PDA

View Full Version : Florida Senate bill allows teachers to mention religious theories about origin of lif



BAMAPHIN 22
04-09-2008, 12:10 PM
Florida teachers could freely mention religious theories about the origin of humankind — including creationism and intelligent design — along with evolution without fearing retribution under a measure that passed a key Senate committee Tuesday despite sharp opposition from South Florida lawmakers.

The "Evolution Academic Freedom Act" was approved 7-3 by the Senate Judiciary Committee and now goes to the full chamber for consideration, although no date has yet been set. The measure awaits its first hearing in the House.


http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/legislature/sfl-flfevolution0409sbapr09,0,7496807.story

ih8brady
04-09-2008, 01:34 PM
Now that's Hell in a Handbasket! How long before the anti-science crowd has this back-fired with Zeus, Jupiter, Shiva and Vishnu being taught during science class time.

Pagan
04-09-2008, 02:21 PM
Hmmm...think it will include ALL creation stories, or just one certain one? :rolleyes:

Dolphan7
04-09-2008, 03:17 PM
Well this is an interesting event. I doubt it makes it all the way through though. But if it does - Good!

I mean why do we continue to teach lies to our children. Tell them all sides of the story and let them decide which one holds water.

Pagan
04-09-2008, 03:35 PM
Well this is an interesting event. I doubt it makes it all the way through though. But if it does - Good!

I mean why do we continue to teach lies to our children. Tell them all sides of the story and let them decide which one holds water.
That makes alot of sense.

You say "why do we continue to teach them lies" because it doesn't jibe with your beliefs, but you say "good!" to teaching them what very well may be YOUR lies.

Interesting.

Not. :shakeno:

WSE
04-09-2008, 05:06 PM
hmmm

I wonder why we are falling behind the rest of the world in regards to science

wasting time on crap like this IS the reason

Dolphan7
04-09-2008, 05:07 PM
That makes alot of sense.

You say "why do we continue to teach them lies" because it doesn't jibe with your beliefs, but you say "good!" to teaching them what very well may be YOUR lies.

Interesting.

Not. :shakeno:Given only these two choices - evolution or creation - one of them has to be false, and we can clearly see that evolution is nothing more than speculation and in some cases out right deceipt. That does not equate directly that creation is true, but if evolution is a lie then we shouldn't be forcing kids to learn a lie but instead give them a choice and let the evidence speak for itself.

Now enough about me, you have anything to post about the legislation in Florida?

WSE
04-09-2008, 05:07 PM
Well this is an interesting event. I doubt it makes it all the way through though. But if it does - Good!

I mean why do we continue to teach lies to our children. Tell them all sides of the story and let them decide which one holds water.

yea

give the one with no evidence the same amt of time as the one with millions of years of bone evidence

brilliant- we are sure moving ahead

Dolphan7
04-09-2008, 05:20 PM
hmmm

I wonder why we are falling behind the rest of the world in regards to science

wasting time on crap like this IS the reason
Or like sending men to Mars so that we can say "We did it first" (thump on chest).

What a complete waste of money and time, and very possibly lives.

Dolphan7
04-09-2008, 05:36 PM
yea

give the one with no evidence the same amt of time as the one with millions of years of bone evidence

brilliant- we are sure moving ahead:sidelol:

Dude, you have been duped. Evolution is false. It hasn't been proven, it doesn't exist. It isn't even science. It is a religion, and a false one at that.

1. Can't get life from non life. Don't know how many times it has to be stated. Can't happen, didn't happen, and science knows this. They have no clue as to how life got here. They just assume that it did.

2. Can't add genetic material. Can't be done, hasn't been done - in nature of course not in the lab, and even then it hasn't been accomplished. Can't evolve unless genetic material is added plain and simple. Reshuffling doesn't count, tht isn't adding.

So why don't we give our kids a fighting chance and at least give them a choice and let them decide which one holds water.

What are you afraid of? They might believe in God?

Joker2thief
04-09-2008, 06:00 PM
Life evolves. That is a fact. One of the simplest definitions of evolution is the change in the frequency of genes in a species over time.
Evolution is not about the origins of life on Earth. Evolution is about the development of living things over time. The study of the origins of life is known as "abiogenesis" and any web search engine will find you many examples of current literature on the subject.
-----Edit sorry i forgot to use condescending laughing guy :sidelol:

Dolphan7
04-09-2008, 06:12 PM
Life evolves. That is a fact. One of the simplest definitions of evolution is the change in the frequency of genes in a species over time.
Evolution is not about the origins of life on Earth. Evolution is about the development of living things over time. The study of the origins of life is known as "abiogenesis" and any web search engine will find you many examples of current literature on the subject.
-----Edit sorry i forgot to use condescending laughing guy :sidelol:Hmmmm ........change in the frequency.......hmmmmmm.......Nope! That's not it. That does not add genetic material to the organism. You can't just change the frequency, reshuffle etc....and expect to evolve. Can't happen. Hasn't happened. Won't ever happen in nature.

Evolution is false.

I am sorry I don't mean to come off condescending, I just truly believe this is funny. Sorry I have a odd sense of humor from time to time.

Pagan
04-09-2008, 09:59 PM
Now enough about me, you have anything to post about the legislation in Florida?
You're a riot, you know that?

You waltz into a thread. Call evolution a lie and flat out say it's false, then when someone takes you to task you try to deflect the thread back on topic and say "enough about me".

What a joke. :lol:


:sidelol:

Dude, you have been duped. Evolution is false. It hasn't been proven, it doesn't exist. It isn't even science. It is a religion, and a false one at that.

Christianity hasn't been proven either. It doesn't exist. You've been duped. It's a lie. It's false.

Hey, as long as you're being ridiculous...


What are you afraid of? They might believe in God?
I'd LOVE to see how open you'd be if they wanted to allow creation stories from OTHER religions taught in class also. Somehow I get the sneaky feeling you wouldn't feel all warm and fuzzy about that.

The classroom is a place to learn, not a place for your faith to recruit.

Dolphan7
04-10-2008, 12:15 AM
You're a riot, you know that?

You waltz into a thread. Call evolution a lie and flat out say it's false, then when someone takes you to task you try to deflect the thread back on topic and say "enough about me".

What a joke. :lol:


Christianity hasn't been proven either. It doesn't exist. You've been duped. It's a lie. It's false.

Hey, as long as you're being ridiculous...


I'd LOVE to see how open you'd be if they wanted to allow creation stories from OTHER religions taught in class also. Somehow I get the sneaky feeling you wouldn't feel all warm and fuzzy about that.

The classroom is a place to learn, not a place for your faith to recruit.
Pagan Pagan Pagan....please......99% of your posts are about other posters, not the thread topic.

Evolution is a lie.

I have no problem with teaching other religions at all.

As long as we stop teaching them a lie, but saying it is fact.

How many posters have been on here swearing up and down that evolution is fact, and find that there really is nothing substantial to back the "fact" up.

Let the kids decide for themselves.

ih8brady
04-10-2008, 01:50 AM
:sidelol:

Dude, you have been duped. Evolution is false. It hasn't been proven, it doesn't exist. It isn't even science. It is a religion, and a false one at that.

So, it should be believed unquestionably and indoctrinated into our secular schools. Wow, what an 180!




1. Can't get life from non life. Don't know how many times it has to be stated. Can't happen, didn't happen, and science knows this. They have no clue as to how life got here. They just assume that it did.

2. Can't add genetic material. Can't be done, hasn't been done - in nature of course not in the lab, and even then it hasn't been accomplished. Can't evolve unless genetic material is added plain and simple. Reshuffling doesn't count, tht isn't adding.

So why don't we give our kids a fighting chance and at least give them a choice and let them decide which one holds water.

What are you afraid of? They might believe in God?



Do you know what evolution is? Your posts indicate not. It is not suppose to address the origins of the universe, the existence of gods or the meaning of life. It is simply a scientific theory, which is distinct and more defined than most other theories, that explains the change in phenomena between and within species. It doesn't and doesn't attempt to athei-ize budding scientists. Science and religion can be harmonized with common sense. It's only when fundamentalists take every anecdote of their texts as literal word that this even becomes controversial, as the theory of evolution is not a controversy within the scientific community.

Giving American youthful scholars a fighting chance would be the act of not teaching them junk sciences, and then, maybe, we wouldn't be the intellectual laughingstock of this flat earth and we could once again be a world leader in our comparative schools.


The science class should be for science. Creationism and supernatural events are not science. Religion should be taught about in humanities or social studies classes.

Pagan
04-10-2008, 06:42 AM
Pagan Pagan Pagan....please......99% of your posts are about other posters, not the thread topic.

Evolution is a lie.

I have no problem with teaching other religions at all.

As long as we stop teaching them a lie, but saying it is fact.

How many posters have been on here swearing up and down that evolution is fact, and find that there really is nothing substantial to back the "fact" up.

Let the kids decide for themselves.
D7...D7...D7....please....100% of your posts are nothing but propaganda pieces for your faith, thinly disguised as answering the thread topic, so stop the nonsense.

There's nothing to back your "truth" up either, yet you continue to try and "teach" everyone about it.

Joker2thief
04-10-2008, 10:16 AM
The misconception of evolution invariably arises out of plain ignorance. That is not to say that evolution deniers are generally ignorant people, but when it comes to the subject of evolution they usually have wild misunderstandings about pretty much everything to do with it.But still choose not to accept it, mostly because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two
different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time.
On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact.It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming.

Biologists admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution-such as Darwin's theory-his theory of the mechanism of evolution has not been proved or disproved over the 150 years it has been used-that is where you should go with your argument.
You want to argue the mechanics of evolution-not evolution itself.

Darwin's Theory Of Evolution is not evolution. The theory of evolution is an explanation of the facts of evolution.

