in his 44-page ruling.

“This is a great day for Cobb County students,” said attorney Michael Manely, who represented parents who brought the suit. “They’re going to be permitted to learn science unadulterated by religious dogma.”

Doug Goodwin, a spokesman for Cobb County schools, said officials did not have an immediate response but were preparing a statement.

Tolerance or religious activism?
Six parents of students and the American Civil Liberties Union had challenged the stickers in court, arguing they violated the constitutional separation of church and state.

The case was heard in federal court last November, where the school system defended the warning stickers as a show of tolerance, not religious activism as some parents claimed.

“The Cobb County school board is doing more than accommodating religion,” Manely had argued during the trial. “They are promoting religious dogma to all students.”

Lawyers for Cobb County disagreed, saying the school board had made a good-faith effort to address questions that inevitably arise during the teaching of evolution.

“Science and religion are related and they’re not mutually exclusive,” school district attorney Linwood Gunn said. “This sticker was an effort to get past that conflict and to teach good science.”

2,000 complaints from parents
The schools placed the stickers after more than 2,000 parents complained the textbooks presented evolution as fact, without mentioning rival ideas about the beginnings of life.

The stickers read, “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”

The case is one of several battles waged in recent years in the Bible Belt over what role evolution should play in science books. Last year, Georgia’s education chief proposed a science curriculum that dropped the word “evolution” in favor of “changes over time.” That plan was soon dropped amid protests by teachers.

source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6822028/)

Are they really this paranoid? "endorsement of religion"? did someone else read anything about religion in that sticker?

these judges...

Busyman

01-13-2005, 07:43 PM

Paranoid for good reason although I find nothing wrong with the stickers.

Religious views are also being presented in science classes ffs. :blink:

The judge I guess saw the writing on the wall or the tablet. :shifty:

spinningfreemanny

01-13-2005, 08:08 PM

Busyman

01-13-2005, 08:32 PM

ok,
I'll bite...

do you think that it is possible to argue creationism on a purely "scientific" basis?

I use the term scientific loosely, because, science is the study of something observed; macro-evolution and the big-bang theory, of course, cannot be observed.
It's possible as long as their is some study besides "God said so" to support those aspects of the Bible.

Mind you the term creationism is pushed from a Christian point of view....another fault.

Ok you'll bite?
I think I bit since you are the thread starter. :huh:

Biggles

01-13-2005, 08:34 PM

It really depends on what you mean by Creationism. The Big Bang could have been created. Even if there is a multi-verse that neither begins nor ends it does not preclude design.

The issue is not so much the science of evolution, which has a lot of geological and palaeontological support, but more a concern that if (frankly fairly minor) details are questioned regarding the veracity of scriptures then more fundamental issues of faith might also be questioned. This goes not just for Christianity but for all religions with creation myths. My own view is that this dilemma is caused through over-literal interpretation of text which the intent of was originally both artistic and impressionistic.

For example Manny, if on the same day, both evolution and the resurrection were proved beyond doubt would evolution matter one jot to you?

vidcc

01-13-2005, 09:12 PM

Manny , firstly welcome back..

Please tell me if you would object to a sticker placed in the bible that states that it is theory and not fact?.

Rat Faced

01-13-2005, 09:34 PM

Manny , firstly welcome back..

Please tell me if you would object to a sticker placed in the bible that states that it is theory and not fact?.

There was another page... they found it recently in the Dead Sea Scrolls..

They cant make it all out, just the end...

"..any similarity between persons living or dead, are purely coincidental."

mogadishu

01-13-2005, 11:16 PM

Manny , firstly welcome back..

Please tell me if you would object to a sticker placed in the bible that states that it is theory and not fact?.

very good point, never thought of it that way.

TheDave

01-13-2005, 11:28 PM

can kids not work it out anyway in america?

hobbes

01-13-2005, 11:40 PM

Since a theory is defined as "an unproven assumption" the sticker appears a bit redundant.

manker

01-14-2005, 01:52 AM

Are they really this paranoid? "endorsement of religion"? did someone else read anything about religion in that sticker?

these judges...The word religion isn't on the sticker but the implication is. Clearly Darwin's work is construed by many as a direct challenge to the Bible. Whether it actually is or not is irrelevant, the fact that it is widely perceived to be contradictory is pertinant here.

Do books containing other theories also have similar stickers warning that the information contained within is unproven. Is there a sticker on Kepler's work warning that there may well be a better way to put spheres in a box. Of course not, it's left to the discernment of the reader to make up his or her own mind.

In any case Darwin himself admitted that it is a work in progress, that there are undoubted flaws and unexplained evolutionary jumps which he cannot fit to his model. He's applied his own 'sticker' - but with rather more class.

Busyman

01-14-2005, 03:06 AM

Manny , firstly welcome back..

Please tell me if you would object to a sticker placed in the bible that states that it is theory and not fact?.
:lol: :lol: :lol: Very good one!!!

hobbes

01-14-2005, 03:20 AM

:lol: :lol: :lol: Very good one!!!

I actually contructed the same post but did not submit.

The flaw is that no one is required to read the Bible and no one has a grade that depends on one's understanding, as such.

The literal religious think that the requirement, as determined by academia, instills credence into a notion that the literalist interprets as offensive, and therfore taints the youth.

The religious want the student to remember that this is not proven, but merely conjecture.

Science attempts to figure things out, as logically as possible. This is the best answer to date and the rules are proven in experimental examples.

The problem is that religious interpretations are not open to scrutiny, it is believe it, or not. This approach is the anti-thesis of what science classes are intended to teach.

worldpease

01-14-2005, 04:49 AM

I think I defeer about the ¨believe it or not¨,
for example, I ¨believe it¨, but just because of the ¨facts¨. It also depends much in what you are made to believe, then of curse it is believe it or not, but then, should you believe it?.
Sadly many of us might base our believings on miss-interpretations of the Bible, so there is when we get to believe it or not. But what about the facts?, there is no true without fact.

Busyman

01-14-2005, 06:22 AM

I actually contructed the same post but did not submit.
Uh yeah...um...like..ok but like, you didn't.

I'll give you a quarter of a point for almost an effort or something. :dry:

Barbarossa

01-14-2005, 12:22 PM

The stickers read, “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”

Surely all material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered??? :blink:

Otherwise how would we ever expand our knowledge and understanding of the world around us?

Maybe we're not supposed to... :no:

Sid Hartha

01-14-2005, 07:34 PM

can kids not work it out anyway in america?

Well, their parents don't seem to be able to.

http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/war.312.gif

3RA1N1AC

01-15-2005, 12:55 AM

The flaw is that no one is required to read the Bible
ah, but if i were one who supports both the principles of the holy bible and the stickering of biology textbooks, i imagine the golden rule would compel me to condone stickering the holy bible in religious schools and sunday schools. it would only be the fair thing to do.

vidcc

01-15-2005, 02:40 AM

I wanted to get Manny's answer before I continued, however that may take some time so l shall elaborate on the direction l am heading in.

I asked the question purely because of this
Are they really this paranoid? "endorsement of religion"? did someone else read anything about religion in that sticker?

these judges...
I just wanted to see if it would make sense to him if it were the bible and the judge ruled against a sticker.
However in the points that where raised by the question..

In thinking before l asked the question about if Manny would object to a sticker in the bible I didn't ignore the fact that evolution is taught in school and the Bible isn't. I just wanted to find out if Manny thinks it's ok to have such worded disclaimers for science but not for religious teachings.
Hobbes made the point that one isn't graded on ones knowledge or understanding of the bible, yet one is on the subject of evolution. But what of Sunday school or private religious schools?
The disclaimer sticker is on books used by minors and how many children actually have the choice to "not" attend Sunday school or a religious school if their parents wish them to do so?

State schools teach what is acceptably proven, however nobody in the scientific community (as far as l am aware) has said they know everything. At what stage do we say that we have enough evidence ? and will there ever be enough to say this is how it happened and have it accepted by those of faith ?

Disclaimer:
The content of this post is purely a summation and doesn't cover every eventuality. This does in no way mean that the author has ignored any other possibility or is unaware of them.

ilw

01-15-2005, 10:59 AM

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

Creationism cannot be argued scientifically and remains at best a hypothesis (and a poor one at that, as its not particuarly rational).
Evolution as a concept is actually a fact, but whether it was actually the way in which the life we see around us today came into existence is still a theory.

UKResident

01-15-2005, 12:37 PM

“This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things."

Being a theory does not exempt something from being factual. As ilw pointed out, Quantum Theory is still regarded as a theory, and yet many of the things we take for granted today would not be here if it weren't for Quantum Mechanics, including the computers we are all using.

UKResident

01-15-2005, 06:30 PM

Could you explain this please, thank you.

All semiconductor transistors work according to the principles of quantum mechanics. Without quantum mechanics it isn't possible to understand how a transistor works, and one certainly couldn't have been made. This in turn led to transistor radios, televisions, computers etc.

The laser beam is also a product of quantum mechanics, giving us CDs and DVDs among other things.

In the future we will see quantum computers that make what we see today seem positively archaic.

Biggles

01-15-2005, 07:41 PM

All semiconductor transistors work according to the principles of quantum mechanics. Without quantum mechanics it isn't possible to understand how a transistor works, and one certainly couldn't have been made. This in turn led to transistor radios, televisions, computers etc.

