evolution sticker in textbook ruled unconstitutional

[Busyman]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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

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

[spinningfreemanny]

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]

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]

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.

[Rat Faced]

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...