If nobody had ever developed the theory, it would not change that fact that living things evolve over time - evolution happens whether there is a theory or not.
Darwin's theory of evolution may be totally, hopelessly and utterly wrong. Even if it were, and Darwin and every biologist who had contributed to the theory since were incorrect, evolution would still exist and continue.
Evolution is totally independent of the theory of evolution. The theory is simply an attempt to explain the observed facts of nature that we call "evolution".
If another theory came along to replace the theory of evolution, it would have to explain the facts at least as well as Darwin's theory has done for the last 150 years. No such replacement has ever been produced.
If there is a debate or controversy within the scientific community about the theory of evolution, creationists see this as evidence that "evolution is in crisis". Nonsense - it is merely that scientists disagree (often bitterly) over details of the theory of evolution. That evolution actually happens is beyond question, but the theory of evolution is - and always should be, like every other scientific theory - probed, tested and scrutinized. Again, even if the theory were to collapse, that would still not magically disprove evolution or cause species to cease evolving.

Dolphan7
04-10-2008, 12:47 PM
So, it should be believed unquestionably and indoctrinated into our secular schools. Wow, what an 180!I was referring to evolution in that post. And it is being indoctrinated into our kids, you are a product of that indoctrination just as I was. And yes it is unquestionable - people think that it is fact and therefore unquestionable - the reality is there is no evidence to support evolution. No matter how many times I say that, people still tell me there is evidence that proves it, yet somehow it cannot be presented.






Do you know what evolution is? Your posts indicate not. It is not suppose to address the origins of the universe, the existence of gods or the meaning of life. It is simply a scientific theory, which is distinct and more defined than most other theories, that explains the change in phenomena between and within species. It doesn't and doesn't attempt to athei-ize budding scientists. Science and religion can be harmonized with common sense. It's only when fundamentalists take every anecdote of their texts as literal word that this even becomes controversial, as the theory of evolution is not a controversy within the scientific community.Yes of course....when you have no response, then I must not know what evolution is. Which theory would you like to discuss? Neo-darwinism, modern synthesis, punctuated equilibrium, or the latest Facilitated Variation? One thing about evolutionary theory (s), stick around, it will evolve into something else.:lol:

As far as it not addressing the origins of life on this planet, you are correct, to a point. Most textbooks do talk of origins right along with "what happened next' - evolution. Face it, evolution is dead in the water without a natural explanation to how life started on earth. So the theory doesn't address it, it most certainly dances with it.

As far as harmonizing science and religion. It depends on what religion you are talking about. The religion of evolutionary theory has done well to harmonize with science, in fact hyjacking it to no end. Those who are in control of the religion (evolution) control the science, and the funding, and the publication of research etc....


Giving American youthful scholars a fighting chance would be the act of not teaching them junk sciences, and then, maybe, we wouldn't be the intellectual laughingstock of this flat earth and we could once again be a world leader in our comparative schools.We aren't teaching anything but evolution (in all it's forms)and we are still lacking in the world. Can't blame that on anything but evolution. Because we aren't teaching kids to be scientists, we are teaching them to adopt to a religious belief.



The science class should be for science. Creationism and supernatural events are not science. Religion should be taught about in humanities or social studies classes.I agree. Origins should be taught in an Origins class where all the theories can be studied and contrasted and compared. Leave biology to biology, physics to physics, etc....You see evolution takes biology one step further and inserts it's belief system into the science. Same with all the other sciences. The fact is that none of the sciences has any actual proof of this belief. So if evolution will be interjected in science, then I say let Intelligent Design in there too. Wherever evolution is taught, ID should be taught alongside it.

Pagan
04-10-2008, 12:52 PM
the reality is there is no evidence to support evolution. No matter how many times I say that, people still tell me there is evidence that proves it, yet somehow it cannot be presented.
Oh the irony. :lol:

Dolphan7
04-10-2008, 02:15 PM
The misconception of evolution invariably arises out of plain ignorance. That is not to say that evolution deniers are generally ignorant people, but when it comes to the subject of evolution they usually have wild misunderstandings about pretty much everything to do with it.But still choose not to accept it, mostly because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.I can cut and paste opinions from the web too. But this is a typical response by evolutionists to sidestep the issue. When they can't answer the tough questions, attack the questioner. Which theory would you like to discuss?



When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two
different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time.
On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact.It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming.

They consider it to be fact, yet have no clue how it happened. Doesn't that just make you want to ask questions?

To say that it has been proven and can be demostrated today and evidence from the past is overwhelming - really? I have seen such evidence and none of it proves macro-evolution. Micro-evolution yes, but not the major evolution claimed in the textbooks. I know I know evolutionists don't like to break it into micro/macro. They want to say that evolution is true. Period. But only micro-evolution has been proven, and creationists have no problem with that. But to extrapolate that into marco-evolution is stretching it.




Biologists admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution-such as Darwin's theory-his theory of the mechanism of evolution has not been proved or disproved over the 150 years it has been used-that is where you should go with your argument.
You want to argue the mechanics of evolution-not evolution itself.
To be considered science ....in order to say evolution is true, you must demonstrate the how as well as the why. You can't say evolution is true, and then say we don't know how it happened. Why would any rational human being believe such a story?



Darwin's Theory Of Evolution is not evolution. The theory of evolution is an explanation of the facts of evolution.

If nobody had ever developed the theory, it would not change that fact that living things evolve over time - evolution happens whether there is a theory or not.
Darwin's theory of evolution may be totally, hopelessly and utterly wrong. Even if it were, and Darwin and every biologist who had contributed to the theory since were incorrect, evolution would still exist and continue.
Evolution is totally independent of the theory of evolution. The theory is simply an attempt to explain the observed facts of nature that we call "evolution".


This is micro-evolution being presented as macro evolution.



If another theory came along to replace the theory of evolution, it would have to explain the facts at least as well as Darwin's theory has done for the last 150 years. No such replacement has ever been produced.


Hello? Creation here? Hello anybody in there? Intelligent Design?








If there is a debate or controversy within the scientific community about the theory of evolution, creationists see this as evidence that "evolution is in crisis". Nonsense - it is merely that scientists disagree (often bitterly) over details of the theory of evolution. That evolution actually happens is beyond question, but the theory of evolution is - and always should be, like every other scientific theory - probed, tested and scrutinized. Again, even if the theory were to collapse, that would still not magically disprove evolution or cause species to cease evolving.






Again he is referring to micro-evolution. Then there is this:



http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/DarwinAd.pdf

poornate
04-11-2008, 12:38 AM
It turns out that only 14% of Americans believe in evolution as science has come to accept it. 14%. That seems very low to me. Natural selection? Less than half. Natural selection does not say that creatures develop specializations that benefit them and enable them to thrive and propagate when creatures that do not have those specializations die out. Natural selection says that creatures change over time and either those changes have a discovered benefit or they are pointless and cumbersome and destroy the species. A little uglier when you realize that it is completely random, isn't it? Uglier but no less true. You hear a lot of God did this and God did that in the arguments. Couldn't God have created evolution as a means to develop the earth's species? I mean, I understand it being a sticky situation in the terms of religion… but the proof is pretty much out there. Where did the physical record that we can observe in every museum come from? If non-human humanoids were a separate creation of a higher power wouldn't it have been at least mentioned in the story of the creation? I don't think religious people necessarily have to bury their heads in the sand over this. God gave humanity the ability to think and discover truth in our world… we did… just accept it now that it has been revealed to you.

As far as the teaching intelligent design in school? So what. i was a teacher. Anything that encourages higher thought for kids is valid in a classroom. Read Darwin sometime. He didn't believe in God, but would have encouraged discussions about the possibility of God having a role. It's all about what opens kids minds. people get too caught up in testing standards... They are what is ruining our education system...

Blackocrates
04-11-2008, 01:41 AM
Well this is an interesting event. I doubt it makes it all the way through though. But if it does - Good!

I mean why do we continue to teach lies to our children. Tell them all sides of the story and let them decide which one holds water.

If public schools want to mention intelligent design in a philosophy class then by all means have at it. But it absolutely does not belong in a science class. Anybody that thinks so is out of it. You can't test intelligent design with scientific methods, therefore it shouldn't be in a science class.

poornate
04-11-2008, 08:57 AM
The methodology of science includes questioning, debate, etc. School is about higher level thought... Allowing students to question things for themselves and draw their own conclusions. Proponents of intelligent design are not creationists as they are often depicted. Many times they are scientists that have observable evidence that supports the design theory. Modern design theorists simply state that the complexity and specialization of organisms is evidence of intelligent design. They argue that randomness cannot account for life as it exists. Since empirical evidence exists to support this theory it is our duty to educate students to its existence. The pitfalls of using state funds to teach Judeo-Christian beliefs of a creator God are not part of this modern theory. It does not preach to who the designer is, but presents that scientific evidence that a designer does exist. Advocates for intelligent design are not attempting making this a new scientifically unproved theory that is presented with no alternatives. Intelligent design does not specifically dispute evolution, but argues a source of input that should be presented to students for their consideration.
The opponents of intelligent design view its introduction into schools as an attempt to force religion onto children in classrooms. They also see it as a bold attempt to violate separation of church and state. Intelligent design is viewed in these circles as creationism disguised in a pretty box with a bow. It is considered nothing more than an avenue to introduce God into science classes. Many people also see intelligent design as conservative politics finding a way to crack the door open to introducing God into school curriculum.
My educated opinion falls solidly in between the absolute views that dominate this topic. It is fact that there is scientific evidence that disputes Darwinist evolution. It is also fact that there is scientific evidence that supports an intelligence in the design of life. I don’t think either can be ignored. I would propose teaching evolution with a caveat to the affect of introducing to the students the problems with the theory. If intelligent design is not mentioned as an alternative then a disservice is being done being done by the teacher. Any theory that has a measure of proof should be touched on in the classroom, if for no other reason than to expand the abilities of the students to look at things critically. I am not opposed to introducing intelligent design as a topic. Darwin encourages questioning evolution and evolutionary processes in his writing. To refuse to offer viable alternatives is an affront to his original theory.