The laser beam is also a product of quantum mechanics, giving us CDs and DVDs among other things.

In the future we will see quantum computers that make what we see today seem positively archaic.

Most computers today make my one seem positively archaic :)

vidcc

01-16-2005, 06:16 AM

Surely all material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered??? :blink:

Otherwise how would we ever expand our knowledge and understanding of the world around us?

Maybe we're not supposed to... :no:

Do you remember manny's old sig about open minds?

It went something along the lines of..."sometimes peoples minds are so open their brains fall out"
;)

TheDave

01-16-2005, 05:56 PM

wait, all scientific discoveries were made after we understood them? :blink:

note to self: try and keep up dave

spinningfreemanny

01-17-2005, 06:22 AM

I wanted to get Manny's answer before I continued, however that may take some time so l shall elaborate on the direction l am heading in.

I asked the question purely because of this
I just wanted to see if it would make sense to him if it were the bible and the judge ruled against a sticker.
However in the points that where raised by the question..

In thinking before l asked the question about if Manny would object to a sticker in the bible I didn't ignore the fact that evolution is taught in school and the Bible isn't. I just wanted to find out if Manny thinks it's ok to have such worded disclaimers for science but not for religious teachings.
Hobbes made the point that one isn't graded on ones knowledge or understanding of the bible, yet one is on the subject of evolution. But what of Sunday school or private religious schools?
The disclaimer sticker is on books used by minors and how many children actually have the choice to "not" attend Sunday school or a religious school if their parents wish them to do so?

State schools teach what is acceptably proven, however nobody in the scientific community (as far as l am aware) has said they know everything. At what stage do we say that we have enough evidence ? and will there ever be enough to say this is how it happened and have it accepted by those of faith ?

Disclaimer:
The content of this post is purely a summation and doesn't cover every eventuality. This does in no way mean that the author has ignored any other possibility or is unaware of them.

I find it ironic that macro-evolution is being compared to a religion; because that's what it is; more then any scientific groundwork.

The "big bang theory" has misused the term "theory". it cannot be computed and hypothasized (sp?) like quantum mechanics can. I actually did not come across this until recently; being that state school has jackhammered the opposite in my head all the way from kindergarten books.

but; to the question.

Anyone can put any sticker they choose on any book. It is the fact that a Federal Judge has ruled the opposite that brings my attention. If a state school is teaching a world religion course and they want a sticker on a bible reminding readers to contemplate independently on the contents; then go ahead. A court should not have say on such matters.

of course many here favor an overstepping court system as long as it councides with their beliefs.

I have recently run into a professor who taught creationism. As a Bio major; I have always bought into the Gap Age theory (for a rough summery: Where there is a time gap in the bible where macro-evolution could have taken place.) This professor, though, came to debate a bio professor from my school, and I'll be damned, if he did not only hold his own, but, revamped some minds about the validity of creationism.

call me stupid, jaded, or just wrong; but before you do; look into what some creationists have to say.

(as barbarossa said; all material should be carefully considered.) :)

it is from this standpoint; that there is (in my mind) another valid theory in a pure scientific sense, that, keeps me from evolution only taught. If they teach something as enthreal as the big bang theory; then the same standard would show that creationism is at least as valid.

if I don't post for awhile, it doesn't mean I'm not reading; I just means time constraints.

UKResident

01-17-2005, 12:09 PM

Maybe we should start a new thread to discuss this so called 'science' of creationism.

We could discuss the five great creation myths ..
Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.

Anyone game? :rolleyes:

TheDave

01-17-2005, 01:21 PM

evolution has been observed. people are taller than they used to be

Barbarossa

01-17-2005, 01:34 PM

evolution has been observed. people are taller than they used to be

meh... you can't discount diet from that argument, peoples diets are so much better than they were, hence they grow more..

However, evolution HAS been observed, in moths during the industrial revolution around Manchester :

source: http://www.txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage07.html

TheDave

01-17-2005, 01:36 PM

its been observed anyway

Rat Faced

01-17-2005, 04:53 PM

meh... you can't discount diet from that argument, peoples diets are so much better than they were, hence they grow more..

However, evolution HAS been observed, in moths during the industrial revolution around Manchester :

source: http://www.txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage07.html

Why didnt you just point at Dog or Horse Breeding?

We have been "Selecting" for centuries... exactly the same as Evolution, just us choosing the characteristics we want from a "Breed" rather than nature..

vidcc

01-17-2005, 07:01 PM

Manny.

Now i have your view on the stickers, and you're not objecting to stickers on the bible as well i will go onto the judges ruling.

The state IS seperate from the church and and rightly so. The sticker was deemed as being unconstitutional because it pointed at a specific item and therefore the religious backing was implied. It is very Naive to think that just because the word religion wasn't on the sticker that it wasn't the backing behind it.
If parents wish their children to take just this item as being "questionable" because it counters theories in their faith then they have sole responsibility to raise the issue with their children...it is NOT the states job to do this.
You rightly agreed with the point that all material should be viewed objectively, but do you think it's the job of government to label everything so that we do?.

If parents wish to have religious theory taught to their children in school, there are plenty of religious schools to choose from.

I have seen the arguement that the constitution uses "freedom of religion" and not "freedom from religion"..... well if you wish one you have to accept the other.

Anyone can put any sticker they choose on any book. It is the fact that a Federal Judge has ruled the opposite that brings my attention. If a state school is teaching a world religion course and they want a sticker on a bible reminding readers to contemplate independently on the contents; then go ahead. A court should not have say on such matters.

Here is the point....If a state school did teach religious subjects and put the sticker on those text books then the judge would have to make the same ruling he made in this particular case and have them removed. He is not making a ruling on beliefs or personal views.

ilw

01-17-2005, 07:17 PM

The "big bang theory" has misused the term "theory". it cannot be computed and hypothasized (sp?) like quantum mechanics can. I actually did not come across this until recently; being that state school has jackhammered the opposite in my head all the way from kindergarten books.
I don't understand this, why can't the big bang theory be hypothesised? Someone speculated that, because all large bodies of matter are known to be moving away at a rate related to their distance from us, (or at least redshift of distant quasars etc would make us believe so), this corresponds rather nicely to an expanding universe and in particular one which expanded from a single point/region. The bang hypothesis is backed up by, for example, the existence of constant background radiation, the detection of which won a couple of very flukey physics students the nobel prize a few decades ago. There are still discrepancies in the big bang theory, and indeed it's not the only theory for how the universe was formed, it is just the most likely ie the one that best fits the evidence.
Why (according to creationism) is the universe expanding? Surely god would create a steady state universe?

Basically:
What distinguishes a scientific theory from a non-scientific theory is that a scientific theory must be refutable in principle; a set of circumstances must potentially exist such that if observed it would logically prove the theory wrong.

Can you honestly say that creationists will ever see any evidence that will make them admit that they are wrong? No, because its a belief thing, science is tacked on to make it look respectable.

Theres some more info on why creationism can't actually claim to be science (not disproving actual theories, but generally rubbishing the entire idea of basing science on a book and not on data we actually find in the real world)
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_cre_scientific.htm

hobbes

01-17-2005, 07:54 PM

meh... you can't discount diet from that argument, peoples diets are so much better than they were, hence they grow more..

However, evolution HAS been observed, in moths during the industrial revolution around Manchester :

source: http://www.txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage07.html

That is micro-evolution, NOT macro-evolution. Moths that have different colored wings are still moths.

Any proven examples of macro-evolution you know of?

hobbes

01-17-2005, 08:57 PM

I used to be a fish.

And you still drink like one!

Take me drunk, I'm home again.

/Hobbes escorts JP back to the lounge.

vidcc

01-17-2005, 09:08 PM

And you still drink like one!

it would need to be a salt water fish then, Unless the liquid is partaken in an osmosis fashion ;)

hobbes

01-17-2005, 09:33 PM

it would need to be a salt water fish then, Unless the liquid is partaken in an osmosis fashion ;)

The "liquid" should be taken "shaken, not stirred".

http://www.thegoldenyears.org/roger_moore.jpg

hobbes

01-17-2005, 09:45 PM

Thank you kindly, young Lady.

I lost me place for a moment their, back to the hoi poloi for me. Cant be talking with t'big nobs and showing meself up.

"Their" ? Their what?

"Hoi poloi" I'm sorry you have polio, Jonas Salk has let you down.

"Cant" Is this another attack on cats? You know, like a cat that can't.

spinningfreemanny

01-17-2005, 11:43 PM

Basically:
What distinguishes a scientific theory from a non-scientific theory is that a scientific theory must be refutable in principle; a set of circumstances must potentially exist such that if observed it would logically prove the theory wrong.

Can you honestly say that creationists will ever see any evidence that will make them admit that they are wrong? No, because its a belief thing, science is tacked on to make it look respectable.

Theres some more info on why creationism can't actually claim to be science (not disproving actual theories, but generally rubbishing the entire idea of basing science on a book and not on data we actually find in the real world)
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_cre_scientific.htm

well, as creationism can't be a science; evolution cannot either. The difference is, is that creationism is affrontly religious (due to some things you just have to believe happened) and macro evolution, or stellar evolution, (well all of them besides microevolution) is religion (for the same reason as creationism) masqurading as science and taking our public tax dollars to be taught.

though I surely don't care for every textbook to have a sticker, a Judge cannot rule against any such sticker; whether it be in a bible or textbook.

