evolution sticker in textbook ruled unconstitutional

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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.

"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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKResident

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.

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 a while ago, but l must admit most of it flies way over my head.

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...

h

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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 thought I had covered this but my doodles in the margin appear to have slipped by the general consciousness of the board.

:)

Hey Ho!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilw

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKResident

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

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.

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

The missing link.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny

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!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny

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.

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.

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

I found this, which pretty much leaves "Dr" Kent Hovind discredited, wouldn't you say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

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

I found this, 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 manny provided us with me to uni tomorrow for a good laugh.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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,

Definitions of the word Theory

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

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

I found this, which pretty much leaves "Dr" Kent Hovind discredited, wouldn't you say?

---

Fascinating! What a shower of charaltans!

Actually I have no problem with people posing alternatives to natural selection as a means to propel evolution - that is normal scientific progress . However, the young earth thing is just a bit mad and requires me to swallow too many unbelieveable things before breakfast (I can only manage one or two) .