SKing29
04-11-2008, 08:59 AM
Oh the irony. :lol:

I've got to say Pagan from reading your posts I wished more people saw things like you do (you know that weird concept of being fair and respecting everyone's beliefs but still being critical).

Anyway to respond to your post the irony is astounding :D

Dolphan7
04-11-2008, 11:49 PM
If public schools want to mention intelligent design in a philosophy class then by all means have at it. But it absolutely does not belong in a science class. Anybody that thinks so is out of it. You can't test intelligent design with scientific methods, therefore it shouldn't be in a science class.
How do you test evolution? Be honest.

Dolphan7
04-11-2008, 11:54 PM
The methodology of science includes questioning, debate, etc. School is about higher level thought... Allowing students to question things for themselves and draw their own conclusions. Proponents of intelligent design are not creationists as they are often depicted. Many times they are scientists that have observable evidence that supports the design theory. Modern design theorists simply state that the complexity and specialization of organisms is evidence of intelligent design. They argue that randomness cannot account for life as it exists. Since empirical evidence exists to support this theory it is our duty to educate students to its existence. The pitfalls of using state funds to teach Judeo-Christian beliefs of a creator God are not part of this modern theory. It does not preach to who the designer is, but presents that scientific evidence that a designer does exist. Advocates for intelligent design are not attempting making this a new scientifically unproved theory that is presented with no alternatives. Intelligent design does not specifically dispute evolution, but argues a source of input that should be presented to students for their consideration.
The opponents of intelligent design view its introduction into schools as an attempt to force religion onto children in classrooms. They also see it as a bold attempt to violate separation of church and state. Intelligent design is viewed in these circles as creationism disguised in a pretty box with a bow. It is considered nothing more than an avenue to introduce God into science classes. Many people also see intelligent design as conservative politics finding a way to crack the door open to introducing God into school curriculum.
My educated opinion falls solidly in between the absolute views that dominate this topic. It is fact that there is scientific evidence that disputes Darwinist evolution. It is also fact that there is scientific evidence that supports an intelligence in the design of life. I don’t think either can be ignored. I would propose teaching evolution with a caveat to the affect of introducing to the students the problems with the theory. If intelligent design is not mentioned as an alternative then a disservice is being done being done by the teacher. Any theory that has a measure of proof should be touched on in the classroom, if for no other reason than to expand the abilities of the students to look at things critically. I am not opposed to introducing intelligent design as a topic. Darwin encourages questioning evolution and evolutionary processes in his writing. To refuse to offer viable alternatives is an affront to his original theory.Well said. You write this Nate?

poornate
04-11-2008, 11:57 PM
...observable phenomena... Irish Elk, mollusks, bats... Recent proof of evolution is everywhere, open your eyes...

poornate
04-11-2008, 11:58 PM
I did write that sir.... You approve?

Dolphan7
04-12-2008, 12:50 AM
I did write that sir.... You approve?:up:

Very well written position. Balanced, fair, respectful. Couldn't ask for a better poster.

Dolphan7
04-12-2008, 12:52 AM
...observable phenomena... Irish Elk, mollusks, bats... Recent proof of evolution is everywhere, open your eyes...

Ok now exactly what did we observe with these specimens? You can't just say Irish Elks are proof of evolution and then leave me hanging!

poornate
04-12-2008, 12:12 PM
Let me ask you a question... What makes something definable as a specific structure (life form)? What makes a deer a deer? Size? Genes? Height? Color? What process, incrementally, does something have to go through to so differentiate it that it is, when compared to the original structure, easily identifiable as something new and unique from its origin?

Pagan
04-12-2008, 06:47 PM
:up:

Very well written position. Balanced, fair, respectful. Couldn't ask for a better poster.
LOL...you mean, "balanced, fair, respectful, agrees with me". :tongue:

Blackocrates
04-12-2008, 11:31 PM
How do you test evolution? Be honest.

Here's an example of Origin of Life by using chemical evolution:

In the 1920's two scientists hypothesized that there was a primitive atmosphere of the earth that consisted of three chemical compounds, methane, ammonia, and water vapor.

Those gases then were mixed with an energy source, either lightning or UV light. With that mixture a complex organic molecule could be composed. Those molecules would then move into a primitive ocean, creating a primitive soup. Those molecules would then continue to grow in the ocean.

In the 1950's, Stanley Miller set up a laboratory composed of the Oparin and Haldane information. The experiment found that 13 of 20 amino acids were created. The experiment also generated simple sugars, and nitrogenous bases. Later, Miller theorized that if hydrogen was one of the gases in the earth's atmosphere all of the amino acids could be created and it worked. The experiments have been duplicated numerous times.

You can't just say it didn't happen because it did, again and again.

Now how would you test intelligent design?

Tetragrammaton
04-12-2008, 11:38 PM
Here's an example of Origin of Life by using chemical evolution:

In the 1920's two scientists hypothesized that there was a primitive atmosphere of the earth that consisted of three chemical compounds, methane, ammonia, and water vapor.

Those gases then were mixed with an energy source, either lightning or UV light. With that mixture a complex organic molecule could be composed. Those molecules would then move into a primitive ocean, creating a primitive soup. Those molecules would then continue to grow in the ocean.

In the 1950's, Stanley Miller set up a laboratory composed of the Oparin and Haldane information. The experiment found that 13 of 20 amino acids were created. The experiment also generated simple sugars, and nitrogenous bases. Later, Miller theorized that if hydrogen was one of the gases in the earth's atmosphere all of the amino acids could be created and it worked. The experiments have been duplicated numerous times.

You can't just say it didn't happen because it did, again and again.

Now how would you test intelligent design?

The infamous Urey-Miller experiment. I love it.

Also, evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life in the first place. That is abiogenesis. Remember, evolution is theory and fact.

poornate
04-13-2008, 02:35 AM
LOL...you mean, "balanced, fair, respectful, agrees with me". :tongue:

Let me clarify here.... I don't believe in intelligent design... I just don't have a problem with any process that is widely believed in being introduced into a classroom as a debatable topic. I believe that the critical thinking skills that young people must have need arguable points to develop...

Pagan
04-13-2008, 08:31 AM
Let me clarify here.... I don't believe in intelligent design... I just don't have a problem with any process that is widely believed in being introduced into a classroom as a debatable topic. I believe that the critical thinking skills that young people must have need arguable points to develop...
Wasn't aimed at your core thoughts bro...I meant that he only called your post "fair and balanced" because you agree with him that it should be allowed.

Trust me, your wanting it allowed is for a FAR different reason than why he does. ;)

poornate
04-13-2008, 10:34 AM
The opponents of intelligent design view it... as creationism disguised in a pretty box with a bow.

.... I know why he approved.... and, as you see above, I know why you disapprove. I have a feeling that I agree wholeheartedly with your belief structure and 07's stance on this issue...

Pagan
04-13-2008, 05:15 PM
Trust me Nate...Christians want intelligent design taught in schools in the worst way, but if it were the creation theory of any other faith, they'd blow a gasket.

poornate
04-14-2008, 08:40 AM
That's the funny thing... ID CAN fit any religion's creation story, because it just says (IF taught correctly!) that some "thing" has painted a master stroke... some entity has designed the complexities of life... Vishnu, the Buddha, Yaweh? Maybe not... A super-intelligent giant Panda in a green swimsuit? Could be.... Since your name is Pagan... I'm going to crawl out on a limb and guess you're not a Presbyterian... If done correctly it should be a godless theory in a godless world.

Dolphan7
04-14-2008, 01:15 PM
Let me ask you a question... What makes something definable as a specific structure (life form)? What makes a deer a deer? Size? Genes? Height? Color? What process, incrementally, does something have to go through to so differentiate it that it is, when compared to the original structure, easily identifiable as something new and unique from its origin?

Answer 1: DNA

Answer 2: This is the problem evolutionists have - they can't answer this question. There is no known mechanism that creates a new oganism from an already existing one.

Creation says that all life was created as it is. The fossil records supports this. Life that we see around us supports this. There is no life from non-life. There is no life evolving from simpler to more complex.

ih8brady
04-14-2008, 01:15 PM
I was referring to evolution in that post. And it is being indoctrinated into our kids, you are a product of that indoctrination just as I was. And yes it is unquestionable - people think that it is fact and therefore unquestionable - the reality is there is no evidence to support evolution. No matter how many times I say that, people still tell me there is evidence that proves it, yet somehow it cannot be presented.





Yes of course....when you have no response, then I must not know what evolution is. Which theory would you like to discuss? Neo-darwinism, modern synthesis, punctuated equilibrium, or the latest Facilitated Variation? One thing about evolutionary theory (s), stick around, it will evolve into something else.:lol:

As far as it not addressing the origins of life on this planet, you are correct, to a point. Most textbooks do talk of origins right along with "what happened next' - evolution. Face it, evolution is dead in the water without a natural explanation to how life started on earth. So the theory doesn't address it, it most certainly dances with it.
.
It doesn't address the issue because it doesn't intend or need to. I guess epigenesis is false because it doesn't define the beginning of life one earth. Same goes for geocentricism. Put away your triangles, Pythagorean is wrong because it doesn't address


As far as harmonizing science and religion. It depends on what religion you are talking about. The religion of evolutionary theory has done well to harmonize with science, in fact hyjacking it to no end. Those who are in control of the religion (evolution) control the science, and the funding, and the publication of research etc....


[/QUOTE]

Very cute, but you're denying the fact that many if not most Christians(non-Godless believers) recognize the validity of science within the framework of their faith. You keep referring to evolution as a religion, and therefore it should not be included in a science class. But what is Christianity? A branch of science? No, it is a religion and it does not belong in a science room.


We aren't teaching anything but evolution (in all it's forms)and we are still lacking in the world. Can't blame that on anything but evolution. Because we aren't teaching kids to be scientists, we are teaching them to adopt to a religious belief.