Here's the reason behind the hostility toward debasing macro evolution as fact. (which believe me, they are teaching it as such.)

honestly; There is no other theory to take it's place. The only other one is creationism.

but wait; that would mean that there's a God. uh oh, problem.

because if there's a god, then this is his earth, and he owns it, and then we might have to follow his rules.

No one likes following rules. So, the evolution religion stands to give people the freedom to live like they choose.

I must admit, this is loosely plagerized. I Just discovered the doctor that came to my college's website today, and his streaming debates there are pretty amazing; especially the 3 on 1 one.

debate downloads (http://www.drdino.com/Downloads/Debate/vids/index.jsp)

Biggles

01-18-2005, 12:14 AM

Manny,

I am not sure that I really follow the idea that evolution (as a general concept rather than just simply "natural selection") is a mock religion. However, I do not doubt that there are those that simply disimiss religion by saying that science has got rid of all that - without knowing a thing about the science or the religion.

Having said that, I do not think the jump from intelligent design to one specific religious understanding is logical - which appears (at face value) to be what you are saying.

Most, if not all, religions have Creation myths, some have several :) ). There are also a lot of these myths, from the ancient Mayans to Hinduism. They all work on the same theme of intelligent (or sometimes not so intelligent) design. However, there the similarities end. Should all these Creation myths be taught? What specific right has one myth over another as a replacement to evolution - should we decide evolution fails to meet the criteria for a working scientific paradigm? To argue that, for example, the US falls into the Christian tradition and therefore should teach the Christian version is hardly scientific.

Nevertheless, the idea of intelligent design is worthy of inclusion in any discussion regarding origins.

As far as I am aware, a number of biologists who adhere to religious beliefs are quite comfortable with evolution as a means of Creation. Goo or Dust, is there really such a difference?

vidcc

01-18-2005, 12:50 AM

well, as creationism can't be a science; evolution cannot either. The difference is, is that creationism is affrontly religious (due to some things you just have to believe happened) and macro evolution, or stellar evolution, (well all of them besides microevolution) is religion (for the same reason as creationism) masqurading as science and taking our public tax dollars to be taught.

So what it boils down to is you object to tax dollars being spent on something that questions creationism ?....... I did ask before if there will ever be enough evidence for you to accept the scientific "theory"

though I surely don't care for every textbook to have a sticker, a Judge cannot rule against any such sticker; whether it be in a bible or textbook.

yes he can and has

Here's the reason behind the hostility toward debasing macro evolution as fact. (which believe me, they are teaching it as such.)

honestly; There is no other theory to take it's place. The only other one is creationism.
So does everything have to have more than one theory?.... should we denounce the way electricity travels through a wire because there isn't a counter theory? again at what point will there be enough evidence?
but wait; that would mean that there's a God. uh oh, problem.

because if there's a god, then this is his earth, and he owns it, and then we might have to follow his rules.

No one likes following rules. So, the evolution religion stands to give people the freedom to live like they choose.

Are you suggesting that anyone that doesn't believe in God is "immoral"?

So i am an Athiest because i don't like following rules ?

I do find it interesting that you use the word "religion" to describe an acceptance of scientific evidence. What with all the ownership arguments lately over such words as "marriage" and "sacred" (I know you were not part of that)

..

spinningfreemanny

01-18-2005, 01:27 AM

a bunch of questions

hmm... quote thing is not working...

So what it boils down to is you object to tax dollars being spent on something that questions creationism ?....... I did ask before if there will ever be enough evidence for you to accept the scientific "theory"

wow; of course not; obviously that is not what I stated.
something that questions creationism?
tell me a major university that even footnotes creationism and I will be throughtly suprised.
oh, and BTW; there is next to no evidence that points to evolution theory.

all I'm saying is that creationism and macro-evolution are in the same philisophical boat, only one claims it and one hides it.

if you teach one, teach the other...Or preferrably teach neither; because they both, in my opinion, fall out of the realm of science.

though I surely don't care for every textbook to have a sticker, a Judge cannot rule against any such sticker; whether it be in a bible or textbook.

yes he can and has

Of course, and there lies the problem.

So does everything have to have more than one theory?.... should we denounce the way electricity travels through a wire because there isn't a counter theory? again at what point will there be enough evidence?

no; but there is no other theory that devaluates intelligent design, or the existance of some "God", and, of course, thats whats needed.

So i am an Athiest because i don't like following rules ?

I do find it interesting that you use the word "religion" to describe an acceptance of scientific evidence. What with all the ownership arguments lately over such words as "marriage" and "sacred" (I know you were not part of that)

well, until you show me otherwise, That is all I can come to. You will gladly follow your own rules, I'm sure.

Tell me, if Evolution is true, how do we know right from wrong?
actually, you don't have to bother, as you probably have guessed, there's no answer.

Really though, watch the debates, they're simply amazing.

vidcc

01-18-2005, 02:00 AM

wow; of course not; obviously that is not what I stated.
something that questions creationism?
tell me a major university that even footnotes creationism and I will be throughtly suprised.

When someone comes up with solid evidence they will ... you've had a few thousand years ;)

oh, and BTW; there is next to no evidence that points to evolution theory.

That you will accept

all I'm saying is that creationism and macro-evolution are in the same philisophical boat, only one claims it and one hides it.

Here I will note a seperation...creationist claim this is how it happened, but we have no evidence to prove it.... evolutionists claim this is how it happened based on the evidence we have so far...but we will adjust without reservation upon fresh evidence.
You spoke of "gaps" that are as yet unexplained and used those gaps as an arguement for creationism. Please show me where science has claimed it has all the answers?

if you teach one, teach the other...Or preferrably teach neither; because they both, in my opinion, fall out of the realm of science.

teach the one that can be proven with evidence...not acts of blind faith.

Of course, and there lies the problem.

judges make rulings on the constitution as it stands...not as you would like it

well, until you show me otherwise, That is all I can come to. You will gladly follow your own rules, I'm sure.

I am an athiest because i don't believe in fictional characters

Tell me, if Evolution is true, how do we know right from wrong?

What on earth are you on about? what does that have to do with evolution and the origin of species? Do animals other than human know the difference?
actually, you don't have to bother, as you probably have guessed, there's no answer.
tell me...do all cultures share the same opinion of what is "right from wrong"?

Really though, watch the debates, they're simply amazing.

Can you give me any reason for doubting evolution other than it goes against what your religious beliefs are?

Busyman

01-18-2005, 03:56 AM

If it wasn't MCVIV then I now understand why Bush won.

Bush does things that are idiotic in the face of common sense. :dry:

Monkster

01-18-2005, 04:53 AM

Can you give me any reason for doubting evolution other than it goes against what your religious beliefs are?

umm, there is no concrete evidence, as far as i know anyways...oh sure theres embryology, carbon dating, mutation, the like...but i haven't seen any new species being formed.

UKResident

01-18-2005, 04:57 AM

Skiz

01-18-2005, 05:04 AM

(As an aside here, if Hobbes and Jpaul have nothing to offer this discussion apart from an obvious attempt to hijack it, could they please continue their little game in the lounge?)

Sheesh...welcome to FST... :dry:

worldpease

01-18-2005, 05:32 AM

If you were stranded on an island (lol, nothing to do with that show), and wile walking to explore the surownding you find that there, in the middle of nothing, is a house, a big and beautiful house; but then you go in and see that it there is furniture, electricity, there is even whater to drink and take a much desired bath, you go to the kitchen and find that its full of food, everything you could need is in there... then the first thing you ask you self is, who could have made this house?.
Noticed?.
Would you think that the house like that came to be by it self?

vidcc

01-18-2005, 05:40 AM

umm, there is no concrete evidence, as far as i know anyways...oh sure theres embryology, carbon dating, mutation, the like...but i haven't seen any new species being formed.

do you think it happens overnight then?

Look at the lung fish..... land crabs.

You mentioned mutation..... isn't that how it happens then?

I suppose that ligers wouldn't count as an example how breeding changes things.

Nature finds a way to adapt...look at how insects breed immunity to our pesticides to become an animal that although hasn't changed physically in appearance can now live in an enviroment that would have killed them before.

look at how our own bodies build immunities and how bacteria and viruses combat those immunities.
The constant change in life is evident before your eyes.... you just have to open them

vidcc

01-18-2005, 05:46 AM

spinningfreemanny

01-18-2005, 06:39 AM

nice try...however have you noticed that life adapts to its enviroment ?...animals that live in cold areas tend to have thick fur or thicker layers of fat..etc.

cave fish are blind but still have the eye sockets from their ancestors

adapted or designed? :shifty:

sorry, due to time constraints; I will answer your other response later.

worldpease

01-18-2005, 06:49 AM

Skiz

01-18-2005, 10:01 AM

Yes, and it´s interesting you mentioned it, in fact I think its amazing the adaptive capacity of the ¨creation¨, ...
You see, your cave fish there, is not evolutionating, its mutating. Its just a variation of that organism, not a new one.
When Darwin whent to the Galapagos Island, he saw certain kind of birds wich had an original ancestor in America, but there were some diferences in theyr aspect, for example, ther peaks were little diferen one from the other, so he tought that it was ¨evolution in progres¨, but in reality it only was variation in that spicies, something alowed within the genetic composition of the creature.
The birds were not converting into other kind of animal and never will.

