Quote:
Originally Posted by barbarossa
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..
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by barbarossa
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..
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by manny
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.Quote:
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.
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/FAQ...scientific.htm
That is micro-evolution, NOT macro-evolution. Moths that have different colored wings are still moths.Quote:
Originally Posted by barbarossa
Any proven examples of macro-evolution you know of?
And you still drink like one!Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Take me drunk, I'm home again.
/Hobbes escorts JP back to the lounge.
it would need to be a salt water fish then, Unless the liquid is partaken in an osmosis fashion ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbes
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
The "liquid" should be taken "shaken, not stirred".
http://www.thegoldenyears.org/roger_moore.jpg
"Their" ? Their what?Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
"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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ilw
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
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?