I agree. Origins should be taught in an Origins class where all the theories can be studied and contrasted and compared. Leave biology to biology, physics to physics, etc....You see evolution takes biology one step further and inserts it's belief system into the science. Same with all the other sciences. The fact is that none of the sciences has any actual proof of this belief. So if evolution will be interjected in science, then I say let Intelligent Design in there too. Wherever evolution is taught, ID should be taught alongside it.

What? Can't blame the problems on anything but evolution? How about focusing on the real roots of the world's problems and trying to solve them rather than crying wolf at the boogeyman of evolution. Is evolution to blame for poverty? 911(A faith-based initiative BTW)? The American version of The Office?

Dolphan7
04-14-2008, 01:50 PM
Here's an example of Origin of Life by using chemical evolution:

In the 1920's two scientists hypothesized that there was a primitive atmosphere of the earth that consisted of three chemical compounds, methane, ammonia, and water vapor.

Those gases then were mixed with an energy source, either lightning or UV light. With that mixture a complex organic molecule could be composed. Those molecules would then move into a primitive ocean, creating a primitive soup. Those molecules would then continue to grow in the ocean.

In the 1950's, Stanley Miller set up a laboratory composed of the Oparin and Haldane information. The experiment found that 13 of 20 amino acids were created. The experiment also generated simple sugars, and nitrogenous bases. Later, Miller theorized that if hydrogen was one of the gases in the earth's atmosphere all of the amino acids could be created and it worked. The experiments have been duplicated numerous times.

You can't just say it didn't happen because it did, again and again.

Now how would you test intelligent design?Ok then. So in a controlled laboratory, with highly intelligent individuals, with all the tools available to them......they found 13 of 20 amino acids. Big woop!

That isn't life. In order to have life you need DNA. Which is leaps and bounds more hihgly complex than simple proteins.

This experiment has been proven to not have the right atmosphere of early earth. Subsequent experiments with modified early earth components have fared no better, only able to produce a few amino acids.

The complexity of life on earth speaks of a highly intelligent design, one so complex that our best science can't even duplicate it. Is this evidence of random chance, or an intelligent designer?

Edit: You proposed how to test abiogenesis, which has been proven to be false.

Back to the first question. How do you test evolution?

Dolphan7
04-14-2008, 02:41 PM
The infamous Urey-Miller experiment. I love it.

Also, evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life in the first place. That is abiogenesis. Remember, evolution is theory and fact.

"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that life's complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did." Harold Urey 1962, Christian Science Monitor.

This isn't science. It is philosophy. It is a faithbased religion.

So much for the Miller-Urey experiment. RIP

Dolphan7
04-14-2008, 02:48 PM
It doesn't address the issue because it doesn't intend or need to. I guess epigenesis is false because it doesn't define the beginning of life one earth. Same goes for geocentricism. Put away your triangles, Pythagorean is wrong because it doesn't address


Very cute, but you're denying the fact that many if not most Christians(non-Godless believers) recognize the validity of science within the framework of their faith. You keep referring to evolution as a religion, and therefore it should not be included in a science class. But what is Christianity? A branch of science? No, it is a religion and it does not belong in a science room.



What? Can't blame the problems on anything but evolution? How about focusing on the real roots of the world's problems and trying to solve them rather than crying wolf at the boogeyman of evolution. Is evolution to blame for poverty? 911(A faith-based initiative BTW)? The American version of The Office?Hey you brought up (I think) the fact that we are behind in science, and I simply stated that that falls squarly on the teaching of materialistic evolution to our kids. Taking God out of the picture and telling kids that we are here by accident, there is no hope, no meaning, no reason.....

I don't have a problem teaching religion in philosophy. I think this is where evolution should be taught as well. But teaching evolution as fact in a science class is where the problem is. It is nothing more than philosophy/religion - the issue is it is being taught as science.

poornate
04-14-2008, 04:24 PM
Answer 1: DNA

Answer 2: This is the problem evolutionists have - they can't answer this question. There is no known mechanism that creates a new oganism from an already existing one.

Creation says that all life was created as it is. The fossil records supports this. Life that we see around us supports this. There is no life from non-life. There is no life evolving from simpler to more complex.

Forgive my ignorance here (and other places in the future) but what does a creationist believe Neanderthal, Java, and Cromagnon man is?

Blackocrates
04-14-2008, 06:15 PM
Forgive my ignorance here (and other places in the future) but what does a creationist believe Neanderthal, Java, and Cromagnon man is?

I've always wondered that as well.

Tetragrammaton
04-14-2008, 07:53 PM
"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that life's complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did." Harold Urey 1962, Christian Science Monitor.

This isn't science. It is philosophy. It is a faithbased religion.

So much for the Miller-Urey experiment. RIP

No. He backed up his "belief" with an experiment. Urey didn't make the experiment up. Other experiments have shown similar things, see Joan Oró and and his work with nucleic acids. The reason scientists start doing experiments is because they believe a result will occur. When I was in fourth grade I had to state what I believed would occur before I did my experiment.

When scientists are proven wrong, they tend to accept it. I cannot say the same for those who use religion. See the starlight problem and how it strikes down the idea that Earth is 6000 years old.

poornate
04-14-2008, 08:18 PM
....If I'm wrong here, please correct me as well 7 (...and please answer my first question above), but no church actually still believes that 6,000 year thing anymore, do they? (I thought that was settled 50-60 years ago with the whole 7 days to God is not the same as 7 days to man creation thing....)

Tetragrammaton
04-14-2008, 08:50 PM
....If I'm wrong here, please correct me as well 7 (...and please answer my first question above), but no church actually still believes that 6,000 year thing anymore, do they? (I thought that was settled 50-60 years ago with the whole 7 days to God is not the same as 7 days to man creation thing....)

I did a little research, and the only church I can say for a fact that supports this is the Oriental Orthodox Church. However, most evangelicals believe this idea.

Dolphan7
04-16-2008, 06:31 PM
Forgive my ignorance here (and other places in the future) but what does a creationist believe Neanderthal, Java, and Cromagnon man is?

Neanderthal Man - Just that - Man.

Java Man - I thought that this has been explained already and it has been determined that this is just a Gibbon?

Cro-Magnon Man - Just that -Man.

Dolphan7
04-16-2008, 06:39 PM
No. He backed up his "belief" with an experiment. Urey didn't make the experiment up. Other experiments have shown similar things, see Joan Oró and and his work with nucleic acids. The reason scientists start doing experiments is because they believe a result will occur. When I was in fourth grade I had to state what I believed would occur before I did my experiment.

When scientists are proven wrong, they tend to accept it. I cannot say the same for those who use religion. See the starlight problem and how it strikes down the idea that Earth is 6000 years old.
Right. He was quoted in 1962. Many years after his failed experiment. Doesn't sound very convinced of his own research.

Starlight isn't a problem for creation. Ever read anything by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D on Starlight and Time? Very interesting theory. Even without knowing, if one believes in a creator, it would be foolish to think a creator of the magnitude of creating the known universe, couldn't create light instantly in place.

Dolphan7
04-16-2008, 06:53 PM
....If I'm wrong here, please correct me as well 7 (...and please answer my first question above), but no church actually still believes that 6,000 year thing anymore, do they? (I thought that was settled 50-60 years ago with the whole 7 days to God is not the same as 7 days to man creation thing....)I know that some use the 6000-7000 year old age of the earth. I don't believe the bible is that clear on how old the earth is. It definitely does not say how old the earth is, and these young earth projections are based on lineage, which can be incomplete.

We don't really know how old the earth is, no one does.

Old earthers have their theories and their "science", young earthers have their views as well.

I definitely believe that the earth is much younger than what most "scientists" say that it is. Thousands, not billions. But..........an old earth is just as well for creationists - we don't demand a young earth, it is just what the evidence tells us.

However........old earthers must have an old age of earth in order to account for all the "takes a long long time" theories.

Tetragrammaton
04-16-2008, 09:25 PM
Right. He was quoted in 1962. Many years after his failed experiment. Doesn't sound very convinced of his own research.


How was his experiment a failure? They were able to create amino acids in a small experiment.


Starlight isn't a problem for creation. Ever read anything by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D on Starlight and Time? Very interesting theory.

I have read Humphreys, and he is lambasted by most scientists. He has the whole idea of the Kuiper Belt backward. Also, his idea of the amount of salt in the sea proving the age of the world has been lambasted for being ridiculous. Humphreys is trying to use conventional science - mainly, black holes - while criticizing them at the same time.


Even without knowing, if one believes in a creator, it would be foolish to think a creator of the magnitude of creating the known universe, couldn't create light instantly in place.

So, basically, science ultimately doesn't matter to you because a Creator could override it? There is no use in the debate then. That is like saying fossils were put here by Satan to test us.

If either side holds onto their belief in the face of being wrong, there is no debate. I "believe" in the Big Bang and evolution because they have scientific basis. If these are proven wrong later, and scientific theories are proven wrong all the time, I would move on, like the scientific community.

See, if the creationist reject science even when it is fact, how can they have the gall to demand representation in a science class?

Why are the Catholics able to get it right?


In his encyclical Humani Generis, my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.

Dolphan7
04-17-2008, 01:12 AM
How was his experiment a failure? They were able to create amino acids in a small experiment.



I have read Humphreys, and he is lambasted by most scientists. He has the whole idea of the Kuiper Belt backward. Also, his idea of the amount of salt in the sea proving the age of the world has been lambasted for being ridiculous. Humphreys is trying to use conventional science - mainly, black holes - while criticizing them at the same time.



So, basically, science ultimately doesn't matter to you because a Creator could override it? There is no use in the debate then. That is like saying fossils were put here by Satan to test us.

If either side holds onto their belief in the face of being wrong, there is no debate. I "believe" in the Big Bang and evolution because they have scientific basis. If these are proven wrong later, and scientific theories are proven wrong all the time, I would move on, like the scientific community.

See, if the creationist reject science even when it is fact, how can they have the gall to demand representation in a science class?