I'm a religious person but you're splitting hairs there Worldpease. Vidcc is correct about these thingsnot happening overnight (obviously). You say it was just a variation in the species, right? Well over 100 years or 1000 years or whatever there are minor changes that occur no matter how minute. Put these changes together over a stretch of 1000's of years or even millions and... viola, you have a different animal.

manker

01-18-2005, 11:21 AM

There is no such thing as 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution', there is only evolution. Splitting it up into two parts is a not so clever little trick of the creationists. They cannot argue about the whole theory, so they make out that there are actually two of them.That's pretty poorly thought out since obviously micro means on a small scale and macro means on a lage scale. In this context it clarifies the difference between slight changes within a species and a leap from one species to another. What the fellows earlier were trying to explain was that evolution has been observed irrefutably on a small scale, as with the moths, but proving, irrefutably (and that's the key word here) that, for example, man descended from apes - ie a totally new species evolving to adapt to it's surroundings - just hasn't been done.

You can't pigeon hole people by saying creationists believe this and non-religious folk believe the other. It is not black and white. I don't believe we were designed yet can see the flaws in Darwinism.

What they fail to understand, or refuse to admit, is that in the timescale of life on Earth their so-called 'micro evolution' is all that is needed to achieve 'macro-evolution'. No it isn't, a bird's beak becomes broader over a period of time to adapt to the larger seeds prevalent in it's surroundings, a moth's wing increases it's pigmentation because of pollution. How can those subtle differences irrefutably explain the aesthetic and DNA chasm separating a shrew and homo sapiens sapiens. It simply cannot be done.

I understand what you're saying about the millions of years worth of evolutionary time that's passed and agree that it is the most likely explanation but to state unequivocally that micro evolution explains macro evolution is entirely inaccurate - and Mr Darwin agrees with me.

(As an aside here, if Hobbes and Jpaul have nothing to offer this discussion apart from an obvious attempt to hijack it, could they please continue their little game in the lounge?)4r5e.

TheDave

01-18-2005, 01:14 PM

show of hands, who believes in evolution? who believes in creation?

UKResident

01-18-2005, 02:27 PM

That's pretty poorly thought out since obviously micro means on a small scale and macro means on a lage scale. In this context it clarifies the difference between slight changes within a species and a leap from one species to another. What the fellows earlier were trying to explain was that evolution has been observed irrefutably on a small scale, as with the moths, but proving, irrefutably (and that's the key word here) that, for example, man descended from apes - ie a totally new species evolving to adapt to it's surroundings - just hasn't been done.

Maybe you should read up on creationist's claims BEFORE you misrepresent what l said. It is they who claim they are two seperate arms of science, not l. Does evolution make claims of one species to another? l would think evidence of a toad turning into an elephant would be a good argument AGAINST evolution. Man being a descendent of apes is NOT a completely new species. And what do you mean by 'just hasn't been done'? What hasn't been done? We weren't once an ape? Can you prove that irrefutably (your word) l suggest you read up on genetics and DNA sequencing.

You can't pigeon hole people by saying creationists believe this and non-religious folk believe the other. It is not black and white. I don't believe we were designed yet can see the flaws in Darwinism.

Creationism versus evolution IS black and white, just because you happen to be grey does not alter that.

No it isn't, a bird's beak becomes broader over a period of time to adapt to the larger seeds prevalent in it's surroundings, a moth's wing increases it's pigmentation because of pollution. How can those subtle differences irrefutably explain the aesthetic and DNA chasm separating a shrew and homo sapiens sapiens. It simply cannot be done.

Once again, l suggest you read up on genetics and DNA sequencing, it CAN be done. (your ignorence is beginning to show, maybe you should stay in the lounge!)

I understand what you're saying about the millions of years worth of evolutionary time that's passed and agree that it is the most likely explanation but to state unequivocally that micro evolution explains macro evolution is entirely inaccurate - and Mr Darwin agrees with me.

l did not say it did, again you use misquotes to prove a point, l talked about the timescale needed and the rate of change of so-called micro evolution being enough to account for macro evolution. l should also remind you, in case you are unaware, that science has come a long way since Darwin.

Worldpease -- could you explain what you mean by your analogy? Are you saying that mankind arrived here and everything was set up waiting for him? Is that your contribution?

manker

01-18-2005, 03:00 PM

Maybe you should read up on creationist's claims BEFORE you misrepresent what l said. It is they who claim they are two seperate arms of science, not l. Does evolution make claims of one species to another? l would think evidence of a toad turning into an elephant would be a good argument AGAINST evolution. Man being a descendent of apes is NOT a completely new species. And what do you mean by 'just hasn't been done'? What hasn't been done? We weren't once an ape? Can you prove that irrefutably (your word) l suggest you read up on genetics and DNA sequencing.So if I tell you that your absolute isn't valid - you said there is no such thing as macro and micro evolution - you then say that I need to read up on DNA sequencing. Righty-ho.

A speices jump means they cannot interbreed. Dark winged moths can interbreed with lighter winged moths - that's an example of micro-evolution; Apes cannot breed with homo sapiens sapiens - unproven example of macro evolution. Do you understand it now?

I can't irrefutably (my word) prove macro-evolution one way or the other - that's my whole point. No-one can.

Creationism versus evolution IS black and white, just because you happen to be grey does not alter that.:D

So it's a black and white issue yet you acknowledge my grey stance, nice one.

In any case, I was stating that you can't pigeon hole people like you attempted to. It's not a clever trick of creationists, if a creationist coined the argument, fine - but people who reject creationism also embrace the idea of macro and micro evolution. In fact most people who understand the term would have no problem with the concept. It's logical to separate changes within a species and changes resulting in the creation of a whole new species.

Once again, l suggest you read up on genetics and DNA sequencing, it CAN be done. (your ignorence is beginning to show, maybe you should stay in the lounge!)I see a pattern here, when you can't prove something, you hint at my ignorance. Humour me, tell me who has irrefutably (my word) proved the shrew/homo sapiens sapiens evolutionary path.

I know that no-one has.

l did not say it did, again you use misquotes to prove a point, l talked about the timescale needed and the rate of change of so-called micro evolution being enough to account for macro evolution.
You say that you didn't say that micro evolution explains macro evolution, that I misquoted you - then you say it again. Please, try to concentrate.

l should also remind you, in case you are unaware, that science has come a long way since Darwin.I was aware but thanks.

We've come a long way but we still can't irrefutably (my word) prove macro evolution. Unless of course you're about to do it, for which I would doff my cap.

/waits

Barbarossa

01-18-2005, 03:00 PM

Well, it's clear that the whole subject is pretty complicated. :wacko:

The way I see it, evolution is a consequence of "lucky" mutation in a small population that is not especially thriving.

let me elaborate. In nature, the successful individuals in a population are the ones that get to breed, and pass on their genetic identity to future generations. The less successful individuals over time are eliminated from the gene pool, and their less successful traits with them.

Mutations happen all the time. If a mutation introduces a dominant trait which makes an individual more successful, then that mutation will be passed on to the descendents of that individual, and over time distributed across the whole population as it grows.

If a mutation introduces a trait which makes an individual less successful, then this clearly won't happen.

Also, if the population is large enough and successful enough anyway, then in these circumstances evolution won't happen either. That is why some species have been around for millions of years without noticeable change.

I would point to the fact that there has always been an explosion in "new species" being identified in the periods following a mass extinction event in the Earth's history: During these times life was clearly difficult for a great number of species, the populations were probably quite small and struggling to survive, conditions that are perfect for evolved new and more successful traits becoming adopted.

The sorts of mutations I'm talking about can simply be characteristics of species, but also minute changes to the DNA and gene structure. These MUST be small changes by definition, or the new individual would not be genetically compatible with the rest of the species. Over many many generations, I see no reason why these small changes could not result in entirely new species, even a new order of species...

The lack of evidence of "missing link" fossils is a major stumbling block to the theory. The only creature that even comes close to being a missing link, is the Archeopteryx, and this is still a major cause for heated debate, with some paleontologists believing it to be the link between dinosaurs and birds, others believing it to be an offshoot of dinosaurs which then became extinct. The only defence for the lack of evidence appears to be the very sketchy nature of the fossil record.. An tiny number of living things actually leaves a fossil record; there are probably millions of species of animals and plants that have evolved, thrived, and been made extinct, that we will never know about.

(I'm quite surprised that monotremes such as the platypus or echidna aren't cited as examples of possible evolution from reptiles to mammals, but I guess paleontologists aren't interested in them as they're not dead... :blink: )

The way I see large scale evolution being effective, is in initially small populations, over hundreds of generations. It is an exceptionally slow process, which is why many many species become extinct before they can adapt to changes in circumstances or environment.

To summarize:

The timescales involved for evolution are so enormous that it is very hard from our point of view to observe, especially with the very limited fossil record that we have. The best we can do at the moment is observe the quite clear evidence of small adaptations, and extrapolate the effects of these over longer periods of time.