Why are the Catholics able to get it right?
I don't think science doesn't matter. I just think, well I know, that science has it's limitations. It can't explain everything, as much as it tries to do so. In fact science limits itself when it removes the supernatural from the field of objectivity.

For instance - When science stumbles to a point where there is no scientific or natural explanation for "life", and all the theories and experiments have been exhausted, leading to nowhere, science at that point just continues to look for answers that it feels are still out there despite the evidence to the contrary. We just need more time (and money, lot's of money)!

Instead of saying - Science has determined that "life" has no natural scientific explanation for it therefore it must be supernatural.

Why they don't so that is not the supernatural itself, but the implication of the supernatural.

Of course Humphreys is looked down on - after all he is bucking the trend. Not in the "club" so to speak.

Hey if you want to rave on about Urey go ahead. Science still scratches its head at how life came from non-life. Urey didn't solve that. No one has. But the text books say that it happened. The victim here is our kids. Teaching them something that it totally untrue. No experiment has created life in a test tube. They have all been failures.

I believe in an almighty creator, and the physical evidence on earth supports the creation of that creator by way of life and in past events.

I don't argue the data of science so much as I just argue their biased conclusions, and the lack of objectivity, and their stonewalling tactics.

But that's just me.

ch19079
04-17-2008, 09:40 AM
they teach "evolution" in school because they teach science in school. Evolution is a MAJOR scientific theory. The whole point is to show how they came to that theory by looking at evidence in a scientific way.

They do not talk about religion in schools because it is not science. It is simply an idea.

They may want to pass this bill, but if it is passes, these same people screaming for religious "theories", will be the same ones trying to ban "evil" or "non major" religious ideas.

the day a kid stands up in a public school and tries to give a presentation on a religion that worships satin in a way that makes it sound like a good idea, will the last time it happens.

Tetragrammaton
04-17-2008, 10:56 AM
Hey if you want to rave on about Urey go ahead. Science still scratches its head at how life came from non-life. Urey didn't solve that. No one has. But the text books say that it happened. The victim here is our kids. Teaching them something that it totally untrue. No experiment has created life in a test tube. They have all been failures.

Dolphan7, do you have children or do you teach? You seem to have a misunderstanding over what exactly is being taught. I graduated high school two years ago and just took college Biology, and never does the teacher attempt to define how life began. The origin of life is not evolution, that is abiogenesis. My college professor, yea, those wacky liberals, said to a class that it was completely unknown how life began and may be due to a Creator.

Evolution defines the change in species over time. It has been proven true by science. You automatically have the upper hand because you are forcing those who aren't experts in the field to prove something to you. It is a lot easier to dissent.

Joker2thief
04-17-2008, 12:45 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2008/04/Untited1-1.jpg

Dolphan7
04-17-2008, 01:07 PM
Dolphan7, do you have children or do you teach? You seem to have a misunderstanding over what exactly is being taught. I graduated high school two years ago and just took college Biology, and never does the teacher attempt to define how life began. The origin of life is not evolution, that is abiogenesis. My college professor, yea, those wacky liberals, said to a class that it was completely unknown how life began and may be due to a Creator.

Evolution defines the change in species over time. It has been proven true by science. You automatically have the upper hand because you are forcing those who aren't experts in the field to prove something to you. It is a lot easier to dissent.I do have children, and I do teach, but not in public school. I recently had the opportunity to review the latest biology book at the local high school, a 2008 edition. The first 80 pages taught about origins of life and then went right into evolution. The student isn't even exposed to biology until after page 80. I understand abiogenesis isn't addressed in evolution theory, but they are interdependent and taught side by side in biology classes (and here is the rub) - as fact!

Evolution has not been proven. Change in species over time while in theory sounds nice, in reality hasn't happened. Change "within" species yes. But not change from species to species. There is no known mechanism to add genetic material, DNA, to an organism that would allow it to evolve into more complex organisms as evolution demands. A species can adapt and change and have many different looks to it - think dogs, but at the end of the day it is still the same species.

Given a highly skilled scientist, acting as the creator, cannot even duplicate life from non-life, or any type of species jump. All the genetic manipulation of fruitflies, still leaves us with - fruitflies. And this is with a designer working behind the scenes to make sure all the settings are in the best opportune place......and the expectation and the lesson is that this happened in nature all by itself? Is this science? or Belief? Life is far more complex than science wants to admit.

What we do see in nature is all life in it's present forms, both alive and in the past. What we see in the fossil record is a sudden appearance of life, not long periods of life. And we never see any transitional forms alive or in the fossil record, ever. What we see in nature is an amazingly complex, and interdependent systems (bees and pollination for instance) that many times bafffle science. This points to something other than evolution, yet evolution must be true, it must be taught, and dissenters are blackballed, stonewalled, discredited etc....Just look what happeend to Dean Kenyon when he rejected his own research and began to think in non-evolutionary terms.

poornate
04-18-2008, 09:10 AM
Answer 1: DNA

Answer 2: This is the problem evolutionists have - they can't answer this question. There is no known mechanism that creates a new oganism from an already existing one.

Creation says that all life was created as it is. The fossil records supports this. Life that we see around us supports this. There is no life from non-life. There is no life evolving from simpler to more complex.

I argue that DNA does not define an organism. If our DNA is a shade away from field mice and fruit flys, how can that be a sole definition. If the function, appearance, and ability of an organism is radicalized and new, but the molecular substance is unaltered it is not the same as its origininating form. Man is not as we were a century ago. more baldness, taller, bigger feet. Life from non-life? No one has that answer...

poornate
04-18-2008, 09:17 AM
Neanderthal Man - Just that - Man.

Java Man - I thought that this has been explained already and it has been determined that this is just a Gibbon?

Cro-Magnon Man - Just that -Man.

I haven't heard about the Java/Gibbon thing.... Not that this is something in my area really....

But as far as Neanderthal being man... The Bible says that man is created in the image of God.... Is that literal? Is a corporeal God 5'0" tall with a brow ridge, barrel chest, and bowed legs? To me what something IS, by perception, by the qualities that make it alien to us, IS the definition of new, or more appropriately in this case, different life....

While we are on the subject of seperate branches of man/primates/What have you.... What about the Hobbit thing they discovered on that island? I would think that any ongoing studies of that would be getting a lot of publicity since it, if proven, represents a giant departure in the development path man has been on.... (here again.. I am not researching this, and they may be Gibbons or parrots for all I know... just always curious about this and have heard nothing for at least a year)

:nate:

Dolphan7
04-22-2008, 12:16 AM
I haven't heard about the Java/Gibbon thing.... Not that this is something in my area really....

But as far as Neanderthal being man... The Bible says that man is created in the image of God.... Is that literal? Is a corporeal God 5'0" tall with a brow ridge, barrel chest, and bowed legs? To me what something IS, by perception, by the qualities that make it alien to us, IS the definition of new, or more appropriately in this case, different life....

While we are on the subject of seperate branches of man/primates/What have you.... What about the Hobbit thing they discovered on that island? I would think that any ongoing studies of that would be getting a lot of publicity since it, if proven, represents a giant departure in the development path man has been on.... (here again.. I am not researching this, and they may be Gibbons or parrots for all I know... just always curious about this and have heard nothing for at least a year)

:nate:Today we have average men, midgets, dwarves, giants, aborigines etc.......and they are all considered Man.

SECfootball
05-05-2008, 06:01 PM
I suppose we should also teach alchemy as an alternative to chemistry. Astrology as an alternative to astronomy, and magic as an alternative to physics. Let the kids decide!

Blackocrates
05-05-2008, 06:08 PM
I suppose we should also teach alchemy as an alternative to chemistry. Astrology as an alternative to astronomy, and magic as an alternative to physics. Let the kids decide!

It would be real life Harry Potter.

Dolphan7
05-06-2008, 05:53 PM
I suppose we should also teach alchemy as an alternative to chemistry. Astrology as an alternative to astronomy, and magic as an alternative to physics. Let the kids decide!So we should just keep teaching our kids a lie?

SECfootball
05-06-2008, 09:36 PM
So we should just keep teaching our kids a lie?

Maybe when there's not a overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that evolution is indeed real.

Intelligent design is not science. There is no testable hypothesis, no conclusions, no data to be gathered. It's simply a way for religious ideologues to push their agenda into the schools and onto our young people.




Evolution has not been proven. Change in species over time while in theory sounds nice, in reality hasn't happened. Change "within" species yes. But not change from species to species. There is no known mechanism to add genetic material, DNA, to an organism that would allow it to evolve into more complex organisms as evolution demands. A species can adapt and change and have many different looks to it - think dogs, but at the end of the day it is still the same species.



Um, mutation? Changes in DNA can be caused by ultraviolet rays/radiation or a mistake in copying DNA. Most mutations are harmful but those that confer reproductive advantage are passed on through natural selection, gene flow, founder effect, and/or genetic drift throughout a species. Evolution is, simply, a change in allele frequency over time.

Tetragrammaton
05-06-2008, 09:43 PM
So we should just keep teaching our kids a lie?

You and I both know it isn't a lie. Even the Catholic Church, the least progressive people I know, have admitted it is "more than a hypothesis".

Dolphan7
05-07-2008, 11:51 AM
Maybe when there's not a overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that evolution is indeed real.

Intelligent design is not science. There is no testable hypothesis, no conclusions, no data to be gathered. It's simply a way for religious ideologues to push their agenda into the schools and onto our young people.



Um, mutation? Changes in DNA can be caused by ultraviolet rays/radiation or a mistake in copying DNA. Most mutations are harmful but those that confer reproductive advantage are passed on through natural selection, gene flow, founder effect, and/or genetic drift throughout a species. Evolution is, simply, a change in allele frequency over time.Mistakes in copying isn't new information being created. It is mutating the same old information. We can get a fruit fly with 4 wings, but that isn't new information because the wings are already part of the DNA, it's just duplicating what is already there, and mulitplying it.


There is no evidence of new genetic information being created in nature, let alone passed along to offspring.

This is the lie - we are being told that evolution is true and provable and so on, yet it hasn't.

Dolphan7
05-07-2008, 11:53 AM
You and I both know it isn't a lie. Even the Catholic Church, the least progressive people I know, have admitted it is "more than a hypothesis".I know it is a lie, you obviously don't believe that.

The Catholic Church has been wrong on so many levels their endorsement of evolution is no surprise. They are the height of Apostacy.

poornate
05-07-2008, 10:23 PM
So we should just keep teaching our kids a lie?

What truth can you offer to teach them? Where is a different proof? Fossil records and physical evidence support evolution and adaptation... Nothing supports anything else... Should a broad pen be taken to what we DO know? Perhaps we should cease to answer questions at all in our limited way... Or regress to offering a phalanx of creation myths and allow the children to choose the one least offensive to the sensibilities of their communities... To quote a great old movie...

"Fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy, and needs feeding. And soon, your Honor, with banners flying and with drums beating we'll be marching backward, backward, through the glorious ages of that sixteenth century, when bigots burned the man who dared to bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind."

cwsox
05-07-2008, 10:37 PM
The Catholic Church has been wrong on so many levels their endorsement of evolution is no surprise. They are the height of Apostacy.


:sidelol:

ih8brady
05-08-2008, 04:02 AM
Why bother trying to reason or explain to a non-scientist who doesn't care about scientific truth and thinks that all the real scientists in the world are liars and frauds who want to force their "religion" on everyone?***




***-But keep in mind that Christianity is a science not a "religion" :sidelol:

ih8brady
05-08-2008, 04:04 AM
I suppose we should also teach alchemy as an alternative to chemistry. Astrology as an alternative to astronomy, and magic as an alternative to physics. Let the kids decide!


Don't forget mainstream history and Holocaust Denial history. Equal time! Let the kids decide! :d-day:

Dolphan7
05-08-2008, 01:42 PM
What truth can you offer to teach them? Where is a different proof? Fossil records and physical evidence support evolution and adaptation... Nothing supports anything else... Should a broad pen be taken to what we DO know? Perhaps we should cease to answer questions at all in our limited way... Or regress to offering a phalanx of creation myths and allow the children to choose the one least offensive to the sensibilities of their communities... To quote a great old movie...

"Fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy, and needs feeding. And soon, your Honor, with banners flying and with drums beating we'll be marching backward, backward, through the glorious ages of that sixteenth century, when bigots burned the man who dared to bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind."Fossil records and physical evidence also support a world wide flood.

Science has set itself on the alter of truth, yet how many times has science been wrong? And how many more times will science change the "truth" as they claim it to be "today"?

And who would trust an organization that automatically excludes those things that it cannot explain by natural causes, in fact rejects any alternative explanations to the sacred "evolutionary" belief.

If people want to put their faith in science by all means feel free to do so, but just so you know, what science says is true today, won't be tomorrow.

Evolution and Creation are mutually exclusive. Only one is true, not both. If one is false, that lends support that the other one is true.

Evolution, despite what science has indoctrinated into our collective conscience, is false.

poornate
05-08-2008, 01:59 PM
...and the proof is?

...as far as the flood? What does that have to do with anything? That flood exists in creation myths that predate Christianity....

Dolphan7
05-08-2008, 03:09 PM
...and the proof is?

...as far as the flood? What does that have to do with anything? That flood exists in creation myths that predate Christianity....Christianity goes all the way back to creation week my friend, they just didn't call it that until Christ actually lived with us. But that is a minor point anyway.

With that - when we look in the fossil record we see a sudden appearance of life, in complete form, some snap frozen in time - standing up, buried in a rapid fashion in water/mud/sand so as to preserve them as the fossils we see today. We see this all over the world. We see whale fossils on land, in high elevations above sea level, in several places on earth. We see large fossil beds consisting of many diverse creatures all burried at the same time in the same manner, all over the world. These are the facts. There is no debate on this issue. This is what all scientists observe in the fossil record. This all points to a global catastrophic event, causing global climate change, which caused massive extinctions - and what could be the most likely explanation of all this is water, and lot's of it.

Cuban Dave 9
05-08-2008, 03:25 PM
Pagan Pagan Pagan....please......99% of your posts are about other posters, not the thread topic.

Evolution is a lie.

I have no problem with teaching other religions at all.

As long as we stop teaching them a lie, but saying it is fact.

How many posters have been on here swearing up and down that evolution is fact, and find that there really is nothing substantial to back the "fact" up.

Let the kids decide for themselves.

Want a fact? Male mammals have testicles. Male Humans have testicles. Coincidence? I think not!

Cuban Dave 9
05-08-2008, 03:35 PM
By the way...the Earth is the center of the universe where the sun revolves around us...and when it rains, god is crying. Gotta go, I am taking my boat to the edge of the world...hope I don't fall off earth

cwsox
05-08-2008, 06:01 PM
Christianity goes all the way back to creation week my friend, they just didn't call it that until Christ actually lived with us.


Let's separate this apart from any rational discourse on Scriptural teachings.

I grew up fundamentalist. I can out fundy you any time any where any place day or night rain or shine.

But that statement - you'd get hooted off the stage at Bob Jones, drowned in ridicule at Dallas Theological, Spurgeon would slap your face, J. I. Packer would fall over laughing. Jack Chick might even look askance, maybe.

Where do you get this stuff?

"Creation week" -- :sidelol:

That might be a David C. Cook magazine for kids - and if they aren't doing it they should consider it - it might make for a nice cartoon series from Zondervan, but seriously - you find that in the words of Jesus or in the life and times of Christ - I'll wait... we've got all eternity -

seriously I am a hard core believer but that sort of stuff makes me want to apologize for how you represent the faith to every one else on the board

if you want to be the right wing Christian street peacher on this board, if the faith witness that you brag about at Bible study consists of your slamming the heathen on a Dolphins board, at least check what you are saying first - you make us all look bad - be as right wing as you want to be but be responsible to the Gospel that you claim to value

You are not a preacher - thank you Jesus - but you might get something worthwhile out of this


18 Signs that Youre a Fundamentalist Preacher That Might Need to Study More for Your Sermons
1. You consider studying for sermons something that librals do instead of soul winning.
2. You prepare your sermons on the way to church, which explains why you recently preached against tan lines, energy drinks, and men wearing short sleeve shirts.
3. You actually make fun of preachers who use Greek and Hebrew in their sermons.
4. You consider volume a fine substitute for substance.
5. To you, exegete the Greek is a funny rhyme.
6. You decide on what sins to preach against based on whos in the congregation.
7. You consider a pulpit more of a punching bag rather than a place to rest your Bible.
8. You have 35 sermon outlines prepared and ready to preach as soon as you find text verses for them.
9. In a 117 minute sermon, you spent 53 minutes telling stories from your childhood, 47 minutes telling stories from your early ministerial days, 15 minutes denigrating men who wear pleated pants, and 2 minutes explaining your text verse.
10. You have actually spent an entire sermon preaching against the evils of Barney the purple dinosaur.
11. Youre favorite illustrations are Darwins deathbed conversion, the microphone in hell bit, and Spurgeon giving up his cigars.
12. You quote John Gill as supporting your position against Calvinism.
13. You think people who know what supralapsarianism means need to get saved.
14. You think its okay to preach a verse out of context, as long as you tell your people that youre doing it on purpose.
15. You love to apply Messianic prophecies to yourself.
16. When you preach, you cant help but say evangelical effeminately.
17. You think expositional is someone who doesnt take a position on anything.
18. Youre not sure what TULIP stands for, but you know youre against it.

Dolphan7
05-09-2008, 12:17 PM
Let's separate this apart from any rational discourse on Scriptural teachings.

I grew up fundamentalist. I can out fundy you any time any where any place day or night rain or shine.

But that statement - you'd get hooted off the stage at Bob Jones, drowned in ridicule at Dallas Theological, Spurgeon would slap your face, J. I. Packer would fall over laughing. Jack Chick might even look askance, maybe.

Where do you get this stuff?

"Creation week" -- :sidelol:

That might be a David C. Cook magazine for kids - and if they aren't doing it they should consider it - it might make for a nice cartoon series from Zondervan, but seriously - you find that in the words of Jesus or in the life and times of Christ - I'll wait... we've got all eternity -

seriously I am a hard core believer but that sort of stuff makes me want to apologize for how you represent the faith to every one else on the board

if you want to be the right wing Christian street peacher on this board, if the faith witness that you brag about at Bible study consists of your slamming the heathen on a Dolphins board, at least check what you are saying first - you make us all look bad - be as right wing as you want to be but be responsible to the Gospel that you claim to value

You are not a preacher - thank you Jesus - but you might get something worthwhile out of thisSo in your vast array of knowledge of Christianity and the bible, was Jesus present during creation week or not?

That is all I am saying. The context of my post was in reference to a post that suggested Christianity was predated by flood myths of other cutlures.

Christianity bases it's beliefs on both the OT and the NT. The OT pointing toward the promise of a savior (Jesus), the NT the fullfillment of that promise.

So in context Christianity uses the same OT account of the flood of Noah, and that predates everything else.

I am sure you can understand this. You do believe in the Trinity right?

Jesus is God meaning Eternal and the Alpha and the Omega. He was in the beginning right alongside God.



JN 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
JN 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
JN 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
JN 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
JN 1:5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.



John is referring to Jesus here. You do understand this right?

cwsox
05-09-2008, 02:45 PM
You stated


Christianity goes all the way back to creation week my friend, they just didn't call it that until Christ actually lived with us.There is much wrong theologically with that sentence that has nothing to do with John 1. Most of those are points of theology and Christology. Had theology and Christology (and ecclesiology for that matter) been the issues alone I would have said nothing.