Well... thats my theory anyway. I've just spent an two hours on it, and that's all I've got to say.. :01:

vidcc

01-18-2005, 03:19 PM

adapted or designed? :shifty:

sorry, due to time constraints; I will answer your other response later.

Do you believe that at one point all the land on earth was pretty much one mass and separated to become the continents we have today?
If so do you believe each continent took it's own climat with it or just moved to warmer/colder climates?

@colin

worth the time you spent writing... :)

manker

01-18-2005, 03:27 PM

@colin

worth the time you spent writing... :) Undoubtedly.

An excellent post. Thanks, Colin :D

However, I think UKResident is about to provide proof of the missing link so you'll have to update it later.

vidcc

01-18-2005, 03:45 PM

I am amazed that nobody has suggested the "God created life.... then it evolved" theory...My appologise if someone has and i just missed it.

I have started a poll in the serious poll section

manker

01-18-2005, 03:56 PM

I am amazed that nobody has suggested the "God created life.... then it evolved" theoryI think most people who've posted at length in this thread, save Manny, have kinda discounted magic.

UKResident

01-18-2005, 04:20 PM

However, I think UKResident is about to provide proof of the missing link so you'll have to update it later.

Do you ever make a post without first trying to belittle the person you are attempting to answer? You are, without doubt, a good example of the worse aspects of this board. Your four or so answers to my posts have all started with an insult, it is your modus operendi. Well it won't work with me, you will not run me off the board with your ridicule so you may as well stop trying, l'm not one of your lounge bunnies.

This is part of an article you should read, it is a response to one of the main Creationist's arguments.

----------------------------------------------------

"There are no transitional fossils."

A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendents evolves.

To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human. For many more examples, see the transitional fossils FAQ in the talk.origins archive, and see http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html for sample images for some invertebrate groups.

The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category, or that there is some eternal ideal form (for philosophers, the Platonic idea) which defines the category. This kind of thinking leads people to declare that Archaeopteryx is "100% bird," when it is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact). In truth, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesn't.

Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism.

"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994

Source (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo)

----------------------------------------------

You really should read more.

Barbarossa

01-18-2005, 04:32 PM

I'm finding this whole subject fascinating! :)

This BBC article makes good reading:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/genes/dna_detectives/adam_and_eve/index.shtml

Busyman

01-18-2005, 04:53 PM

I am amazed that nobody has suggested the "God created life.... then it evolved" theory...My appologise if someone has and i just missed it.

I have started a poll in the serious poll section
I have suggested that but not in this thread.

I have always maintained that it takes an intelligent to set life in motion.

1.It's convenient that we breathe out C02 and plants breathe it in and vice-versa isn't it? I've also maintained that if there was a Big Bang, something intelligent started it. One argument is...Who created God then?

2.May I remind everyone that manny's version of creationism being pushed is not ALL creationism......it's CHRISTIAN CREATIONISM....another flaw in creationists argument of it being taught in schools. :dry:

3. If we came from apes then why are apes still around?

4. @vid - I do believe that all the continents were together at one time. Some sort of fit together like a puzzle even now.

manker

01-18-2005, 05:02 PM

This is part of an article you should read, it is a response to one of the main Creationist's arguments.Well done, you've posted in answer to a creationist argument. Not my argument. I'm picking holes at evolution, not extolling the virtues of creationism.

My premis is to refute your assertion that macro evolution and micro evolution don't exist. I've been quite succesful in that since you've neglected to mention it since.

I also asked you to prove your assertion that the shrew/homo sapiens sapiens evolutionary path can be traced. You've not done so.

I've refuted your suggestion that the micro/macro evolution theory is merely a creationists trick. Again ... nothing.

Now you've copied and pasted something. Oh joy, it doesn't back up your points in the slightest but some of the language is similar:

Lack of proof isn't a weaknessReally. I'd say that without proof, you can't prove anything beyond irrefutable doubt. You may lap up rhetoric if it fits your agenda, I don't.

Sure, evolutionary theory is the most likely explanation of why we're typing instead of grunting, by a million miles. However, it's not perfect and it hasn't been proven irrefutably.

=========

Do you ever make a post without first trying to belittle the person you are attempting to answer? You are, without doubt, a good example of the worse aspects of this board. Your four or so answers to my posts have all started with an insult, it is your modus operendi. Well it won't work with me, you will not run me off the board with your ridicule so you may as well stop trying, l'm not one of your lounge bunnies.Rattled? Stop whinging. You've hardly endeared yourself to the board with attacks on mods, members and now my good self.

Actually, I think I'm being quite polite given the rubbish you're spouting at me (not the on topic stuff, the 'read more','you're showing your ignorence' -spelled wrongly- 'get back to the lounge' stuff). You must be a rather sensitive soul, sorry if you felt all teary.

Barbarossa

01-18-2005, 05:03 PM

1.It's convenient that we breathe out C02 and plants breathe it in and vice-versa isn't it? I've also maintained that if there was a Big Bang, something intelligent started it. One argument is...Who created God then?

2.May I remind everyone that manny's version of creationism being pushed is not ALL creationism......it's CHRISTIAN CREATIONISM....another flaw in creationists argument of it being taught in schools. :dry:

3. If we came from apes then why are apes still around?

4. @vid - I do believe that all the continents were together at one time. Some sort of fit together like a puzzle even now.

1. This is actually an argument FOR evolution!!!! life has adapted perfectly to take advantage of its immediate environment through the process of evolution and natural selection.

2. Good point.

3. We ARE still apes too, just a type of ape that has adapted in a rather unorthodox way to the challenges of survival. Our ancestor-apes were probably weaker and less agile than other apes, so the adaptation that worked for us was to become intelligent, and discover the ability to learn and make tools, and pass on our knowledge to our descendents. Other apes adapted differently, and because of our success, they are on the way out.. In terms of timescales, you are still seeing only a snapshot of the bigger picture...

4. Plate tectonics is tomorrows subject.. :P

Busyman

01-18-2005, 05:25 PM

1. This is actually an argument FOR evolution!!!! life has adapted perfectly to take advantage of its immediate environment through the process of evolution and natural selection.

2. Good point.

3. We ARE still apes too, just a type of ape that has adapted in a rather unorthodox way to the challenges of survival. Our ancestor-apes were probably weaker and less agile than other apes, so the adaptation that worked for us was to become intelligent, and discover the ability to learn and make tools, and pass on our knowledge to our descendents. Other apes adapted differently, and because of our success, they are on the way out.. In terms of timescales, you are still seeing only a snapshot of the bigger picture...

4. Plate tectonics is tomorrows subject.. :P
1. Well, I believe it's an agrument for creation as well. Legislative law is made by man and the laws of nature were made by God. The difference is that the laws of nature don't change.

3. We are not apes. Everything else you said is PURE speculation. The use of probably denotes that.
If we adapted differently then why don't we have the advantages of apes and humans.
Please, there is no need to answer because I know what the answer is.....there isn't an answer..... only speculation and theory that looks good on paper but it's the best we got.

I believe in some sort of evolution but I don't believe it started on it's own.

TheDave

01-18-2005, 05:28 PM

out of all the billions of billions of planets why is it so hard to believe in all the millions of years primordial soup came about

TheDave

01-18-2005, 05:30 PM

If we adapted differently then why don't we have the advantages of apes and humans.
Please, there is no need to answer because I know what the answer is.....there isn't an answer..... only speculation and theory that looks good on paper but it's the best we got.

we lost the need for the strength and coat as we evolved to be smarter and rely on tools

Busyman

01-18-2005, 05:32 PM

out of all the billions of billions of planets why is it so hard to believe in all the millions of years primordial soup came about
Agreed.

Busyman

01-18-2005, 05:41 PM

we lost the need for the strength and coat as we evolved to be smarter and rely on tools
I wish I hadn't posed the questions. I wasn't REALLY looking for answer...sorry. :(

Now we'll have folks on here speculating why we have a different brow then cro-magnons or why we walk upright. All unproven but fits doesn't make it fact.
I do get to mark "some college" on my resume. :dry:

If over 100,000 years all my ancestors stopped "working out", I doubt my DNA would change. :lol: :lol: :lol: but....would it? :unsure:

Busyman

01-18-2005, 05:42 PM

vidcc

01-18-2005, 05:48 PM

I have suggested that but not in this thread.
i don't doubt it :)
I have always maintained that it takes an intelligent to set life in motion.

1.It's convenient that we breathe out C02 and plants breathe it in and vice-versa isn't it?
my answer would be that life adapts to enviroment...there are creatures at the bottom of the sea that live in very different climates...personally i think this point doesn't really support either view
I've also maintained that if there was a Big Bang, something intelligent started it. One argument is...Who created God then?

that would have been my question...give it back :angry: :D

2.May I remind everyone that manny's version of creationism being pushed is not ALL creationism......it's CHRISTIAN CREATIONISM....another flaw in creationists argument of it being taught in schools. :dry:
yes you may
3. If we came from apes then why are apes still around?

Who has said that evolution only takes one direction ? Just becuase a mutation occurs it doesn't mean that all follow. a species doesn't have to become extinct for a branch to evolve from it

4. @vid - I do believe that all the continents were together at one time. Some sort of fit together like a puzzle even now.

So at some point all land living animals where on the same land but were cut off and we can see the differences in their evolution..if there was no evolution why don't we have the same animals everywhere? .which was why i asked that question of manny :)

Busyman

01-18-2005, 06:27 PM

So at some point all land living animals where on the same land but were cut off and we can see the differences in their evolution..if there was no evolution why don't we have the same animals everywhere? .which was why i asked that question of manny :)
I've heard a creationists theory that the Biblical flood helped separate the continents (could the flood have been started by earthquakes? Tsumani anyone?(please don't answer)}

3. If we came from apes then why are apes still around?

Who has said that evolution only takes one direction ? Just becuase a mutation occurs it doesn't mean that all follow. a species doesn't have to become extinct for a branch to evolve from it

Again, not really looking for an answer because it's speculation.

I was going to write something about the different races of man originally being one race but separated by climate. The same can be said of migrating apes....but I don't fully buy the change in DNA.

UKResident

01-18-2005, 06:28 PM

UKR, your style is very familiar, have we met at all.

A long time ago, you called yourself Jim then, and were quite helpful l believe, posting links and stuff, you've certainly 'evolved' since then.

My premis is to refute your assertion that macro evolution and micro evolution don't exist. I've been quite succesful in that since you've neglected to mention it since.

My assertion is they are one and the same thing, you have not proved otherwise.

I also asked you to prove your assertion that the shrew/homo sapiens sapiens evolutionary path can be traced. You've not done so.

My assertion? It just so happens though that scientists have found a genetic link way back to a 'shrew like animal', our DNA contains a 'history' going back to the beginning of our 'evolution'.

I've refuted your suggestion that the micro/macro evolution theory is merely a creationists trick. Again ... nothing.

Now you're acting as though l 'owe' you an explanation, l owe you nothing, in fact l find you rather tedious.

Rattled? Stop whinging. You've hardly endeared yourself to the board with attacks on mods, members and now my good self.

Resorting to humour now, it doesn't make your 'arguments' any more intelligable.

If we adapted differently then why don't we have the advantages of apes and humans.

l would argue that we do. The theory would be that whatever ape we were would have been quite prolific. Some of them would have been quite comfortable and safe doing what they were doing, living where they were living, and others had a radical change, and found themselves facing new circumstances. It could have been that we came down from the trees and learned to hunt on the plains in packs. We may have faced an ice-age that those of our ilk in warmer climates didn't. There are many things that could have brought about the divergence. l wouldn't claim though that we descended from apes, as far as l'm concerned we are an ape.

Busyman

01-18-2005, 06:28 PM

I agree as well.
I'm starting an army then. :shifty:

vidcc

01-18-2005, 06:42 PM

I believe that God created the Universe. However I believe it has changed significantly between it's creation and now.

I believe therefore that God created the earth, but not straight away. It formed from the universe he created.

I believe that life has evolved on Earth. However i also believe that it was created by God in the first place.

Now here is a theory that could be conceivable even though the god part requires faith and has no evidence.

It isn't however what the bible says at this time..or is it ?, and certainly would never have been considered if the "evolution" evidence hadn't come to light. Does anyone think it will in a future re-write if enough people of faith think it is a better explaination?

to which point do you think that the bible of today is not the bible of those that "were actually there" when it was written?
If God created man and spoke "unto him" surely those men would know the truth better than those who are reading the various interpretations that have been written over the years.

hobbes

01-18-2005, 06:42 PM

To date I have yet to see "macro-evolution" occur in animals conclusively proven, but to me this aspect of evolution is trivial.

I think "evolution" really gets shaky when it attempts to tackle that very first self replicating organism.

Ok, so we have a primordial soup and molecules bump into one another. Sometimes they react to creat a new molecule, sometimes they don't.

Say as an anology, you throw some yarn in the dryer and come back to find a sweater. That would be very unlikely, but probable, but that is not even close to the miniscule probability of creating a single cell.

A cell that has a memory stored in the form of DNA.

How did randomly reacting molecules (DNA) suddenly become arranged in a pattern which allows another randomly created molecule (RNA) to take that information, go elsewhere and have the endoplasmic reticulum (assembles proteins) understand the base pair language and send another molecule out to get the appropriate amino acid, bring it back for incorporation into a final product protein. This protein is then taken by another protein or vacuole to a cell membrane where it is placed.

How did we randomly get all the information needed to re-create a cell exactly. It is one thing for a complex molecule to form temporarily, but another thing to capture the information to reconstruct that same molecule again. How could molecules bumping at random coordinate the successful creation of a cell membrane, the cell intrastructure, the nucleus and the ability to provide energy to maintain homeostasis.

As much as I am a person of science, I have yet to be able to understand this. For our micro/macro arguments, I can at least logically envision how it is possible, for the creation of the first replicating cell, I cannot.

I would love to get some insight on this.

So now I get to the crux:

I see very serious flaws in "evolution", flaws that make me think that "intelligent design" is likely. Then I realize my next problem, who then created the God who created us? I have solved my problem of life on Earth by creating something more complex than the spontaneous and random creation of our universe. That is of no help. :no:

vidcc

01-18-2005, 06:48 PM

Hobbes

I think the most rational answer to all that would be....stuff happens even if we dont yet know how or why..... but i would love to be there when we do

Busyman

01-18-2005, 06:50 PM

Now here is a theory that could be conceivable even though the god part requires faith and has no evidence.

It isn't however what the bible says at this time..or is it ?, and certainly would never have been considered if the "evolution" evidence hadn't come to light. Does anyone think it will in a future re-write if enough people of faith think it is a better explaination?

to which point do you think that the bible of today is not the bible of those that "were actually there" when it was written?
If God created man and spoke "unto him" surely those men would know the truth better than those who are reading the various interpretations that have been written over the years.
Believing in "God" does not require believing in religion yet atheist's always move the talk in that direction.

manker

01-18-2005, 06:51 PM

Mr UKResident,

I have demonstrated the difference between micro and macro evolution - the species jump, the inability to interbreed. They are separate phenomena, you choose to ignore this which is to the detriment of your premis.

I am saying that irrefutable proof does not exist that can back up your contentions. I am, of course, alluding to the ethereal 'missing link'. I offer no proof of it's non-exsistence, only a note of it's absence from our theories. One can extrapolate but that doesn't offer irrefutability. Which is my point, the point you chose to contend.

You don't owe me any explanations but your continued silence on certain points, demonstrates a lack of a rubuttal. This is your choice.

vidcc

01-18-2005, 06:58 PM

Believing in "God" does not require believing in religion yet atheist's always move the talk in that direction.
I have often said that i don't have a problem with peoples belief in God but i do have problems with organised religions. However my question wasn't about religions as such but the way the bible "evolves" with new ideas based on the scientific evidence we have now.

spinningfreemanny

01-18-2005, 07:19 PM

"Who created God?"

Whoever asks this question has a flawed definition of the word "God"

Sure, it is religious. I can give you no proof that God has always existed.
But who can give me proof that mass/space/time always existed?

same religious context

not science.

edit: Sorry I cannot post more on this;

when time permits...

hobbes

01-18-2005, 07:22 PM

Hobbes

I think the most rational answer to all that would be....stuff happens even if we dont yet know how or why..... but i would love to be there when we do

I think Vidcc what Manny is upset about is that Academia is giving unrivalled legimacy to Evolution. Presenting it as a done deal.

Evolution is fine at describing natural selection and adaptation, but it really doesn't tackle "creation" with any real weight. I don't think many people really appreciate this point.

But in regard to the initial point, the sticker was a specific religion attempting to influence Academia. This violate church/state and the judge saw through this and rightly called the sticker, unconstitutional.

UKResident

01-18-2005, 07:24 PM

Mr UKResident,I have demonstrated the difference between micro and macro evolution

You have demonstrated nothing but your propensity to argue over trivia.

spinningfreemanny

01-18-2005, 07:26 PM

But in regard to the initial point, the sticker was a specific religion attempting to influence Academia. This violate church/state and the judge saw through this and rightly called the sticker, unconstitutional.

It was calling Evolution into question.

is that an attack from a specific religion? I don't see any specific callmarks on the sticker.

when it comes down to it; evolution cannot be called into question in any way from this judge's eyes, due to it always being a specific religious sect calling them on it (though, that would be incredibly difficult to prove)

Really though, you guys; don't learn creationism from UKR, follow the link posted and see what they have to say.

manker

01-18-2005, 07:35 PM

You have demonstrated nothing but your propensity to argue over trivia.Whereas you have demonstrated poor debating technique at it's evasive pinacle.

Bonza.

====

Manny, I found those links to be pretty interesting. I cannot believe in creationism since I don't give credence to a creator but it certainly gives food for thought. Thanks.

UKResident

01-18-2005, 07:44 PM

Rat Faced

01-18-2005, 07:44 PM

I believe i read somewhere that Humans are genetically closer to chimpanzee's (1.5% difference in the DNA) than Indian Elephants are to African Elephants (circa 2% difference)..

There is no missing link between the Indian and African Elephant, they can trace both back to a common ancestor. (Indeed, they've just reclassified the African Elephant into 2 seperate species, as the difference is now greater than "Breed" between the two)..

Ergo: Why have you a problem with the fact that Chimps and Humans come from the same family, with the same ancestors?

This is evolution...