The great Swedish pietist Paul Peter Waldonstrom was famous not only in Sweden (the Mission Covenant Society later Church) but as well in America for his profound influence on what became the Evangelical Covenant Church and the Evangelical Free Church in asking the question" where is it written? Waldenstrom launched the Bible-centric approach because he was tired of people adding to the Scriputres or falsely representing the Scriptures or claiming beliefs and statements as being in the Scriptures that are not there at all.

Waldenstrom is considered to be one of the great conservative Evangelical leaders. I revere him an evangelical and Biblical scholar (which includes his landmark work on the atonement, the most refreshing approach since Anselm).

Where is it written? By what Scriptural authority can you claim that "they just didn't call it that ["creation week"] until Christ actually lived with us."

The phrase "creation week" appears no where in the Scriptures. No where do Scriptures ever call anything "creation week" be it in the time of Christ or at any point in the Scriptures. Where is it written? No where.

You made a claim that is contrary to Scripture when you said they started calling something "creation week" during the time of Christ.

Whatever your beliefs are regarding creation/the origin of the known universe, you cannot Scripturally claim that in the time of Christ that anything was called "creation week."

Opinions on matters pertaining to creation differ widely amongst Christians. It troubles me greatly that you always present your views as the only Christian views. Your views are in fact a minority view within the Christian Church universal. I will not argue that point much but it does pain me that you present your views as being Truth and you reject anything as Truth that is not your opinion. I say this not as personal attack but as a legitimate response in a religion forum on religious matters. It is very unfair for you to characterize anything as a personal attack especially given what you just recently posted about the Roman Catholic Church. It is very unfair of you to throw your opinions around insulting others and then feel that a response is a personal attack. That is an odd way to attempt to stifle the conversation in a religion forum.

So it pains me when you present Christianity so narrowly. There is a vastness in the thinking of the Church that is far, far far greater than your own opinions. And I do affirm that you validly hold your opinions; I do not affirm that Christianity is about having opinions and I do not affirm that Christianity is defined by your opinions.

When you make a claim that is contrary to the Scriptural record I just may something as I did in my prior post. Which means you can argue for a Bishop Ussher style 6 day creation all you want - it is wrong that is the only way to understand the Scriptural witness or the only view within Christianity, it is just one way and one view and that is your right in so many ways to your one view of the many within Christendom - but when a claim is made that the Scriptures say something that they do not say. I tend to respond, not as personal attack but as Scriptural defense in a religious forum.

God's blessings to you and someday you may think of me a wonderful cyber friend because if everything is considered in the light of Waldenstrom"s "where is it written" it will enhance anyone's faith.

By the way - your last statement in your post - "you do understand that right" is insulting and condescending and rude - it could be construed as a personal attack - and so off the mark.

Dolphan7
05-09-2008, 03:30 PM
You stated

There is much wrong theologically with that sentence that has nothing to do with John 1. Most of those are points of theology and Christology. Had theology and Christology (and ecclesiology for that matter) been the issues alone I would have said nothing.

The great Swedish pietist Paul Peter Waldonstrom was famous not only in Sweden (the Mission Covenant Society later Church) but as well in America for his profound influence on what became the Evangelical Covenant Church and the Evangelical Free Church in asking the question" where is it written? Waldenstrom launched the Bible-centric approach because he was tired of people adding to the Scriputres or falsely representing the Scriptures or claiming beliefs and statements as being in the Scriptures that are not there at all.

Waldenstrom is considered to be one of the great conservative Evangelical leaders. I revere him an evangelical and Biblical scholar (which includes his landmark work on the atonement, the most refreshing approach since Anselm).

Where is it written? By what Scriptural authority can you claim that "they just didn't call it that ["creation week"] until Christ actually lived with us."

The phrase "creation week" appears no where in the Scriptures. No where do Scriptures ever call anything "creation week" be it in the time of Christ or at any point in the Scriptures. Where is it written? No where.

You made a claim that is contrary to Scripture when you said they started calling something "creation week" during the time of Christ.

Whatever your beliefs are regarding creation/the origin of the known universe, you cannot Scripturally claim that in the time of Christ that anything was called "creation week."

Opinions on matters pertaining to creation differ widely amongst Christians. It troubles me greatly that you always present your views as the only Christian views. Your views are in fact a minority view within the Christian Church universal. I will not argue that point much but it does pain me that you present your views as being Truth and you reject anything as Truth that is not your opinion. I say this not as personal attack but as a legitimate response in a religion forum on religious matters. It is very unfair for you to characterize anything as a personal attack especially given what you just recently posted about the Roman Catholic Church. It is very unfair of you to throw your opinions around insulting others and then feel that a response is a personal attack. That is an odd way to attempt to stifle the conversation in a religion forum.

So it pains me when you present Christianity so narrowly. There is a vastness in the thinking of the Church that is far, far far greater than your own opinions. And I do affirm that you validly hold your opinions; I do not affirm that Christianity is about having opinions and I do not affirm that Christianity is defined by your opinions.

When you make a claim that is contrary to the Scriptural record I just may something as I did in my prior post. Which means you can argue for a Bishop Ussher style 6 day creation all you want - it is wrong that is the only way to understand the Scriptural witness or the only view within Christianity, it is just one way and one view and that is your right in so many ways to your one view of the many within Christendom - but when a claim is made that the Scriptures say something that they do not say. I tend to respond, not as personal attack but as Scriptural defense in a religious forum.

God's blessings to you and someday you may think of me a wonderful cyber friend because if everything is considered in the light of Waldenstrom"s "where is it written" it will enhance anyone's faith.

By the way - your last statement in your post - "you do understand that right" is insulting and condescending and rude - it could be construed as a personal attack - and so off the mark.Ok I only got through about half your post when I clearly see the confusion. You are hung up on my use of the words Creation Week. Let me rephrase what I actually said, but modified to highlight and clarify the misconception.

Christianity goes all the way back to creation week my friend, they just didn't call it [Christianity] until Christ actually lived with us.

The use of the term Creation Week is no where in scripture, nor did I ever imply that it was, and is used by modern creationists to refer to the Genesis account of the 6 days of creation, the very beginning of the Bible.

I hope this clears things up for you. :up:

Nappy Roots
05-09-2008, 06:46 PM
i know im late on this, but this is pretty stupid. you teach in school what we know to be the facts.

you let churches or whatever anyone attends teach them anything about religion.

cwsox
05-09-2008, 11:12 PM
Ok I only got through about half your post when I clearly see the confusion. You are hung up on my use of the words Creation Week. Let me rephrase what I actually said, but modified to highlight and clarify the misconception.

Christianity goes all the way back to creation week my friend, they just didn't call it [Christianity] until Christ actually lived with us.

The use of the term Creation Week is no where in scripture, nor did I ever imply that it was, and is used by modern creationists to refer to the Genesis account of the 6 days of creation, the very beginning of the Bible.

I hope this clears things up for you. :up:

since you continue into be insulting and condescending, as well as not take responsibility for what you post, Christianity does not go back to the origins of creation, nor even any time in the life of Christ. Christianity as a faith, religion, or whatever wants to call it, begins at the earliest at Pentecost.

I hoe that clears thing up for you. :up:

cwsox
05-09-2008, 11:16 PM
i know im late on this, but this is pretty stupid. you teach in school what we know to be the facts.

you let churches or whatever anyone attends teach them anything about religion.


Exactly. Science should be taught in schools. Religious beliefs should be taught at home or in the whatever private setting parents may choose.

The Bible teaches that matters of faith are to be taught at home.

The US Constitution requires the state not expend money on religious teaching.

Always very odd that we have so many anti Biblical anti US Constitution people running around who want their [odd] religious beliefs taught in the schools.

Dolphan7
05-10-2008, 01:01 AM
since you continue into be insulting and condescending, as well as not take responsibility for what you post, Christianity does not go back to the origins of creation, nor even any time in the life of Christ. Christianity as a faith, religion, or whatever wants to call it, begins at the earliest at Pentecost.

I hoe that clears thing up for you. :up:Maybe you aren't understanding what I mean. I'll try to clarify.

Christianity as a recognized religion named after Christ began in the first century as you state, and I alluded to that already, but it's origins and roots go all the way back to the very beginning. Jesus was with God during Creation. Christianity considers both the OT and the NT as god inspired scripture, telling the complete story of our need for salvation (OT) pointing to the promise of a savior, and our redemption in Jesus Christ (NT) the fullfilment of that promise. The OT, thus the beginning, is just as important to a Christian as the NT. Jesus died for all men, even those from the OT.

So the "name" came later, but the "belief and origin go back to the beginning.

Does that make it sound better to you?

CedarPhin
05-10-2008, 05:13 AM
i know im late on this, but this is pretty stupid. you teach in school what we know to be the facts.

you let churches or whatever anyone attends teach them anything about religion.

Agree 100%

Religion doesn't need, nor should it be taught in a science classroom. It's better served for being taught at home, or maybe in a Philosophy class, but it should not be taught in a Science classroom in a Public School.

Blackocrates
05-10-2008, 04:37 PM
Always very odd that we have so many anti Biblical anti US Constitution people running around who want their [odd] religious beliefs taught in the schools.

They're not patriotic, if they don't love the US or the Constitution they should just leave. :wink:

Dolphan7
05-10-2008, 05:26 PM
Agree 100%

Religion doesn't need, nor should it be taught in a science classroom. It's better served for being taught at home, or maybe in a Philosophy class, but it should not be taught in a Science classroom in a Public School.So we should just keep teaching a lie in order to keep any hint of other alternative views of our origins from our kids.

Dolphan7
05-10-2008, 05:42 PM
The issue isn't about teaching religion in science class. No one is suggesting that except those who oppose Intelligent Design Theory.

The fact is that the classrom textbooks are chock full of eroneous information that is being tought to children as truth, and instead of trying to continue promoting the unproven belief in Evolution, why not give our kids a logical alternative of our origins. Intelligent Design doesn't promote which Intelligence, it could be from some other higher intelligent life form from outspace for all it is concerned. That is for the kids to decide which Intelligence is behind our existance.

What is the fear? That our kids will be able to think on their own instead of being brainwashed by science and railroaded into only one point of view?

Many of you on this board are products of such deception, so convincing has been our wonderful education system in America, that you are completely emersed in this belief and willing to defend it even to death. You should pray that you are right, except that with Evolution there is no one or nothing to answer those prayers.

Blackocrates
05-10-2008, 06:18 PM
The issue isn't about teaching religion in science class. No one is suggesting that except those who oppose Intelligent Design Theory.



That's not true, check the first post.

CedarPhin
05-10-2008, 07:47 PM
So we should just keep teaching a lie in order to keep any hint of other alternative views of our origins from our kids.

LMAO. Dude, your act is hilarious. Keep it up. I love your condescending attitude.

How do we know that your God is not a lie? I don't mean disrespect to any of the posters here, but Evolution has proof, and you D7, well you have a book of stories.

ih8brady
05-10-2008, 10:38 PM
That's not true, check the first post.

Or the thread's title :d-day:

Flip Tanneflop
05-11-2008, 02:24 AM
Well this is an interesting event. I doubt it makes it all the way through though. But if it does - Good!

I mean why do we continue to teach lies to our children. Tell them all sides of the story and let them decide which one holds water.

Depends on what age. Young kids arent smart enough to mount any sophisticated argument for or against things.

Kindergarten kids believe in Santa for christ sakes. You can tell them anything and if you say it with a straight face they will believe you. Which is why religion likes to get em early. Seriously, if religion werent discussed in front of anyone younger than 18, who is gonna believe that bs?

So I say keep it out of schools, tell them all sides of the story after they get old enough, and THEN let them decide which one holds water.

Flip Tanneflop
05-11-2008, 02:36 AM
So we should just keep teaching a lie in order to keep any hint of other alternative views of our origins from our kids.

Oh bs. That religion bs is EVERYWHERE. We couldnt keep our kids from it if we tried. I dont think its so bad that we at least keep it OUT OF OUR SCHOOLS! If its government funded, leave the religion out.

Mike13
05-11-2008, 05:38 PM
Face it, evolution is dead in the water without a natural explanation to how life started on earth.

You can poke as many holes in the Christian creation story as you can with evolution you know.
and its ironic as Pagan said, as you fail to see that.

Dolphan7
05-12-2008, 01:11 PM
You can poke as many holes in the Christian creation story as you can with evolution you know.
and its ironic as Pagan said, as you fail to see that.No I don't fail to see that. I understand that if ones bias is bent in a particular direction, then it will be harder for that person to comprehend another viewpoint. Face it....many posters on here do not believe in Christianity and so they automatically dismiss it.

If they are mutually exclusive, and evolution has not been proven, then that leaves ...what?

Here is the world view..."We can't believe Christianity is true, therefore we must continue to search out other alternatives of our existance, and we must cling to whatever we can in hopes that one day science will find the answers."

That isn't science, that is belief.

Dolphan7
05-12-2008, 01:22 PM
Depends on what age. Young kids arent smart enough to mount any sophisticated argument for or against things.

Kindergarten kids believe in Santa for christ sakes. You can tell them anything and if you say it with a straight face they will believe you. Which is why religion likes to get em early. Seriously, if religion werent discussed in front of anyone younger than 18, who is gonna believe that bs?

So I say keep it out of schools, tell them all sides of the story after they get old enough, and THEN let them decide which one holds water.I would suggest Jr high and Sr High. Whenever they start passing out those erroneous textbooks.

Tetragrammaton
05-12-2008, 09:28 PM
"We can't believe Christianity is true, therefore we must continue to search out other alternatives of our existance, and we must cling to whatever we can in hopes that one day science will find the answers."

That isn't science, that is belief.

That isn't science, and that isn't how it is done.

Everything has to pass through the scientific method. The idea of a world being six thousand years old fails, so it is discarded.

Science wants to understand why and how things are. They have to discover and then come to a conclusion, not vice versa. Evolution did not come before evidence of evolution.

Dolphan7
05-13-2008, 01:11 PM
That isn't science, and that isn't how it is done.

Everything has to pass through the scientific method. The idea of a world being six thousand years old fails, so it is discarded.

Science wants to understand why and how things are. They have to discover and then come to a conclusion, not vice versa. Evolution did not come before evidence of evolution.
I would argue in response that the theory of evolution was first, and that all science since then is bent to try to "fit" the evidence into the theory. Think about that for a minute.

Darwin saw some finches, came up with a theory, and stated that further evidence found should provide support for his theory. That is the complete opposite of what you stated.

Also consider the dark side of Darwins book Origin of the Species. Are you aware of it's original complete title and it's ramifications to slavery?

And just for the record, again, I don't hold to a 6000 year old earth, and the bible isn't clear on that either. But I believe it is thousands, not billions.

ih8brady
05-13-2008, 01:28 PM
I would argue in response that the theory of evolution was first, and that all science since then is bent to try to "fit" the evidence into the theory. Think about that for a minute.

Darwin saw some finches, came up with a theory, and stated that further evidence found should provide support for his theory. That is the complete opposite of what you stated.

Also consider the dark side of Darwins book Origin of the Species. Are you aware of it's original complete title and it's ramifications to slavery?

And just for the record, again, I don't hold to a 6000 year old earth, and the bible isn't clear on that either. But I believe it is thousands, not billions.


Oh, that makes it logical. :sidelol:

Dolphan7
05-13-2008, 02:56 PM
Oh, that makes it logical. :sidelol:Yeah I know, and those who believe in billions and billions........(slap knee) just too darn funny we all are huh? :sidelol:

Flip Tanneflop
05-13-2008, 08:46 PM
Yeah I know, and those who believe in billions and billions........(slap knee) just too darn funny we all are huh? :sidelol:

Its been proven scientifically......you know with physical evidence, that the earth is billions of years old.

Dolphan7
05-13-2008, 09:10 PM
Its been proven scientifically......you know with physical evidence, that the earth is billions of years old.Yes I know. Science says so....I get it.

Keep up the faith brother.

This will be something we will have to agree to disagree on.

Have you actually researched just what is involved in any of the dating methods in use today?

Tetragrammaton
05-13-2008, 11:05 PM
I would argue in response that the theory of evolution was first, and that all science since then is bent to try to "fit" the evidence into the theory. Think about that for a minute.

Darwin saw some finches, came up with a theory, and stated that further evidence found should provide support for his theory. That is the complete opposite of what you stated.

Also consider the dark side of Darwins book Origin of the Species. Are you aware of it's original complete title and it's ramifications to slavery?

And just for the record, again, I don't hold to a 6000 year old earth, and the bible isn't clear on that either. But I believe it is thousands, not billions.

I am curious as to why everyone is fascinated with Darwin.

In the movie "Expelled", Ben Stein referred to evolution as Darwinism, as if nothing has changed since then. Science has proven many parts of Darwin's theories wrong, and thus discarded his ideas.

Darwin's racism is about as important as Washington's slave-owning. Both are wrong, but you look at the accomplishments.

Dolphan7
05-14-2008, 03:52 PM
I am curious as to why everyone is fascinated with Darwin.

In the movie "Expelled", Ben Stein referred to evolution as Darwinism, as if nothing has changed since then. Science has proven many parts of Darwin's theories wrong, and thus discarded his ideas.

Darwin's racism is about as important as Washington's slave-owning. Both are wrong, but you look at the accomplishments.
If science has discarded Darwin's theories, why are we still teaching Darwin, and many other false doctrines, to our kids?

This is the issue I have - teaching false beliefs to our kids as truth, and not only truth but unquestionable truth. I though science was about questioning and discovery?

I read an interesting quote from a chinese scientist, who challenged evolution to the amazement of his american colleagues.

It goes something like this:

In my country you can question evolution, but not the government.
In your country you can question the government, but not evolution.

I think Ben Steins Movie shows the collusion involved.

Bumpus
05-15-2008, 11:31 AM
No I don't fail to see that. I understand that if ones bias is bent in a particular direction, then it will be harder for that person to comprehend another viewpoint. Face it....many posters on here do not believe in Christianity and so they automatically dismiss it.

If they are mutually exclusive, and evolution has not been proven, then that leaves ...what?

Here is the world view..."We can't believe Christianity is true, therefore we must continue to search out other alternatives of our existance, and we must cling to whatever we can in hopes that one day science will find the answers."

That isn't science, that is belief.

STFU already!

Religion has no business even being discussed in the same breath as Science. Science attempts to use reason and logic to understand the world. Religion simply says this is the way it is because we say so. Religion offers ZERO proof of anything, and your arguments are complete BS.

Don't like evolution? Fine. Don't want to pull your head out of the sand long enough to realize that you are promoting ideas based on blind faith instead of reason or logic? Fine. Don't want your kids being exposed to "lies" that contradict your beliefs? Fine. Don't send 'em to public school - send 'em to private school ... trust me, that'll be just fine with the rest of us.

poornate
05-15-2008, 01:55 PM
Christianity goes all the way back to creation week my friend, they just didn't call it that until Christ actually lived with us. But that is a minor point anyway.



I had to back track a long way to get to this... I am talking about historical Christianity... not what you believe... The flood is in Native American, Chinese, African, etc. myths for as far back as we have records.... I don't see the connect?

ih8brady
05-15-2008, 01:58 PM
STFU already!

Religion has no business even being discussed in the same breath as Science. Science attempts to use reason and logic to understand the world. Religion simply says this is the way it is because we say so. Religion offers ZERO proof of anything, and your arguments are complete BS.

Don't like evolution? Fine. Don't want to pull your head out of the sand long enough to realize that you are promoting ideas based on blind faith instead of reason or logic? Fine. Don't want your kids being exposed to "lies" that contradict your beliefs? Fine. Don't send 'em to public school - send 'em to private school ... trust me, that'll be just fine with the rest of us.


Thank you, the paralogical hate-science-fest by this non-scientist with such great knowledge of the world :rolleyes: is completely annoying and irrelevant to the original news item.