Busyman

01-18-2005, 08:05 PM

h
It was calling Evolution into question.

is that an attack from a specific religion? I don't see any specific callmarks on the sticker.

when it comes down to it; evolution cannot be called into question in any way from this judge's eyes, due to it always being a specific religious sect calling them on it (though, that would be incredibly difficult to prove)

Really though, you guys; don't learn creationism from UKR, follow the link posted and see what they have to say.

Paranoid for good reason although I find nothing wrong with the stickers.

Religious views are also being presented in science classes ffs.

The judge I guess saw the writing on the wall or the tablet.
As I said before. If folks want to waste money on stickers, that's their business. At the same time what "other" theories do YOU think should be taught? Or is Christian creationism the only other one?

A school district in Dover, Pa., has been locked in a dispute over a requirement that science students be told about “intelligent design” — the concept that the universe is so complex it must have been created by some higher power.
The disclaimer says that “any statement about life’s origins should be considered theory, not fact,” and lists four of the “many unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbook.” One of the questions is, “How did you and all living things come to possess such a complete and complex set of ‘Instructions’ for building a living body?”

I finally read your article. I believe in intelligent design but don't believe it should be in schools. It would merely be a footnote in class if that.

I can't believe you even brought this article up without bringing up the fact that some schools are teaching Christian creationism as even a scientific theory when it's simply a belief that can't even be scientificly hypothesized ffs.

I know what you are saying regarding people presenting theory as fact. There are many atheists and the like on here that tell me it's a fact that gay's are born gay.

Biggles

01-18-2005, 08:23 PM

Rat Faced

01-18-2005, 08:56 PM

Which God?

That hypothisis supports Oden and the other Greek Gods as much as Jehova.. :P

I maintain... that as far as i'm concerned, the Tribe in the Jungle is just as likely to hold the truth as any other religion concerning "God".

Many Scientists that support Evolution are also religious (in many different religions). They are the 1st to say that there is no contradiction.

As you have said JP... the Bible is not literal truth.. it cant be.

It is a collection of stories, both Parables and possibly simple explanations for a simple people (the ones that it was wrote for, not those that came afterwards :P ) ..

I've told "Stories" to my kids to explain things, I find no difficulty that Priests did the same, to make people feel better about the unknown.

vidcc

01-18-2005, 09:47 PM

It was calling Evolution into question.

is that an attack from a specific religion? I don't see any specific callmarks on the sticker.

when it comes down to it; evolution cannot be called into question in any way from this judge's eyes, due to it always being a specific religious sect calling them on it (though, that would be incredibly difficult to prove)

Manny.

Do you honestly...hand on bible... believe that the stickers had no religious motivation behind them?

The judge hasn't said evolution cannot be called into question, he simply and correctly upheld the seperation of "church" and state

ilw

01-18-2005, 10:10 PM

Ok, so we have a primordial soup and molecules bump into one another. Sometimes they react to creat a new molecule, sometimes they don't.

Say as an anology, you throw some yarn in the dryer and come back to find a sweater. That would be very unlikely, but probable, but that is not even close to the miniscule probability of creating a single cell.

A cell that has a memory stored in the form of DNA.

How did randomly reacting molecules (DNA) suddenly become arranged in a pattern which allows another randomly created molecule (RNA) to take that information, go elsewhere and have the endoplasmic reticulum (assembles proteins) understand the base pair language and send another molecule out to get the appropriate amino acid, bring it back for incorporation into a final product protein. This protein is then taken by another protein or vacuole to a cell membrane where it is placed.

Just thought i'd contribute the little i remember about some of the current thinking on this matter (apologies there are bound to be errors). One suggestion is that there were one or more precursors to dna/rna, these precursors would have been simpler and more easy/likely to form than dna, and these precursors evolved or were replaced by (perhaps aiding in the creation of) dna, which although more complex and dificult to make had other advantages. Also i don't think life is really wholly believed to have started at the cellular stage, at its most simple life is simply self replication of a pattern, something which many molecules (eg RNA) perform naturally.

Talking about intelligent design, what about the human back and torso its so clearly a rip off of a creature that goes around on all 4s. Really what is the likelihood that the best design for a 4 legged creature and an upright 2 legged creature is so similar that its practically identical. Is god supposed to be lazy or incompetent? When you consider the stresses and strains that the back is placed under when walking uprightor picking things up its actually a piss poor design and precisely the type of design that would be produced by small incremental improvements rather than a proper ground up design. In other words it is at best a local maxima in quality of design, but compared to potential other solutions its pretty mediocre and its just human arrogance that we believe we have reached the end of our evolution and that we have the best (or even an intelligent) design going.

I downloaded the 3 on 1 debate, but i've only watched the first 1/2 hour, does it get any more interesting? I did a bit of checking btw and this Dr Hovind is a bit of psycho, you might want to check into some more of his theories, there are other creationist debaters who imo you'd be better off referencing.
He spends his 1st 12 minutes making predictions which are actually exactly what he sees around him i.e. he doesn't appear to actually understand the concept behind the word prediction. He evades the obvious unanswerable questions re god ie where he comes from, why the bible is right and all other religions wrong etc.. Admittedly the science boys are pretty crap, but unless you say theres anything really worth watching later on i'm leaving it at that.

Busyman

01-18-2005, 10:31 PM

I downloaded the 3 on 1 debate, but i've only watched the first 1/2 hour, does it get any more interesting? I did a bit of checking btw and this Dr Hovind is a bit of psycho, you might want to check into some more of his theories, there are other creationist debaters who imo you'd be better off referencing.
He spends his 1st 12 minutes making predictions which are actually exactly what he sees around him i.e. he doesn't appear to actually understand the concept behind the word prediction. He evades the obvious unanswerable questions re god ie where he comes from, why the bible is right and all other religions wrong etc.. Admittedly the science boys are pretty crap, but unless you say theres anything really worth watching later on i'm leaving it at that.
Hey the guy has followers. Now do folks see why Bush could have been voting in?
Imagine these followers in Legion.
Belief in religion is already somewhat illogical (and yes I believe) but then you've got jokers like this that take the illogical to new heights. :dry:

hobbes

01-18-2005, 11:16 PM

Ah but the Razor states that we must keep things as simple as possible, which would be one, not many.

Therefore one creator, outside force, starter of t'universe. One God.

Religion is merely an understanding of that one God's nature and purpose, it is not part of the creator's fundamental being. For this argument religion is therefore entirely unnecessary (I think bunny boy alluded to that already).

So we are left with science telling us that there was one creator, who started the universe, which then evolved. The simplest and most likely answers, therefore the scientific position until proven wrong.

By creating God, you answer a simple question (how did we get here) with one more complex one(where did God come from). Certainly Occam would have dropped his razor and headed for the nearest apple, after your jest.

The scientific default is: :w00t: oops, that should have been:unsure: (I don't know, ask me again later).

hobbes

01-18-2005, 11:34 PM

Hobbes, what you speak of may never be known, just as the exact conditions on Earth at the time may never be known. But either these things happened or they didn't, if they didn't, that would point to a creator. Various experiments have been carried out over the years in attempts to replicate the conditions of the earth at that time, and to produce the chemicals and amino acids first thought to have existed. Some experiments have claimed successes, but this produced arguments over the make up of the 'atmosphere' used.

l don't understand much about biology but l have been reading about modern day viruses such as HIV which 'evolves' millions of times faster than we do. One study found that it could evolve in one day at the equivalent rate of six million years of human evolution. Scientists believe that these viruses have origins that far precede any other form of life, and they do possess mind boggling capabilities to adapt.

l came across this site (http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/be4.shtml) a while ago, but l must admit most of it flies way over my head.

The key is that in order to adapt or evolve, you must come to be first. I am willing to accept evolution as a valid concept after the first cell has been made.

Before then we must accept random molecules not only combining to form stable structures, but a language for telling other molecules to build copies for them.

At ILW, scientitsts talk about homeostasis, and I think the ability to isloate oneself from the environment is the only way to achieve this. You can't build things if they keep diffusing away. So in my first post I was trying to describe the most basic functions a cell must possess to attain homeostasis.

I'm not saying that is wrong or impossible, just that I cannot figure that out.

Viruses are actually quite an interesting subject, and may have a key role in the development of new species. All of us contain viral dna within us which is inactive. It is thought that viruses may be normal genes which have gained the ability to "escape" from the host. These little buggers can extract themselves from me and infect someone else. It may do this by settling into that persons DNA, and viola, the have a new gene.

That is pretty cool, but consider viruses from other animals may get into us, that means we can get totally new genetic material. This is how some think that evolution is not a slow creep, but more occurs in quick burst.

We use similar technology today with bacteria. We have a vector insinuate the human insulin gene into bacterial DNA and turn them into insulin making machines.

Some of this post involves speculation, but it is fun stuff to think about.

vidcc

01-18-2005, 11:40 PM

These little buggers can extract themselves from me and infect someone else. It may do this by settling into that persons DNA, and viola, the have a new gene.

you romantic poet :lol:

hobbes

01-18-2005, 11:46 PM

Ah, but I didn't create him. The Razor did, 'cause it's the simplest solution. I base this on your own arguments to date.

SAves everybody a lot of time. If something , anything is complex and people are confused, just blame God. That is the easiest thing to do. Not very helpful though as many clever criminals get of scotfree.

It is a pointless solution to a real problem.

edit: Hey Vidcc, keep your DNA to yourself. I don't want none of your damn carebear genes making me all sensitive and shit.

vidcc

01-19-2005, 12:02 AM

edit: Hey Vidcc, keep your DNA to yourself. I don't want none of your damn carebear genes making me all sensitive and shit.

too late...we've all seen your infatuations in the Roger moore thread ;) :lol:

hobbes

01-19-2005, 12:45 AM

I take it you don't subscribe to Occam's way of approaching science.

It would therefore follow that you do not feel parsimony has merit.

I find this surprising.

Your analogy to Occam's razor is specious, that is what I am saying, old bean. I think you still may be a fish, a fish in denial of your fishy ways.

lynx

01-19-2005, 01:12 AM

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/lynx1153-buchimp.jpg

The missing link.

spinningfreemanny

01-19-2005, 10:31 PM

Manny.

Do you honestly...hand on bible... believe that the stickers had no religious motivation behind them?

The judge hasn't said evolution cannot be called into question, he simply and correctly upheld the seperation of "church" and state

It doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is what is there, that's how courts get their decisions. I'm sure many people "believed" a defendent was guilty in many instances; but they cannot convict them of such on that alone.

a sticker is not a church.

If the judge has not indeed said that evolution cannot be called into question; can you name me a way to do so; evading the reasoning of this court case?

Simply; a teacher cannot even state to their class that this is indeed a theory, not fact, in this judges ruling.

As stated earlier by someone; the sticker is a but redundant in the reminder of the Evolution theory. Why, then, would it be necessary in the eyes of some people (probably parents who forced the administration's decision) for a sticker to be put there unless the teacher was teaching otherwise?

hobbes

01-19-2005, 11:16 PM

It doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is what is there, that's how courts get their decisions. I'm sure many people "believed" a defendent was guilty in many instances; but they cannot convict them of such on that alone.

a sticker is not a church.

If the judge has not indeed said that evolution cannot be called into question; can you name me a way to do so; evading the reasoning of this court case?

Simply; a teacher cannot even state to their class that this is indeed a theory, not fact, in this judges ruling.

As stated earlier by someone; the sticker is a but redundant in the reminder of the Evolution theory. Why, then, would it be necessary in the eyes of some people (probably parents who forced the administration's decision) for a sticker to be put there unless the teacher was teaching otherwise?

Manny,

The teacher is presenting a theory. A theory is precisely what? It is an unproved assumption.

What evidence do you have that it is presented as fact?

The judge simply understand that only religious people have any interest in discrediting it. Why place a sticker to tell people what the word theory means?

So when the teacher talks about the theory of evolution, he is not stating fact, but a theory. A theory that can be debated.

Debated how?

Well, as I have stated, natural selection and adaption are closed book proven, but how does evolution explain original creation.

At present, scientific evidence falls very short of explaining this, in my opinion.

But we can't just abandon ship and give all credit to God. Firstly, it differs the question to "Where did God come from", and secondly it ejects us from any further thought. You believe it or you don't. No further evidence, thought or experiments will change this. That is NOT what science is about. Science and scientific thought is about developing theories from the available evidence.

Faith based beliefs are for the Church.

spinningfreemanny

01-20-2005, 12:50 AM

Manny,

The teacher is presenting a theory. A theory is precisely what? It is an unproved assumption.

What evidence do you have that it is presented as fact?

The judge simply understand that only religious people have any interest in discrediting it. Why place a sticker to tell people what the word theory means?

So when the teacher talks about the theory of evolution, he is not stating fact, but a theory. A theory that can be debated.

Debated how?

Well, as I have stated, natural selection and adaption are closed book proven, but how does evolution explain original creation.

At present, scientific evidence falls very short of explaining this, in my opinion.

But we can't just abandon ship and give all credit to God. Firstly, it differs the question to "Where did God come from", and secondly it ejects us from any further thought. You believe it or you don't. No further evidence, thought or experiments will change this. That is NOT what science is about. Science and scientific thought is about developing theories from the available evidence.

Faith based beliefs are for the Church.

Exactly. That last sentence states my case.

Faith based beliefs are for the Church. Macro-evolution is a faith based belief; there is virtually no scientific evidence that the big bang happened, and it breaks many scientific laws we hold today. It's not science, its faith on our tax dollars. I really see no need for creationism to be taught in schools; likewise, it's not science. But if Creationism. or intelligent design is out, Macro-evolution must be out. Have a private school teach it, and its students pay for it; not me.

Yet I went through months of the theory of evolution unbenownst to me on what was really happening until recently.

Busyman

01-20-2005, 01:04 AM

Exactly. That last sentence states my case.

Faith based beliefs are for the Church. Macro-evolution is a faith based belief; there is virtually no scientific evidence that the big bang happened, and it breaks many scientific laws we hold today. It's not science, its faith on our tax dollars. I really see no need for creationism to be taught in schools; likewise, it's not science. But if Creationism. or intelligent design is out, Macro-evolution must be out. Have a private school teach it, and its students pay for it; not me.

Yet I went through months of the theory of evolution unbenownst to me on what was really happening until recently.
Are you saying that evolution has absolutely no scientific basis.

Are you on crack? :blink:

This wouldn't even be an issue if it didn't tread on religious fanatic's beliefs.

If what you say happens then theories wouldn't be able to be taught and would have no possibility of leading to breakthroughs in science.

Creationists suck!!!

hobbes

01-20-2005, 01:06 AM

Exactly. That last sentence states my case.

Faith based beliefs are for the Church. Macro-evolution is a faith based belief; there is virtually no scientific evidence that the big bang happened, and it breaks many scientific laws we hold today. It's not science, its faith on our tax dollars. I really see no need for creationism to be taught in schools; likewise, it's not science. But if Creationism. or intelligent design is out, Macro-evolution must be out. Have a private school teach it, and its students pay for it; not me.

Yet I went through months of the theory of evolution unbenownst to me on what was really happening until recently.

That is sheer idoicy. Macro-evolution can be supported by logical argument. The precise delineation of such is yet to be presented.

The fact that the universe is expanding is the basis of the "Big Bang", what are you babbling about?

What scientific law does "macro-evolution" break, name one.

Macro-evolution is not based on believe or not. It is up for support or refutation, it is a theory.

Creationism is not.

spinningfreemanny

01-20-2005, 05:10 AM

lynx

01-20-2005, 11:27 AM

I followed the link, then I investigated the author of the site.

I found this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/), which pretty much leaves "Dr" Kent Hovind discredited, wouldn't you say?

Cheese

01-20-2005, 12:12 PM

I followed the link, then I investigated the author of the site.

I found this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/), which pretty much leaves "Dr" Kent Hovind discredited, wouldn't you say?

:lol:

Good catch Lynx.

I might have to take some of the links (http://www.drdino.com/Downloads/Debate/vids/index.jsp) manny provided us with me to uni tomorrow for a good laugh.

manker

01-20-2005, 12:26 PM

Meh, I thought some of the counter arguments against evolution on that site were interesting. For me it highlighted the inherent weaknesses in the theory yet strengthened - by omission - the undoubted strengths.

I'll never believe in God but those that do present some good arguments, on occasion.

Having said that, the Hovind pseudo 'Doctor' has been immersed up to his neck in primordial soup by that article. Nice one, lynx.

UKResident

01-20-2005, 01:05 PM

1st and 2nd law of thermaldynamics

conservation of angular momentum

That's off the top of my head.
Yeah, RIGHT OFF!!
if you want to know why; Your going to have to follow the link ;)

Just, watch. It's pretty amazing, and it's always worth exposure, if anything.

Manny, you really should shut up you know, you're just sinking deeper and deeper into the mire.

There are many sites on the net that rubbish the creationist's claims about the laws of thermodynamics, one l particulary like is by an evangelical christian .. The Second Law of Thermodynamics in the Context of the Christian Faith. (http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html)

Busyman

01-20-2005, 01:49 PM

Evolution has it's holes.

It's............a.................theory..................f.................f.............s!!!

Creationism isn't even that.

Creationism can't even be discussed scientifically.

First off it's CHRISTIAN CREATIONISM which is not a general area of study. :dry:

For some here, it's head out of the ass time.

Evolution is a theory...nothing more.

UKResident

01-20-2005, 02:25 PM

Evolution is a theory...nothing more.

Evolution is a lot more than a theory, there is an incredible amount of observation and evidence backing it up, to say it is nothing more than a theory is to put it in the same category as creationism,

Barbarossa

01-20-2005, 02:28 PM

Definitions of the word Theory (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&oi=defmore&q=define:theory)

hobbes

01-20-2005, 02:34 PM

1st and 2nd law of thermaldynamics

conservation of angular momentum

That's off the top of my head.

if you want to know why; Your going to have to follow the link ;)

Just, watch. It's pretty amazing, and it's always worth exposure, if anything.

Sorry, it does not. Just because you see it on the interweb doesn't make it true. But isn't that what faith is all about, belief without proof. Someone tells you it breaks certain laws, that is what you want to hear and you turn around and repeat it without a critical analysis.

If you could articulate exactly why you think it breaks the above laws, in your own words, I would like to hear. Personally, I think these laws are something you may have heard about, but have never really studied in a classroom setting.

You should have that sticker thingey stuck as your signature here :lol: