PDA

View Full Version : Teaching Evolution in Kansas


Pages : [1] 2

Herzig
03-08-2005, 12:45 PM
And I thought Arkansas was backward...



Posted on Tue, Mar. 08, 2005



Evolution hearings advance in Kansas

By DAVID KLEPPER
The Kansas City Star

TOPEKA — State school board members moved ahead Monday with plans for courtroom-style hearings on the teaching of evolution, even as critics called on scientists to boycott the proceedings.

A three-member subcommittee of the Board of Education set tentative dates — May 5-7 and 12-14 — for the hearings, which will feature proponents and critics of evolution.

The three board members say they have concerns about whether alternatives to the theory, or at least criticism of it, is included in science curriculum. They say the hearings will help them and the public to resolve the controversy, and won't be a reprisal of the 1925 Scopes “Monkey” trial, in which criminal charges were brought against a teacher who taught evolution.

“That was a trial,” said board Chairman Steve Abrams, who led the three-member science standards subcommittee. “These are hearings,” designed to “get to the bottom of a great controversy.”

But it may prove difficult to find anyone to speak for the science community. Kansas Citizens for Science is asking scientists not to participate. Critics say the panel has made up its mind and any scientist who defends evolution will be doing so before a rigged jury. They fear the hearings will generate negative national attention at the expense of Kansas' reputation for academics and research.

Harry McDonald, of Kansas Citizens for Science, called the hearings “a charade” and said “scientists, not fake scientists, fight their battles in the science community.”

The panel discussed the hearings for weeks before formally endorsing the plan Monday. Last week, the panel suggested accepting written testimony instead of oral hearings. In the end, however, Abrams said oral hearings will be more educational. After the hearings, the subcommittee will report to the full school board, which will vote on any curriculum changes.

Abrams said he would like to hold the hearings in Topeka. The public is encouraged to attend, but will not be allowed to speak. He said he wants to find a location that could accommodate as many as 300 people.

In 1999, the school board voted to de-emphasize the teaching of evolution. That move attracted national attention and was reversed when voters elected new school board members.

Steve Case, a University of Kansas professor of science education who is co-chairman of the state's 26-member science curriculum committee, said the hearings may generate just as much attention. Case has decided not to participate in the debate.

“I don't think Dayton, Tennessee, has recovered from the first Scopes trial yet,” Case said.

To reach David Klepper, send e-mail to dklepper@kcstar.com or call 1-(785) 354-1388.

the Talking Can
03-08-2005, 12:50 PM
you can thank right-wing nut jobs for this....

Lzen
03-08-2005, 12:52 PM
Published Tuesday, March 8, 2005

Evolution debates planned

Hearings in May will address state's science teachings

By Barbara Hollingsworth
The Capital-Journal

Conservatives on the Kansas State Board of Education want scientists to debate whether the state's science standards comply with an aspect of the No Child Left Behind Act.

The problem, critics say, is that what conservatives have laid out didn't make it into the federal law.

"Here we are implying that the federal government says we should do this, and that is not correct," said Harry McDonald, president of Kansas Citizens for Science.

The conservative subcommittee of the state board met Monday to plan six days of hearings on evolution -- May 5, 6 and 7 and May 12, 13 and 14. The hearings' location hasn't been determined. During the hearings, opposing sides will be able to testify and cross-examine each other.

The topic is whether the state's science standards meet the intent of a statement that was part of the debates when federal lawmakers crafted the No Child Left Behind Act. That statement says, in part, "Where topics are taught that may guarantee controversy (such as biological evolution) the curriculum should help students understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society."

That amendment, proposed by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., was initially approved by the U.S. Senate and is part of a conference committee report. But the amendment isn't federal law.

John Calvert, managing director of the Overland Park-based Intelligent Design network, says the amendment still carries weight. As part of the conference committee report, he said, it could provide guidance to those interpreting the federal law. Plus, he said, it just makes sense.

"Is it absolutely, essentially required? I don't think so," Calvert said Monday. "But I do think what is required by No Child Left Behind and, I think, actually by the Constitution is that the science standards be secular, neutral and nonideological."

Calvert and other proponents of intelligent design view the current teaching of evolution as a sort of religion. Opponents say intelligent design and creationism are attempts to insert religion into science courses.

Intelligent design is the idea that life is too complicated to have been created by chance happenings and was more likely guided by an intelligent being. Evolution says species change over time, responding to genetic and environmental factors.

Monday's debate -- one day before the full state board meets -- was a full turn from talks last week. Facing criticism that the hearings would resemble a remake of the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, subcommittee members last week agreed the debate could be completed in writing.

After Monday's meeting, state board chairman Steve Abrams said allowing each side to question the other would allow for greater understanding. He brushed aside concerns that the hearings would resemble a modern-day Scopes trial.

"That was a trial," said Abrams, of Arkansas City. "These are hearings and as such what we are trying to do is get to the bottom of an understanding of a great controversy."

Abrams will be joined by fellow subcommittee members Connie Morris, of St. Francis, and Kathy Martin, of Clay Center, in overseeing the hearings. The three are part of a 6-4 conservative majority on the state board.

Another committee, the Science Standards Writing Committee, continues its work on revising the state science standards. That committee already has rejected changes critical of evolution that were brought forward by members recommended to the group by conservative state board members.

The chairman of the Science Standards Writing Committee, Steve Case, said he won't participate in the hearings. However, the conservative subcommittee plans to look to members of Case's committee to choose experts who can debate at the hearings.

In a letter stating his group's position, Kansas Citizens for Science's McDonald urged "the entire science education community of Kansas to refuse to participate in this fiasco."

McDonald said the effort is an attempt to add to science classes concepts that haven't been accepted by the scientific community, and he said the hearings are rigged.

After the meeting, Abrams denied that the hearings' results are predetermined. But in their discussions, Morris and Martin expressed interest in teaching a wide range of views.

"This is the crux of my concern, that students are simply given the opportunity to be exposed to all of the information and be able to weigh against their own opinions and beliefs and teaching from home," Martin said.

Barbara Hollingsworth can be reached at (785) 295-1285 or barbara.hollingsworth@cjonline.com.

Link (http://www.cjonline.com/stories/030805/kan_evolutiondebate.shtml)

Lzen
03-08-2005, 12:54 PM
Frankly, I don't care that they teach evolution. But at the same time, it's just a theory. And the theory is always changing when they find things wrong with it, which happens more than you may think. And people who think that believing in intelligent design is stupid or crazy are just arrogant people.. In reality, neither you nor I can say for sure which is true because nobody was there at the beginning.

The only thing we can do is theorize. But as much as you think creation is nutty, I can point out several major flaws in evolution.

Cochise
03-08-2005, 12:59 PM
God (no pun intended) forbid they put both ideas on equal footing and let students decide for themselves.

Herzig
03-08-2005, 01:18 PM
Frankly, I don't care that they teach evolution. But at the same time, it's just a theory. And the theory is always changing when they find things wrong with it, which happens more than you may think. And people who think that believing in intelligent design is stupid or crazy are just arrogant people.. In reality, neither you nor I can say for sure which is true because nobody was there at the beginning.

The only thing we can do is theorize. But as much as you think creation is nutty, I can point out several major flaws in evolution.

People get too bent out of shape over evolution. Evolution is a fact, not a theory. People who disagree with evolution, do not understand the concept of it. I do not view evolution as a contradiction to my religous beliefs not does the Catholic Church(in fact they are pretty progressive on the subject as far as Christian religions go).

Evolution is simply the changing and mutation of genetic traits over time. How one could even begin to teach any biology or science class without teaching any evolution is a crime. It is in the United States national frameworks and standards for science.

Donger
03-08-2005, 01:25 PM
People get too bent out of shape over evolution. Evolution is a fact, not a theory. People who disagree with evolution, do not understand the concept of it. I do not view evolution as a contradiction to my religous beliefs not does the Catholic Church(in fact they are pretty progressive on the subject as far as Christian religions go).

Evolution is simply the changing and mutation of genetic traits over time. How one could even begin to teach any biology or science class without teaching any evolution is a crime. It is in the United States national frameworks and standards for science.

Unless I'm mistaken, the folks that are opposed to teaching evolution are opposed to teachers stating that it is a fact that human beings evolved from other primates, not that evolution doesn't exist.

el borracho
03-08-2005, 01:30 PM
God (no pun intended) forbid they put both ideas on equal footing and let students decide for themselves.
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of the universe. The big bang theory does that. The theory of evolution explains a process wherein nature selectively favors certain traits and these favorable traits eventually become standard feature on successful species. I don't see the theory of evolution as contradictory to the creationist view.

mikey23545
03-08-2005, 01:33 PM
I can see how the residents of Kansas have trouble believing evolution ever happened when they took a look at themselvses...

Dave Lane
03-08-2005, 01:53 PM
Frankly, I don't care that they teach evolution. But at the same time, it's just a theory. And the theory is always changing when they find things wrong with it, which happens more than you may think. And people who think that believing in intelligent design is stupid or crazy are just arrogant people.. In reality, neither you nor I can say for sure which is true because nobody was there at the beginning.

The only thing we can do is theorize. But as much as you think creation is nutty, I can point out several major flaws in evolution.

OK go ahead.

Dave

jarjar
03-08-2005, 02:16 PM
This whole situation is an embarassment to the state of Kansas. But anyway...


Frankly, I don't care that they teach evolution. But at the same time, it's just a theory.



There is that 'theory' word. The problem seems to be that a lot of people are confusing the word theory with hypothesis. I could spend a lot of time explaining the difference but I think the easiest thing to do is to point out that there is also a "Theory of Gravity", which is somewhat similar to the Theory of Evolution as far as conensus in the scientific community.

Wrasse
03-08-2005, 02:52 PM
OK go ahead.

Dave
HEY! The Chiefs signed Bell!!!!! Woot!


** attempts to hijack the thread before we get into another evolution vs creationism debate **

Pants
03-08-2005, 02:54 PM
Unless I'm mistaken, the folks that are opposed to teaching evolution are opposed to teachers stating that it is a fact that human beings evolved from other primates, not that evolution doesn't exist.

No, we actually evolved from single cell organisms, which came about from non-living things. Weird, huh? The thing is, we keep finding evidence for evolution, but with creationism - there is none. I'm too embarassed of the whole notion.

Cochise
03-08-2005, 02:54 PM
OK go ahead.

Dave

I have a hard time accepting it because it suggests that the universe tends toward increasing order when entropy and what I was taught about it in the laws of themodynamics dictate otherwise.

It also never adequately explained other things to me such how life rose from non-life, and where the space and matter the universe formed in came from. Especially the former, until it can explain that I will think it dubious.

I believe in adaptation and changes within a species, intra-evolution within a species I guess it could be called, it's just the whole change of one species to an entirely new one that I don't see.

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 02:54 PM
Which version of evolution are we talking about?

The one where the dinosaurs died off, the one where the dinosaurs turned into birds, or some other new theory that has yet to cross the study table.

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 03:07 PM
No, we actually evolved from single cell organisms, which came about from non-living things. Weird, huh? The thing is, we keep finding evidence for evolution, but with creationism - there is none. I'm too embarassed of the whole notion.
Really? So one cell decided to become a fish and another decided to stay a single cell? And there is proof of this?

skye22f
03-08-2005, 04:19 PM
I have a hard time accepting it because it suggests that the universe tends toward increasing order when entropy and what I was taught about it in the laws of themodynamics dictate otherwise.

Then you don't understand the laws of thermodynamics or entropy, I'm sorry.


It also never adequately explained other things to me such how life rose from non-life, and where the space and matter the universe formed in came from. Especially the former, until it can explain that I will think it dubious.

WRONG. Evolution is not a theory of everything. It explains the origins of species, not origins of life and the universe. This is another common misconception held by the uneducated....

skye22f
03-08-2005, 04:25 PM
Really? So one cell decided to become a fish and another decided to stay a single cell? And there is proof of this?

That's not what evolution says. You are fighting a strawman.

Evolution, does, however, make testable predictions- if it fails any of these tests the theory is falsified and thrown out. "Intelligent design" makes no testable predictions- it's unfalsifiable- ergo it is NOT science and does not belong in science class.

<a href='http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=85090&page=1&pp=25'>Here is a neat prediction that evolution made that tested out well</a>..

<a href='http://www.christianforums.com/t1154974-human-endogenous-retroviral-insertions-and-hominid-evolution.html'>Endogenous retroviruses are something else that cannot be explained in the absence of primate->human evolution</a>

headsnap
03-08-2005, 04:25 PM
This is another common misconception held by the uneducated....
well, aren't we the elitist! :rolleyes:

Pitt Gorilla
03-08-2005, 04:26 PM
I can see how the residents of Kansas have trouble believing evolution ever happened when they took a look at themselvses... ROFL Damn, that was funny (and I grew up in KS).

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 04:27 PM
Then you don't understand the laws of thermodynamics or entropy, I'm sorry.



WRONG. Evolution is not a theory of everything. It explains the origins of species, not origins of life and the universe. This is another common misconception held by the uneducated....
Which species? Origin from what?

skye22f
03-08-2005, 04:28 PM
Which version of evolution are we talking about?

The one where the dinosaurs died off, the one where the dinosaurs turned into birds, or some other new theory that has yet to cross the study table.

I think you need to go learn about the subject before you run your mouth off at strawmen and look like an idiot. Dinosaurs dying off doesn't have a whole lot to do with evolution, and yes some dinosaurs did evolve into birds. Are you claiming that there is no evidence of that?

skye22f
03-08-2005, 04:29 PM
well, aren't we the elitist! :rolleyes:

It's obvious that the guy hadn't studied the subject. Don't shoot the messenger on that one.

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 04:31 PM
That's not what evolution says. You are fighting a strawman.

Evolution, does, however, make testable predictions- if it fails any of these tests the theory is falsified and thrown out. "Intelligent design" makes no testable predictions- it's unfalsifiable- ergo it is NOT science and does not belong in science class.

<a href='http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=85090&page=1&pp=25'>Here is a neat prediction that evolution made that tested out well</a>..

<a href='http://www.christianforums.com/t1154974-human-endogenous-retroviral-insertions-and-hominid-evolution.html'>Endogenous retroviruses are something else that cannot be explained in the absence of primate->human evolution</a>
Actually, it raises more questions than it solves, doesn't it?

Why didn't all chimps DNA fuse from 24 to 23? Where is the prove that the fusing occurred? What caused the fusing?

Your link is just a bunch of hypothesis without fact, isn't it?

skye22f
03-08-2005, 04:32 PM
Which species? Origin from what?

If you really don't know, you should shut your mouth and go study it before making these pronouncements that you somehow know more in your total ignorance than guys that have made studying this subject their life's work.

Cochise
03-08-2005, 04:32 PM
well, aren't we the elitist! :rolleyes:

Yeah, it's obvious who the arrogant and close-minded one here is. His is the only position a sane person can arrive at. The only way anyone could hold a different opinion than his would be to be a moron.

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 04:32 PM
It's obvious that the guy hadn't studied the subject. Don't shoot the messenger on that one.
Not at all. There are a great many educated people (I personally know of a medical physician locally) who not only refute the theory of evolution as it currently exists, but do so with educated information.

Brock
03-08-2005, 04:34 PM
If you really don't know, you should shut your mouth and go study it before making these pronouncements that you somehow know more in your total ignorance than guys that have made studying this subject their life's work.

Wow, you showed him.

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 04:34 PM
I think you need to go learn about the subject before you run your mouth off at strawmen and look like an idiot. Dinosaurs dying off doesn't have a whole lot to do with evolution, and yes some dinosaurs did evolve into birds. Are you claiming that there is no evidence of that?
What is your belligerent attitude? Do you normally take such a stance when your arguments don't pan out?

No, I am stating I was taught evolution 20 years ago as an entirely different premise than it was is taught today. As a standing "theory" one would not think the rules change so easily. After all, gravity's theory is still the same from 20 years ago.

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 04:35 PM
If you really don't know, you should shut your mouth and go study it before making these pronouncements that you somehow know more in your total ignorance than guys that have made studying this subject their life's work.
So, you are saying you don't know the answer? Or you are an elitist snob who doesn't care to educate others, only berate them?

Cochise
03-08-2005, 04:35 PM
Wow, you showed him.

Yes, I've also heard the old "flies with vinegar" approach is best.

Donger
03-08-2005, 04:35 PM
No, we actually evolved from single cell organisms, which came about from non-living things.

I'm assuming that, sans evidence of this assertion, you are stating your opinion.

skye22f
03-08-2005, 04:38 PM
Actually, it raises more questions than it solves, doesn't it?

Why didn't all chimps DNA fuse from 24 to 23? Where is the prove that the fusing occurred? What caused the fusing?

Your link is just a bunch of hypothesis without fact, isn't it?

Hahhahaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah

It's a prediction that evolution made that was shown to be true.

We did NOT come from chimps but we do share a common ancestor. They have 24 chromosomes, we have 23.

Somewhere along the line from common ancestor to us, that changed. Not from common ancestor to chimp. Common ancestor had 24 chromosomes. They know that if we did share a common ancestor and these 2 chromosomes fused THEN..

<i>1) One of our chromosomes would look like two of the chimp chromosomes stuck together.
2) This same chromosome would have an extra sequence in it that looked like a centromere. Centromeres are the things in the middle that microtubules grab onto to divide a pair of chromosomes during mitosis.
3) It would also have telomeres (ends) but in the middle - and they would be in reverse order. </i>

Pretty bold prediction. Guess what? It was later shown to be true.

Intelligent design does NOT make any testable predictions, therefore it is NOT science. Evolution makes a million, and it hasn't been falsified yet.

It doesn't matter either way, because you have you mind dead set on ignoring all evidence that goes against your primitive worldview and you aren't even going to try and understand anything about the subject. You don't know anything and you don't want to know anything so trying to educate you in this area is pointless and a waste of time.

Cochise
03-08-2005, 04:38 PM
No, we actually evolved from single cell organisms, which came about from non-living things.

Yeeeahh... so how exactly does some non-living goop turn into a living organism then...?

Brock
03-08-2005, 04:40 PM
Intelligent design does NOT make any testable predictions, therefore it is NOT science. Evolution makes a million, and it hasn't been falsified yet.

Numerologists everywhere can breathe a sigh of relief.

skye22f
03-08-2005, 04:42 PM
Yeeeahh... so how exactly does some non-living goop turn into a living organism then...?

That is of no concern to evolution.

Go look into abiogenesis.

Let's say that Jebus did it to keep the Kansans happy.

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 04:43 PM
Hahhahaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah

It's a prediction that evolution made that was shown to be true.

We did NOT come from chimps but we do share a common ancestor. They have 24 chromosomes, we have 23.

Somewhere along the line from common ancestor to us, that changed. Not from common ancestor to chimp. Common ancestor had 24 chromosomes. They know that if we did share a common ancestor and these 2 chromosomes fused THEN..

<i>1) One of our chromosomes would look like two of the chimp chromosomes stuck together.
2) This same chromosome would have an extra sequence in it that looked like a centromere. Centromeres are the things in the middle that microtubules grab onto to divide a pair of chromosomes during mitosis.
3) It would also have telomeres (ends) but in the middle - and they would be in reverse order. </i>

Pretty bold prediction. Guess what? It was later shown to be true.

Intelligent design does NOT make any testable predictions, therefore it is NOT science. Evolution makes a million, and it hasn't been falsified yet.

It doesn't matter either way, because you have you mind dead set on ignoring all evidence that goes against your primitive worldview and you aren't even going to try and understand anything about the subject. You don't know anything and you don't want to know anything so trying to educate you in this area is pointless and a waste of time.
#1. First of all, evolution didn't make a prediction. Your statement from one who is supposedly versed in the sciences shows your own ignorance. Evolution is not a person, and personifying your response to to the science instead of the author's attributed to the work shows your own inability to dip into the big pool, doesn't it?

#2. In all your laughter and pop culture derision, you still didn't answer my question. In fact, you deliberately dodged it because "I don't know" is a sinful phrase from your ilk unlike true intelligence in the sciences. Why did our DNA fuse and the chimps didn't?

Boozer
03-08-2005, 04:44 PM
The theory of evolution clearly has flaws. That's why our public schools should also teach our children that human beings came from the fleas on Pan Gu's body. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Gu

Donger
03-08-2005, 04:45 PM
That is of no concern to evolution.

Go look into abiogenesis.

Let's say that Jebus did it to keep the Kansans happy.

Simple question skye: Is there irrefutable proof that mankind evolved from a previous lower-level lifeform?

Yes or no?

Cochise
03-08-2005, 04:46 PM
That is of no concern to evolution.

Go look into abiogenesis.

Let's say that Jebus did it to keep the Kansans happy.

I wasn't speaking to you, I was responding to Metro's statement, but I appreciate you drawing the boundary lines around what you can't explain.

But for your theory to be correct, it's presuppositions have to be correct. If you are saying evolution says nothing about the origin of species (which I find fairly ironic), then where did the existing species come from?

C-Mac
03-08-2005, 04:46 PM
How could evolutionists explain the huge increase in homosexuality?
The end result of "un-natural" selection would actually spell the end to the species.

skye22f
03-08-2005, 04:47 PM
Again, why did the DNA fuse for us and not the chimp? In all your laughter and derision, you ignorantly forgot to answer the question, didn't you?

No, I explained that.

I'll draw it out for you but it won't make any difference.

Long ago we branched away from chimps.

Common Ancestor
| |
Chimp Ancestor A Human Ancestor A
| |
Chimp Ancestor B Human Ancestor B (CHROMOSOMES
| FUSE HERE
Chimp |
Human

I don't know if that will render right, but you should get the idea if you look at my previous post. Pretend human and chimp share the same evolutionary grandfather, the fusion happened to our dad on our side of the family, not on the other side. Noticing that difference led to the prediction.

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 04:49 PM
No, I explained that.

I'll draw it out for you but it won't make any difference.

Long ago we branched away from chimps.

Common Ancestor
| |
Chimp Ancestor A Human Ancestor A
| |
Chimp Ancestor B Human Ancestor B (CHROMOSOMES
| FUSE HERE
Chimp |
Human

I don't know if that will render right, but you should get the idea if you look at my previous post. Pretend human and chimp share the same evolutionary grandfather, the fusion happened to our dad on our side of the family, not on the other side. Noticing that difference led to the prediction.
Again, I will type slowly.


WHY DID THE DNA OF HUMANS FUSE AND CHIMPS DID NOT?

No, you didn't answer the question at all, you just keep rambling in an attempt to deflect from your ignorance on the topic.

skye22f
03-08-2005, 04:49 PM
What is your belligerent attitude? Do you normally take such a stance when your arguments don't pan out?


I find willful ignorance disgusting.


No, I am stating I was taught evolution 20 years ago as an entirely different premise than it was is taught today. As a standing "theory" one would not think the rules change so easily. After all, gravity's theory is still the same from 20 years ago.

In the last 20 years the theory of evolution really has not changed at all. I'd be interested in what you think has changed.

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 04:50 PM
That is of no concern to evolution.

Go look into abiogenesis.

Let's say that Jebus did it to keep the Kansans happy.
Ahh, the "let's insult religion if we can't refute the statement". Funny that no one mentioned Christianity before your statement. I guess we found your sore spot pretty quickly, eh?

Boozer
03-08-2005, 04:51 PM
I find willful ignorance disgusting.


You know what I find disgusting? The fact that schools refuse to teach "Pan Gu design" alongside or instead of evolution.

skye22f
03-08-2005, 04:52 PM
Simple question skye: Is there irrefutable proof that mankind evolved from a previous lower-level lifeform?

Yes or no?

Yes. The evidence for common descent is overwhelming. Look into the fossil record, genetics, endogenous retroviruses (interesting link I put up here earlier, population genetics ... etc)

That said, science isn't about proving things it's about trying to disprove things- the most science really has to say about any theory is that it hasn't falsified it through its testable predictions.

skye22f
03-08-2005, 04:53 PM
Again, I will type slowly.

WHY DID THE DNA OF HUMANS FUSE AND CHIMPS DID NOT?

No, you didn't answer the question at all, you just keep rambling in an attempt to deflect from your ignorance on the topic.

ITS CALLED A MUTATION, ID SUGGEST THAT YOU LOOK INTO IT.

THE MUTATION HAPPENED ON OUR SIDE OF THE EVOLUTIONARY FAMILY TREE, NOT THEIRS.

Cochise
03-08-2005, 04:54 PM
The theory of evolution clearly has flaws. That's why our public schools should also teach our children that human beings came from the fleas on Pan Gu's body. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Gu

In a classroom environment, you are always going to be summarizing and condensing. You can't tell everyone in the world's side all the time. But when you basically have two explainations and everyone subscribes to one or the other more or less, that is worth mentioning.

History classes cover both viewpoints in the civil war. They cover more than one viewpoint on Vietnam. Science classes now will even give you alternate work if you don't want to dissect animals.

For an educational system supposedly committed to tolorance, diversity of belief, and a plurality of opinion, they sure seem determined to censor and ban the opinon of about half the country.

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 04:55 PM
I find willful ignorance disgusting.



In the last 20 years the theory of evolution really has not changed at all. I'd be interested in what you think has changed.
How ironic that the two statements above are in the same post from the same author.

Richard Lenski (noted Ph.D. in Microbiology, Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the Hannah Professor of Microbial Ecology at Michigan State University) Like every other science, there is scientific debate about some aspects of evolution, and the theory itself will evolve as it has since derived from Charles Darwin's Natural Selection in the latter 19th century

So do you find your own ignorance disgusting?

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 04:56 PM
ITS CALLED A MUTATION, ID SUGGEST THAT YOU LOOK INTO IT.

THE MUTATION HAPPENED ON OUR SIDE OF THE EVOLUTIONARY FAMILY TREE, NOT THEIRS.
Cool, now for the 5th time - WHY DID IT HAPPEN TO HUMANS AND NOT CHIMPS?

One would think that someone as intelligent as yourself could answer such a simple question.

skye22f
03-08-2005, 04:56 PM
Ahh, the "let's insult religion if we can't refute the statement". Funny that no one mentioned Christianity before your statement. I guess we found your sore spot pretty quickly, eh?

Which groups are behind intelligent design and against evolution:

1) Christians- 99% - believe in Jebus.
2) Raliens- 1% - believe in aliens.

That's really about it. The funny thing is, though, that all of these groups pushing ID/Anti-evolution have to resort to lies, misrepresentations and oft-refuted arguments (see Kent Hovind, AIG, ICR, Michael Behe).... I thought that Bible book said something about that whole bearing false witness thing.

Donger
03-08-2005, 04:56 PM
Yes. The evidence for common descent is overwhelming. Look into the fossil record, genetics, endogenous retroviruses (interesting link I put up here earlier, population genetics ... etc)

Yes? As in there is irrefutable proof and just a lot of evidence?

Surely if there were irrefutable evidence that humans truly did evolve from a lower-level life form, it might make a few headlines.

I've yet to see that.

Don't get me wrong; you may well be correct. But if the irrefutable proof are the examples you just cited, not much has changed since I asked the very same question of ten years ago while in school.

blsilks
03-08-2005, 04:57 PM
I think its ok to teach what science will work to back up and you can take that however you want to.

skye22f
03-08-2005, 04:59 PM
Cool, now for the 5th time - WHY DID IT HAPPEN TO HUMANS AND NOT CHIMPS?

Mutations happen. Things don't always copy perfectly. If you don't understand the concept of a mutation, you might need to study a little harder and learn more about the subject.

Herzig
03-08-2005, 04:59 PM
Scientific theory operates on Geologic Time, not human constructs. Not downing the construct, but in order to effectively teach science, any science, you can breeze by evolutionary principles. No they do not have to be a separate lesson, I venture to say, it should be well blended into most concepts dealing with life and geologic processes.
In order to teach you must pass the Praxis. The following links will show you the break down of the questions on the Praxis tests, note how many questions pertain to evolution:

Biology Content Knowledge
http://ftp.ets.org/pub/tandl/0235.pdf
Earth Science Content Knowledge(Earth History)
http://ftp.ets.org/pub/tandl/0571.pdf

The NSTA's Rationale for why we teach what we teach and the goals involved (STANDARDS)
http://books.nap.edu/html/nses/6a.html

The State of Arkansas's guide for curriculum design
http://arkedu.state.ar.us/curriculum/pdf/science_frameworks2_27_01.pdf

My Point? There is an underlying expectation of uniformity in science education. If the testing entity, our own peers and our government can agree on the importance of presenting a subject to all students, then it seems like the subject should be deemed worthy of mention and exploration in the classroom.

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 04:59 PM
Which groups are behind intelligent design and against evolution:

1) Christians- 99% - believe in Jebus.
2) Raliens- 1% - believe in aliens.

That's really about it. The funny thing is, though, that all of these groups pushing ID/Anti-evolution have to resort to lies, misrepresentations and oft-refuted arguments (see Kent Hovind, AIG, ICR, Michael Behe).... I thought that Bible book said something about that whole bearing false witness thing.
For someone based solely in "facts" you sure took a huge leap of faith on your ascertation of this thread, didn't you?

I didn't mention anything about creationism, Christianity, or the Bible.

Perhaps you need to work on that fact thingy more before you start berating others intelligence, okay?

C-Mac
03-08-2005, 05:01 PM
Herzig............just look what you've done!
I dont agree that evolution is fact, but this thread is evolving quickly into the typical science\religion war of words thread..............I hope your happy!

:D

the Talking Can
03-08-2005, 05:01 PM
the most science really has to say about any theory is that it hasn't falsified it through its testable predictions.

and this is the point missed by the flat-earthers...science is about the verifiability of hypotheses, its about a process....Religion is about people forming small groups to protect suspect claims from rational examination...

but it has been fun watching a noob literally "school" a bunch of right wing nutbags...Science classes teach science, its pretty ****ing simple to understand...no one cares if you like it any more than anyone cares if you like math...

Wrasse
03-08-2005, 05:01 PM
I just want to know if anyone has any recent book recommendations on the topic of evolution.

I haven't touched a biological science book (save for scientific research journals) since grad school and would like to read up on the subject again.

Thanks.

Oh and I love each and every one of you.

** tries to make this thread more positive even if he is lying **

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 05:01 PM
Mutations happen. Things don't always copy perfectly. If you don't understand the concept of a mutation, you might need to study a little harder and learn more about the subject.
The 6th time - Why?

Who said I don't understand mutations? That wasn't even part of my question.

Again, why did one species fuse DNA and the other didn't?

Damn, for a smart person, you sure are dense.

Cochise
03-08-2005, 05:01 PM
Which groups are behind intelligent design and against evolution:

1) Christians- 99% - believe in Jebus.
2) Raliens- 1% - believe in aliens.

That's really about it. The funny thing is, though, that all of these groups pushing ID/Anti-evolution have to resort to lies, misrepresentations and oft-refuted arguments (see Kent Hovind, AIG, ICR, Michael Behe).... I thought that Bible book said something about that whole bearing false witness thing.

Hey, Kent Hovind will give you $500,000 if you can prove him wrong, go check out his website. Free money, right?

**edit - it's $250,000 (http://www.drdino.com/Ministry/250k/index.jsp) , sorry. Hey, must be even easier than I thought!

ChiTown
03-08-2005, 05:04 PM
I see the battle of wits has turned into the battle of twits.........


geezus, why don't you guys discuss something less controversial, like, say, Roe v Wade....................carry on.

skye22f
03-08-2005, 05:04 PM
For someone based solely in "facts" you sure took a huge leap of faith on your ascertation of this thread, didn't you?

I didn't mention anything about creationism, Christianity, or the Bible.


So what? I know for a fact that your religious affiliation is the impetus behind your beliefs. You tried convincing me long ago that the earth was only 6,000 years old (a belief only held by the followers of teh Jeebus.) The only major group that is fighting evolution is the fundie Christian movement, and they don't really understand it or care to. It's not in the Bible, so all the evidence in the world wouldn't change their beliefs.

Herzig
03-08-2005, 05:04 PM
Herzig............just look what you've done!
I dont agree that evolution is fact, but this thread is evolving quickly into the typical science\religion war of words thread..............I hope your happy!

:D

I had to do it. I'm tired of everyone bitching about the Chiefs around here!

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 05:05 PM
and this is the point missed by the flat-earthers...science is about the verifiability of hypotheses, its about a process....Religion is about people forming small groups to protect suspect claims from rational examination...

but it has been fun watching a noob literally "school" a bunch of right wing nutbags...Science classes teach science, its pretty ****ing simple to understand...no one cares if you like it any more than anyone cares if you like math...
Funny, didn't those same science class teach the human body was made of humors, the earth was only composed of four elements, and that (irony please) the earth was flat? They probably made the same lame argument you are today, I would venture.

Science teaching fact is one issue, science teaching assumption called fact is another.

Show kids that helium makes rubber float - show them that species have died off and other species have adapted and made significant changes over centuries. Don't teach them that species changed entire animal classifications without definitive proof.

Bob Dole
03-08-2005, 05:07 PM
but it has been fun watching a noob literally "school" a bunch of right wing nutbags...Science classes teach science, its pretty ****ing simple to understand...no one cares if you like it any more than anyone cares if you like math...

Bob Dole likes math.

And chocolate.

Cochise
03-08-2005, 05:08 PM
Funny, didn't those same science class teach the human body was made of humors, the earth was only composed of four elements, and that (irony please) the earth was flat? They probably made the same lame argument you are today, I would venture.

Science teaching fact is one issue, science teaching assumption called fact is another.

Show kids that helium makes rubber float - show them that species have died off and other species have adapted and made significant changes over centuries. Don't teach them that species changed entire animal classifications without definitive proof.

If the can were about 1000 years old, he'd be swearing up and down that the sun revolved around the earth because any learned man knew it was true.

the Talking Can
03-08-2005, 05:08 PM
Bob Dole likes math.

And chocolate.

yeah, we'll Jesus hates chocolate and you're going to roast in hell

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 05:09 PM
So what? I know for a fact that your religious affiliation is the impetus behind your beliefs.

You tried convincing me long ago that the earth was only 6,000 years old (a belief only held by the followers of teh Jeebus.) The only major group that is fighting evolution is the fundie Christian movement, and they don't really understand it or care to. It's not in the Bible, so all the evidence in the world wouldn't change their beliefs.

You, sir, are a liar.

#1. I never stated that creationism should be taught at school. I am firmly against such nonsense.

#2. I never stated the earth was only 6,000 years old. Find a quote giving me such assertations or retract your statement.

#3. Your last statement is false as well. Again, a friend of mine, a prominent Emergency Department physician has written two books on the topic of flawed evolutionary points of interest and is part of a scientific community.

#4. For someone who is trying to tell us "fact" from fiction, I believe your very first sentence shows you to be a moron. A fact can be proven. Your statement is false and without an iota of proof.

How about you come back when you learn manners, intelligence, and the ability to converse with others with real 'Facts' instead of your lies?

skye22f
03-08-2005, 05:11 PM
Hey, Kent Hovind will give you $500,000 if you can prove him wrong, go check out his website. Free money, right?

**edit - it's $250,000$250,000 (http://www.drdino.com/Ministry/250k/index.jsp) , sorry. Hey, must be even easier than I thought!

Hovind is a charlatan and a liar. That "challenge" blatantly misrepresents what evolution is and Hovind is a shady fraud either way. The man is truly the worst of what creationism has to offer- most of the creationist movement (see answersingenesis) has completely distanced themselves from him.

If anyone is interested in Hovind's "challenge" though and would like more info on the charlatan, see the discussion here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t1312920-250000-reward-for-anyone-to-prove-evolution.html

I have no more time for this discussion (I'm far away from home on business and I have to get this work done tonight.)

If you guys want more balanced discussions with a lot of people that enjoy talking about this on either side of the equation, go here:

http://www.christianforums.com/f70-creation-evolution.html

It's the most active and interesting forum I've found, and regardless of what beliefs you hold you'll definitely learn some things. Some smart people (and some dumb ones) over there.

Herzig
03-08-2005, 05:12 PM
Here's the Catholic Church stance on evolution:

http://www.thecatholicfaith.com/Teachings/evolution.htm

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 05:12 PM
The 6th time - Why?

Who said I don't understand mutations? That wasn't even part of my question.

Again, why did one species fuse DNA and the other didn't?

Damn, for a smart person, you sure are dense.
The answer for sky is.... drumroollllllll.....

I don't know why, nor is there any evidence as to why it occured.


In other words, these rocks show we changed from monkey to man, but they don't say why or how it occurred - so we will just assume it is right.

Bob Dole
03-08-2005, 05:12 PM
yeah, we'll Jesus hates chocolate and you're going to roast in hell

Like that's some sort of ****ing news flash.

,,

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 05:14 PM
I am constantly amazed at the fact that for evolution to be 100% accurate as it is taught today that the laws of Entropy, Chance, and Physics must be totally ignored as though they don't exist.

the Talking Can
03-08-2005, 05:16 PM
Funny, didn't those same science class teach the human body was made of humors, the earth was only composed of four elements, and that (irony please) the earth was flat? They probably made the same lame argument you are today, I would venture.

Science teaching fact is one issue, science teaching assumption called fact is another.

Show kids that helium makes rubber float - show them that species have died off and other species have adapted and made significant changes over centuries. Don't teach them that species changed entire animal classifications without definitive proof.

Science is about a process of testing hypotheses....there is no such thing as proof, only the consistent results of repeated tests...your point about things changes only proves sciences point, and proves the point that we need to be teaching Science....getting lectured on "proof" by a Christian is ****ing hilarious

and your grab-bag use of misunderstood history, and its context, is down right frightening....you must have been home-schooled

C-Mac
03-08-2005, 05:16 PM
I had to do it. I'm tired of everyone bitching about the Chiefs around here!

Well I have I've seen more than a few good loyal fans evolve from being supportive into being just inquisitive, then just in the past 24hrs evolving into first class habitual whiners.........evolution sure can be ugly.

Boozer
03-08-2005, 05:19 PM
I am constantly amazed at the fact that for evolution to be 100% accurate as it is taught today that the laws of Entropy, Chance, and Physics must be totally ignored as though they don't exist.

I'm curious...how does a "law of chance" holding true prevent the current theory of evolution from being true? You're aware that improbability does not equal impossibility, right?

Cochise
03-08-2005, 05:20 PM
Science is about a process of testing hypotheses....

The whole premise rests on philosophical presuppositions just like creationism does.

Donger
03-08-2005, 05:20 PM
In other words, these rocks show we changed from monkey to man, but they don't say why or how it occurred - so we will just assume it is right.

And you know what? That was really the point of my first post on this thread.

I think the part that pisses people off is that some educators (like skye) openly state that it is a fact, not theory, that humans evolved from a lower-level lifeform.

As far as I can tell, while there is certainly significant evidence to suggest we did, there is no irrefutable proof. I've also noticed that whenever such proof is asked for, the educator invariably sarcastically inserts religion.

Strange, that.

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 05:20 PM
Science is about a process of testing hypotheses....there is no such thing as proof, only the consistent results of repeated tests...your point about things changes only proves sciences point, and proves the point that we need to be teaching Science....getting lectured on "proof" by a Christian is ****ing hilarious

and your grab-bag use of misunderstood history, and its context, is down right frightening....you must have been home-schooled
Sorry, what is the data received from the reason why we evolved and monkeys didn't? Perhaps a non-Christian viewpoint can help me?

I didn't realize only non-Christians could teach sciences. Ignorance and prejudice still reign, don't they?

Only when people like you and sky don't have answers, you instantly attack someone's religion instead of the actual points. You must have been schooled in Kansas, right? Perhaps University trained right in Lawrence, eh?

Donger
03-08-2005, 05:21 PM
Well I have I've seen more than a few good loyal fans evolve from being supportive into being just inquisitive, then just in the past 24hrs evolving into first class habitual whiners.........evolution sure can be ugly.

That's devolution, ain't it? Where did skye go?

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 05:23 PM
I'm curious...how does a "law of chance" holding true prevent the current theory of evolution from being true? You're aware that improbability does not equal impossibility, right?
Yes, but the question is when does improbability near impossibility? It is improbable that I toss a coin and it will land on its side. It is improbable that I do so twice in a row. How many times must I toss the coin and it land on its side before you realize that it is impossible?

C-Mac
03-08-2005, 05:26 PM
That's devolution, ain't it? Where did skye go?

Are we not men?

Donger
03-08-2005, 05:29 PM
Are we not men?

Some more than others.

Herzig
03-08-2005, 05:41 PM
Well I have I've seen more than a few good loyal fans evolve from being supportive into being just inquisitive, then just in the past 24hrs evolving into first class habitual whiners.........evolution sure can be ugly.

Rep.
:thumb:

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 05:48 PM
Point is that microevolution is a defined probability. There are many unanswered questions as to why macroevolution is flawed with the way we perceive the theory today.

I have no problems with microevolution being taught as a hard science. I have issues with either macroevolution or creationism being taught in public schools as there are too many highly defined nth degree improbabilities to both to be taught as a fact.

Pants
03-08-2005, 06:00 PM
Yeeeahh... so how exactly does some non-living goop turn into a living organism then...?

Summarizing that much information is hard. If you really wanted to know, you'd buy a biology textbook and read, but anyway:

1. Synthesys of small organic molecules (replicated in an experiment by Henry Miller and Harold Urey, where they recreated ancient atmosphere and created spark discharge and as a result generated organic molecules).

2. Polymerization (drip an amino acid on a piece of clay) - amino acid polymers = protein precursors

3. Protobiont packaging (very primitive, non-living precursors of cells)

4. Self replication (RNA self replicates, Tomas Cech and Sidney Altman demonstarted a very simple self-replicating system, helps explain this stage)

5. Prokaryotes.

Naturally, this is an EXTREME simplification. I'm not going to give you biology lessons, if you are interested, take a class. I know it's easy to dismiss shit, but the proof is there for you, you just have to go look for it some place other than CP.

Pants
03-08-2005, 06:03 PM
Cool, now for the 5th time - WHY DID IT HAPPEN TO HUMANS AND NOT CHIMPS?

One would think that someone as intelligent as yourself could answer such a simple question.

Because that's the whole point. Mutation is random, that's why it's mutation and not adaptation (although, some mutations can be beneficial and work as very successful adapttaions).

Pitt Gorilla
03-08-2005, 06:11 PM
Cool, now for the 5th time - WHY DID IT HAPPEN TO HUMANS AND NOT CHIMPS?

One would think that someone as intelligent as yourself could answer such a simple question.That's a "simple question?" You're just being silly now.

Michael Michigan
03-08-2005, 06:12 PM
I think the part that pisses people off is that some educators (like skye) openly state that it is a fact, not theory, that humans evolved from a lower-level lifeform.

Skye is a teacher?

the Talking Can
03-08-2005, 06:12 PM
Because that's the whole point. Mutation is random, that's why it's mutation and not adaptation (although, some mutations can be beneficial and work as very successful adapttaions).

you're wasting your time...

C-Mac
03-08-2005, 06:17 PM
Has anyone dis-proven the theory that "life comes from life"?

Also I have to inject that many get "adaptation", which alters within the species in which there is many a proof, confused with "evolution" that changes into a new species in which there isn't many a proof.

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 06:23 PM
Because that's the whole point. Mutation is random, that's why it's mutation and not adaptation (although, some mutations can be beneficial and work as very successful adapttaions).
Ahh, finally.

So when something occurs we can't explain, we just say "it was random" and accept that as science? as hard science? as "theory?

Isn't that was the scientific gurus are blasting us on here, jumping without proof and using pat answers?

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 06:25 PM
you're wasting your time...
He should have just attacked my religious beliefs as you did, right?

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 06:26 PM
Has anyone dis-proven the theory that "life comes from life"?

Also I have to inject that many get "adaptation", which alters within the species in which there is many a proof, confused with "evolution" that changes into a new species in which there isn't many a proof.
Again, microevolution vs. macroevolution.

One we have physically measured, the other we haven't.

Pants
03-08-2005, 06:27 PM
Ahh, finally.

So when something occurs we can't explain, we just say "it was random" and accept that as science? as hard science? as "theory?

Isn't that was the scientific gurus are blasting us on here, jumping without proof and using pat answers?

No, it's a fact that mutations occur. Pretty much everyone in the science community agrees that mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation, which in turn is required for evolution.

Pants
03-08-2005, 06:29 PM
He should have just attacked my religious beliefs as you did, right?

I believe in god, too. Doesn't prevent me from wanting to learn the origin of life. It just shows me what god did to create us. He'll never be done with us, either. The big guy is just probably warming up right now.

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 06:33 PM
Summarizing that much information is hard. If you really wanted to know, you'd buy a biology textbook and read, but anyway:

1. Synthesys of small organic molecules (replicated in an experiment by Henry Miller and Harold Urey, where they recreated ancient atmosphere and created spark discharge and as a result generated organic molecules).

2. Polymerization (drip an amino acid on a piece of clay) - amino acid polymers = protein precursors

3. Protobiont packaging (very primitive, non-living precursors of cells)

4. Self replication (RNA self replicates, Tomas Cech and Sidney Altman demonstarted a very simple self-replicating system, helps explain this stage)

5. Prokaryotes.

Naturally, this is an EXTREME simplification. I'm not going to give you biology lessons, if you are interested, take a class. I know it's easy to dismiss shit, but the proof is there for you, you just have to go look for it some place other than CP.
Urey-Miller's experiment has been proven to be based upon elements that were not available at the onset of our planet. The theory based upon Urey-Miller was that NH3 and CH4 were dominant and the earth was constantly beseiged by lightning. The atmosphere was mostly CO2, C, and N2 - and very rare to have the lightning amounts required. Also note that the slightest variant of oxygen in the mix has failed to produce a single living or pre-living (in the case of compound proteins and amino acids) cell.

The study, like most that cannot be tested under true conditions (such as macroevolution), cannot be proven or disproven unless you make a great deal of assumptions that cannot be proven at this point.


Of course, that is just a "Christian" viewpoint so take it for what it is worth.

the Talking Can
03-08-2005, 06:34 PM
He should have just attacked my religious beliefs as you did, right?

no gives a shit about your religious beliefs...try to stay on topic, we're discussing science

I believe that CP is going to trade Bartee for Peyton Manning. That doesn't mean we shouldn't teach science in science class.

C-Mac
03-08-2005, 06:35 PM
Again, microevolution vs. macroevolution.

One we have physically measured, the other we haven't.

All I wanted was some tangible scientific proof, you know like fossil record proof or lab experiements, ect.

Life comes from life......so far?

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 06:35 PM
No, it's a fact that mutations occur. Pretty much everyone in the science community agrees that mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation, which in turn is required for evolution.
Again, that is not what I stated. I asked why the mutation occurred, and you have no answer. So when you don't have a measurable tangible response, your answer is "it must have been a mutation, but we don't know how or why it happened".

Also note that almost every mutation leads to weakness in a species and eventual death of the creature with the mutation - not the opposite.

So not only are you saying that "it must have been a mutation, but we don't know why or how", you are saying "it must have been a one in a quintillion mutation that just so happens to be dominantly hereditary in every single person alive today but we don't know why or how, we will just assume it happened".

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 06:37 PM
no gives a shit about your religious beliefs...try to stay on topic, we're discussing science



Whew for a second, I thought you typed this


getting lectured on "proof" by a Christian is ****ing hilarious

Oh, and for the record, you haven't discussed anything. You have only attacked others for their viewpoints. Try to stay on topic, hypocrite.

C-Mac
03-08-2005, 06:41 PM
Also note that almost every mutation leads to weakness in a species and eventual death of the creature with the mutation - not the opposite.

True, true.
In fact I dont know of any mutation that classified as benficial nor that carried it on to its offspring.

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 06:44 PM
True, true.
In fact I dont know of any mutation that classified as benficial nor that carried it on to its offspring.
Some are hereditary - See hemophilia. But again, to be hereditary AND a positive mutation is highly unlikely. To be hereditary AND a positive mutation AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN to the 1 millionth power until our brain evolved to sentience is just ridiculous to assume without proof.

Pants
03-08-2005, 06:46 PM
Some are hereditary - See hemophilia. But again, to be hereditary AND a positive mutation is highly unlikely. To be hereditary AND a positive mutation AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN to the 1 millionth power until our brain evolved to sentience is just ridiculous to assume without proof.

3,800,000,000 years is a long time.

C-Mac
03-08-2005, 06:50 PM
Some are hereditary - See hemophilia. But again, to be hereditary AND a positive mutation is highly unlikely. To be hereditary AND a positive mutation AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN to the 1 millionth power until our brain evolved to sentience is just ridiculous to assume without proof.

Genetic flaw and mutation are still different to me as far as looking a the scietific process.
But none the less, you rest my case! :thumb:

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 06:51 PM
3,800,000,000 years is a long time.
You are using the scientific measurement of our planet, not our living beings, let alone air breathers, let alone mammals, let alone primates.

All of which are significantly younger than the planet.

And yet in all that time, only man sprung up significantly different from all species of monkeys and monkeys never did get that mutation. And many of you don't find that odd at all?

WoodDraw
03-08-2005, 07:40 PM
The theory of evolution will obviously evolve and change just as it has since it was discovered. That doesn't make it wrong or not worth teaching, it simply is the way things are. Scientists are almost completely in agreement that evolution (in some form) is responsible for what we see today and there is evidence to back that up. If you disagree with that then the burden of proof is on you. Come up with a new theory that you can offer proof for and I'm sure the science community will embrace it. Until then, I'll let the teachers teach what our current level of technology and knowledge tells us to be true.

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 07:50 PM
Until then, I'll let the teachers teach what our current level of technology and knowledge tells us to be true.
As I said earlier, the exact reason for teaching that leeches cure all diseases, barbers should be bloodletters, and feng shui is necessary for a proper home to be built.

Cochise
03-08-2005, 07:52 PM
True, true.
In fact I dont know of any mutation that classified as benficial nor that carried it on to its offspring.

That's what I thought. As far as I knew mutations weren't good and would result in an inferior organism if it survived at all.

Saulbadguy
03-08-2005, 07:54 PM
Mutation is FACT.
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000696I0.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 07:54 PM
That's what I thought. As far as I knew mutations weren't good and would result in an inferior organism if it survived at all.
Usually inferior enough that it is killed by its own species.

Somehow we must believe that not only some lizards started developing wingy nubs, but they were not killed off by their own species over the course of millions of years by their superior land brethen and hunters of their brethen until they developed into fully formed wings.

Saulbadguy
03-08-2005, 07:55 PM
And if you guys don't shut up and accept it, there will be a berzerker barrage of epic proportions. Adamantium RAGE!!

http://www.monsterislandmedia.com/MIM_Archive/Wolverine.gif

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 07:57 PM
And if you guys don't shut up and accept it, there will be a berzerker barrage of epic proportions. Adamantium RAGE!!

http://www.monsterislandmedia.com/MIM_Archive/Wolverine.gif
That wasn't a mutation, it was surgery that created the adamantium lined skeleton.

However, Saul, as funny as you are trying to be - why haven't other genetic positive mutations occurred in select humans over the billions of years pointed out by metrolike?

Where are the people with extra appendages, gills, wings, and larger brains?

Cochise
03-08-2005, 07:57 PM
And if you guys don't shut up and accept it, there will be a berzerker barrage of epic proportions. Adamantium RAGE!!

http://www.monsterislandmedia.com/MIM_Archive/Wolverine.gif

Dirty freaks... Senator Kelly was right all along :cuss: :mad:

Saulbadguy
03-08-2005, 07:59 PM
That wasn't a mutation, it was surgery that created the adamantium lined skeleton.

However, Saul, as funny as you are trying to be - why haven't other genetic positive mutations occurred in select humans over the billions of years pointed out by metrolike?

Where are the people with extra appendages, gills, wings, and larger brains?
How do you explain his healing powers, then? That wasn't surgery, that was mutation.

Cochise
03-08-2005, 07:59 PM
That wasn't a mutation, it was surgery that created the adamantium lined skeleton.

However, Saul, as funny as you are trying to be - why haven't other genetic positive mutations occurred in select humans over the billions of years pointed out by metrolike?

Where are the people with extra appendages, gills, wings, and larger brains?

He was a mutant before that, his superhuman healing abilities were part of it. That's why he was selected for experimentation if I remember my preteen comic reading days.

Saulbadguy
03-08-2005, 08:00 PM
And Humans don't need wings, gills. Haven't you seen WATERWORLD?

There have been people that have been born with extra appendages though, but in most cases they are non-functional.

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 08:00 PM
And if you guys don't shut up and accept it, there will be a berzerker barrage of epic proportions. Adamantium RAGE!!

http://www.monsterislandmedia.com/MIM_Archive/Wolverine.gif
Damn, I forgot he has mutant healing abilities.


I think I am more of a geek for knowing this than Saul is for posting Logan's picture.

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 08:00 PM
And Humans don't need wings, gills. Haven't you seen WATERWORLD?

There have been people that have been born with extra appendages though, but in most cases they are non-functional.
No, in ALL cases they are not only useless but not hereditary as well.

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 08:01 PM
And Humans don't need wings, gills. Haven't you seen WATERWORLD?

Humans don't need a uvula, tonsils, or an appendix. They don't need hair, or nails. They definitely don't need body hair, they don't need outer ears, nor ten toes.

Saulbadguy
03-08-2005, 08:02 PM
No, in ALL cases they are not only useless but not hereditary as well.
Of course, medical history only goes back so far.

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 08:03 PM
Of course, medical history only goes back so far.
Mankind goes back a lot further. There are no three armed or four legged humans alive today that pass their genetic mutation to their children.

Saulbadguy
03-08-2005, 08:06 PM
I really don't bring to much to the table in this argument. All my experience is based on TV shows and comic books. And Ripleys! Believe it or not.

Howevvahhh..it is my "idea" that humans have evolved, and will evolve.

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 08:11 PM
I really don't bring to much to the table in this argument. All my experience is based on TV shows and comic books. And Ripleys! Believe it or not.

Howevvahhh..it is my "idea" that humans have evolved, and will evolve.
I don't think it is just an idea, it is a fact. People in the city have more nostril hairs than those in the country. People are taller than they were a few hundred years ago. Finches develop beaks that assist in their eating habits over the course of centuries. All microevolution examples.

However, there is no definitive proof that cross-species evolution or that sentience is an macroevolutionary process.

Cochise
03-08-2005, 08:15 PM
I don't think it is just an idea, it is a fact. People in the city have more nostril hairs than those in the country. People are taller than they were a few hundred years ago. Finches develop beaks that assist in their eating habits over the course of centuries. All microevolution examples.

However, there is no definitive proof that cross-species evolution or that sentience is an macroevolutionary process.

I would add that you generally find people with darker skin and more body hair in warmer/sunnier climes, do you not?

Microevolution seems plausible and observable to me.

WoodDraw
03-08-2005, 08:34 PM
As I said earlier, the exact reason for teaching that leeches cure all diseases, barbers should be bloodletters, and feng shui is necessary for a proper home to be built.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds it ironic that a person who raises as many issues with science as you do is a man of such deep faith.

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 08:38 PM
I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds it ironic that a person who raises as many issues with science as you do is a man of such deep faith.
But you have blind-faith in a science until something better comes along while carping on my faith?

Now that is ironic.

headsnap
03-08-2005, 09:23 PM
But you have blind-faith in a science until something better comes along while carping on my faith?

Now that is ironic.
It takes giant leaps-of-faith to believe that the TOE fully explains our existence.

WoodDraw
03-08-2005, 09:25 PM
But you have blind-faith in a science until something better comes along while carping on my faith?

Now that is ironic.

It's not blind faith. You are trying to prove the problems of evolution by saying that we don't have a complete understanding of certain aspects and you are doing it with a sophmoric understanding of science. You already have your beliefs set and are twisting the facts around those beliefs in order to defend yourself. This "debate" is about whether evolution should be taught in schools. The theory is over a hundred years old and has become more developed and accepted over that time. The fact that is an incomplete work doesn't dispute the fact that almost all reputable scientists will agree with the theory of evolution. So then, why should our teachers not be allowed to teach (without resitrctions) what is widely accepted to be the origin of today's species?

Saulbadguy
03-08-2005, 09:25 PM
It takes giant leaps-of-faith to believe that the TOE fully explains our existence.
Yep. The same goes for creationism.

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 09:41 PM
It's not blind faith. You are trying to prove the problems of evolution by saying that we don't have a complete understanding of certain aspects and you are doing it with a sophmoric understanding of science. You already have your beliefs set and are twisting the facts around those beliefs in order to defend yourself. This "debate" is about whether evolution should be taught in schools. The theory is over a hundred years old and has become more developed and accepted over that time. The fact that is an incomplete work doesn't dispute the fact that almost all reputable scientists will agree with the theory of evolution. So then, why should our teachers not be allowed to teach (without resitrctions) what is widely accepted to be the origin of today's species?
The theory of humours in the body was over 500 years old when Hippocrates taught medicine. Using your weak analogy above, we should be still teaching it today.

And for me to have a "sophomoric" viewpoint is kind of silly with your post above. Reputable scientists agree on the theory of microevolution. There are a great many scholars who still question macroevolution. You obviously cannot distinguish the two.

I have no problem teaching we came from monkeys, when you have proof that it occurred.

KCWolfman
03-08-2005, 09:43 PM
Yep. The same goes for creationism.
I agree. Creationism has no right being taught in public schools.

Bob Dole
03-08-2005, 09:56 PM
I think the part that pisses people off is that some educators (like skye) openly state that it is a fact, not theory, that humans evolved from a lower-level lifeform.

The part that really pisses Bob Dole off is that some humans never evolved from that lower-level lifeform.

Inconsiderate ****ers.

morphius
03-08-2005, 10:10 PM
The part that really pisses Bob Dole off is that some humans never evolved from that lower-level lifeform.

Inconsiderate ****ers.
Well, we need someone to clean the toilets...

DanT
03-08-2005, 10:22 PM
Speaking of evolution,

http://elderbob.250free.com/ELDER/JOKES.html#EL19


A GORILLA ON THE ROOF


A man wakes up one morning to find a gorilla on his roof.


So he looks in the yellow pages and sure enough, there's an ad for "Gorilla Removers." He calls the number, and the gorilla remover says he'll be over in 30 minutes. The gorilla remover arrives, and gets out of his van. He's got a ladder, a baseball bat, a shotgun and a mean old pit bull.


"What are you going to do?"the homeowner asks.


"I'm going to put this ladder up against the roof, then I'm going to go up there and knock the gorilla off the roof with this baseball bat. When the gorilla falls off, the pit bull is trained to grab his testicles and not let go. The gorilla will then be subdued enough for me to put him in the cage in the back of the van." He hands the shotgun to the homeowner.



"What's the shotgun for! ?" asks the homeowner.


"If the gorilla knocks me off the roof, shoot the dog."

tiptap
03-08-2005, 11:47 PM
My take:

First Science of Greek origin is more akin to religion. The Greeks introduced Humanism. Humanism holds that our logic or thoughts are paramount. it is impossible to escape the processes of the mind. The Greeks believed solely in reason and what it could conclude. It this notion that theories or ideas are all equal because they are all of mental mechanizations that is stated by those wishing to denigrate the process of modern science.
Modern science admits it can never get the whole process just right. BUT IT CAN PROVE THINGS TO BE WRONG! It does this by experimentation, interperlation and extrapolation. These are for the most part, mathematical and physical processes that have measured outcomes that can be compared against the prediction. If there is no way to measure than their can be no science. This is uniquely different system than ancient Greek science that may had basis in observation but seldom looked to reject ideas based upon logical extensions.
But it is true that we had to start with ideas THAT WE COULD PROVE WRONG so that we would be forced to turn to different concepts that more accurately reflect nature.
So some people started with the earth was flat (here is a place that the Greeks did use their geometric knowledge to say it was a Sphere ie Anthagorus' two stickes and different shadow length at noon on same day North and South of each other) or some people purpose humors.
For protestant of the Restoration period and age of reason the starting assumptions for the natural world was the Bible and fundamentalistic creationism. The success of Newton (who was a fundamentalist Puritan, though some would take his Aryan stance about Jesus being the first created being and not God as trinity as heresy) ideas to explain from simple building blocks a whole plethora of natural and physical events. His ideas showed that the motion of the heavens was explained in the same way motion is explain for things upon the earth. This dichotomy between heaven and earth was removed. Before Newton people could see the motion in the sky as pure and distinct from the motion on earth. (We may try to reconstruct that dichotomy by insisting on a spirtual sphere that exists outside of this physical existence but it can not longer be thought of as a LITERAL HEAVEN, SKY that it once was.)
God had laws not just for man but for nature itself. Many now turned to discovering the laws God had for biology, geology and chemistry as well as physics. The first step was a guiding principle for organizing different disciplines. Chemistry developed the notion of elements and biology pursued a similar line working with the notion of Biblical KINDS. Indeed the genus species naming method still used today as well as the major divisions of animals and plants are the result of strongly religious men's efforts to see these divisions in a similar light as chemistry saw the elements. (So for those who think nothing of creationism still exists in modern biology they would err in judgement.)
So that brings us to biological evolution. Macroevolution. The working concepts of Darwin was a process that could explain the divergence of species into new forms form existing living forms. This would be equivalent in concept to transmutation of elements. Something thought to be impossible until the 20th century. But we know that it takes either a great deal of time for us to see 'natural' transmutation of element (better known as radioactive decay) or highly energetic events to produce quick changes (including fission, fusion, electron capture and others). Similarly these natural long time events give us confidence that the world is old enough to entertain the ideas of Biological Descent. Indeed one of the strongest arguments against Darwin was put forth by Lord Kelvin of thermodymics fame. He could not see how the earth or sun could thermodynamically exist for more then 20,000 years UNLESS THERE WAS SOME TOTALLY UNKNOWN ENERGY PRODUCING ACTIVITY THAT WAS COMPLETELY HIDDEN. So it forced Geologists and Biologists of Darwinian persuasion to predict that there was an unkown process. Surprise fission and fusion more than fits the necessity. In the direct conflict between the ideas of Evolution and the facts of the time, Evolution was predictive and was not falsified.
My final thrust is to try and educate the recalcitant about what is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Many want to race to the probability notions of Entropy. The CHANCES of a coin landing on its edge being improbable and nearly impossible more than once. However that is not what CHEMICAL 2nd law is about. 2ND Law is about the fact that energy can only flow from a concentrated region to a lower concentrated region. In the process of moving it may carry matter with it and even organize the matter. So lets take the coin example.
If I were to take that coin into space where there is little gravitational force, as the coin spins it would twice each spin in its continuous revolutions, have the orientation of being on edge relative to the earth. But on earth the gravitational field means that energy flow orients the coins to seek its lowest level flat on the ground. Indeed their is a great deal of organization taking place compared to the coins in space. The coins on earth ALWAYS FALL duh. This is highly organized compared to a gravity free totally random existence that is dictated for a truly random event. And this is the point guys. Electromagnetic forces orient atoms and molecules just as truly as gravity. All of chemistry is about how the atoms respond to energy flow through the atoms against and with the electromagnetic forces that govern the atoms actions. If you can't talk honestly about 2nd laws total involvement in your example I feel you may be mistaken on the more complicated matters of Gibbs Free energy, activity coefficients, Enthalapy and other thermodyanics concepts directly related to both chemical and biological processes.

C-Mac
03-09-2005, 12:41 AM
So I guess no one touched disproving the "life from life" theory.

headsnap
03-09-2005, 05:43 AM
Yep. The same goes for creationism.

duh




that was the point... ;)

headsnap
03-09-2005, 05:51 AM
the best arguement out there for teaching alternatives or criticisms of the TOE is Skye22f...

Herzig
03-09-2005, 06:27 AM
I agree. Creationism has no right being taught in public schools.


Agreed. Why do you think so many hard core right wing people support school vouchers? A BIG part of it is not because our public schools are so God awful...it's because they are trying to publicly fund religious schools. That is the only way they will never have to hear about evolution ever again. NCLB sets public schools up to fail. It wants ALL kids performing on grade level by 2014. That will be impossible unless we "dumb" down the test.

headsnap
03-09-2005, 06:46 AM
Agreed. Why do you think so many hard core right wing people support school vouchers? A BIG part of it is not because our public schools are so God awful...it's because they are trying to publicly fund religious schools.
BULLSH!T!!!!!

We are currently in the process of taking our daughter out of public school BECAUSE OF THE LEVEL OF EDUCATION SHE IS RECEIVING!!! Our main complaint is that her school(one on the best districts in KY) combines 1st grade and 2nd grade classes together. She is currently in 1st grade and is extremely bored, there is no way in hell we are going to let her sit through the same thing again next year.

Vouchers mean CHOICE!!! Choice means competition. Competition means that the public schools will have to stop treating our children like guinea pigs!!!! Competition means that the public schools will be held accountable by the students and the parents(the PUBLIC) and not the school board and the NEA!



I'd like to take my tax dollars and go elsewhere!




this has NOTHING to do with evolution!

Braincase
03-09-2005, 07:12 AM
Schools need to protect themselves via some disclaimer regarding creationism vs. evolution. If evolution is the only thing taught, then somebody is going to sue saying that their religious beliefss were refuted. Religious beliefs are protected by the Constitution, and a public institution telling someone that their religious beliefs are wrong is technically a violation of one's constitutional rights. That's what this whole mess is all about. It's not about what is taught or what can't be taught. It's about schools trying to cover their asses in case of a law suit.

KCWolfman
03-09-2005, 07:12 AM
Agreed. Why do you think so many hard core right wing people support school vouchers? A BIG part of it is not because our public schools are so God awful...it's because they are trying to publicly fund religious schools. That is the only way they will never have to hear about evolution ever again. NCLB sets public schools up to fail. It wants ALL kids performing on grade level by 2014. That will be impossible unless we "dumb" down the test.
As long as there are piss poor examples of public education like the KC district, even dumbing down the test won't help your cause.

I understand you are an educator and have a natural bent against vouchers, but honestly, I see nothing wrong with paying for an adequate education and not being forced to pay for a broken system. Currently I work in KC, I am paying for that failed system as I pay local taxes. Why should I be forced to do so? How many years does the system have to fail miserably before I am allowed to spend my money on something that works?

Saulbadguy
03-09-2005, 07:44 AM
I don't agree with vouchers for a couple of reasons.

1. If vouchers are available to anyone, won't private schools degrade the same as public schools, as far the quality of education available? I think it will.

2. "I" don't want to pay for vouchers. However, if you put your kid in a private school, and pay for it with YOUR OWN MONEY, I feel that there should be some sort of tax break or discount that is comprable to a voucher.

headsnap
03-09-2005, 08:17 AM
I don't agree with vouchers for a couple of reasons.

1. If vouchers are available to anyone, won't private schools degrade the same as public schools, as far the quality of education available? I think it will.

2. "I" don't want to pay for vouchers. However, if you put your kid in a private school, and pay for it with YOUR OWN MONEY, I feel that there should be some sort of tax break or discount that is comprable to a voucher.
#1. The better schools will get the students, forcing the lesser schools to improve.

#2. Same difference. You will still in a sense be paying for vouchers.

tiptap
03-09-2005, 08:49 AM
#1. The better schools will get the students, forcing the lesser schools to improve.

#2. Same difference. You will still in a sense be paying for vouchers.

Private schools often get to pick and choose their student population. They come from homes that usually respect education. They don't have to take handicapped children, they can trim classes of trouble makers. This leaves the kids that are already motivated to learn. This is the relatively easy population of students to teach. And yet as a society we are less if we don't give a good chance for all of our population to produce. I have no problem with sending one's children to private schools (I do). But I have no problem helping to finance by my taxes, public schools. I routinely vote for legislators and for bond and taxes that enhance or maintain my public schools. (My kids have moved back and forth between public and private schools.)
Competition doesn't always lead to a better outcome (how is your phone service and just how much time does it take to feel like you arent' being screwed). That is a fallacy. Competition can mean higher overhead and therefore prices are higher (the breakup of Standard Oil). It can mean that the focus is not on a broad understanding but a narrow focus upon narrow outcomes used to guage success (teaching to tests and neglecting art, industrial arts, speech and other activities that have been shown to produce productive citizens). It is a very labor intensive process to educate someone to a level that they are productive. It also means addressing the wide range of learning styles that a population demonstrates.
It is naive to think vouchers will necessarilly improve the general situation of education. Children are the most impacted population by relative poverty. A great deal of this is the ignorance in the adults of the family. They make and pass along to their children bad choices and habits. But we do know that education does offer solutions and a commitment to leaving no child behind should mean more of a commitment to the difficult task than moving public money to private endeavors.

Saulbadguy
03-09-2005, 08:54 AM
That is a good point. What do most of the private schools around the country think of vouchers?

Saggysack
03-09-2005, 08:57 AM
I don't think it is just an idea, it is a fact. People in the city have more nostril hairs than those in the country. People are taller than they were a few hundred years ago. Finches develop beaks that assist in their eating habits over the course of centuries. All microevolution examples.

However, there is no definitive proof that cross-species evolution or that sentience is an macroevolutionary process.

and the Dutch are the healthiest people in the world, last year overtaking Americans 40yr stranglehold on the position...

What does that mean?

It means gouda must be better for you than cheddar.

headsnap
03-09-2005, 09:02 AM
But I have no problem helping to finance by my taxes, public schools. I routinely vote for legislators and for bond and taxes that enhance or maintain my public schools. (My kids have moved back and forth between public and private schools.)

I have no problem with that either. The problem I have is that the schools are not held accountable by the parents, but the school board and the NEA.
Competition doesn't always lead to a better outcome (how is your phone service and just how much time does it take to feel like you arent' being screwed). That is a fallacy. Competition can mean higher overhead and therefore prices are higher (the breakup of Standard Oil).
partial deregualtion NEVER works.

It can mean that the focus is not on a broad understanding but a narrow focus upon narrow outcomes used to guage success (teaching to tests and neglecting art, industrial arts, speech and other activities that have been shown to produce productive citizens).

that's the problem with our current situation.

It is naive to think vouchers will necessarilly improve the general situation of education. Children are the most impacted population by relative poverty. A great deal of this is the ignorance in the adults of the family.

it would at least give them a choice and a chance.







is it obvious that we(the headsnaps) are having a problem with our public school?

Saulbadguy
03-09-2005, 09:06 AM
Why don't you put them in a private school then? I don't see the issue.

Mark M
03-09-2005, 09:15 AM
First of all, the questions I ask below are not aimed or meant to rip on any one here. Second, I’m super busy at work today, so I won’t have time to thoroughly discuss. But I did want to throw a question out there for discussion:

Why is that some who have strong religious beliefs are more than willing to accept a book that offers absolutely no physical, tangible proof, over something that has at least been proven on a small scale (i.e. microevolution)?

I’m not a religious person, so I ask that question to those who are. Again, I’m not trying to say you are wrong, just trying to better understand your position.

If microevolution is proven to occur, isn’t it a reasonable conclusion that, when combined with the fossil record (however incomplete), DNA, and other such evidence, that macroevolution could occur?

Is it a bit of arrogance that leads some to discount evolution? Let me explain: Does it make some feel better that humans were created in the image of an all-powerful, omniscient being that has the power to grant never ending life, rather than a bunch of monkeys?

Again, I’m am NOT trying to insult anyone’s beliefs, nor am I saying that evolution is the end-all theory of how we became to be … just trying to learn a few different perspectives.


Personally, I believe that both sides of the evolutionary theory should be taught--that it has its pros and cons. Hell, other than math and chemistry, that could be applied to damn near every subject. :)

I’ll try to check back in as the day goes on, but I’ve got 6 web pages to write, a brochure, some editing, and 5 letters to create.

MM
~~:hmmm:

headsnap
03-09-2005, 09:17 AM
Why don't you put them in a private school then? I don't see the issue.

we are.

In the top school district in the state, it shoudn't be this way. :shake:

Saulbadguy
03-09-2005, 09:21 AM
Good to hear. Kentucky must be bass ackwards then, as i've never heard of combining grades like that. I'd probably be outraged as well.

To simplify, and offer a broader view on the issue, we all pay for lots of government programs/facilities that are inefficient, and "broken." Of course, it all depends on where you live, and what your political/moral views are on things. I think we offer fairly good public education where I live (ironicaly, the focus of this topic), but in other places it may be different. I don't see that as a cause to revamp the ENTIRE system throughout the country.

headsnap
03-09-2005, 09:25 AM
Why is that some who have strong religious beliefs are more than willing to accept a book that offers absolutely no physical, tangible proof, over something that has at least been proven on a small scale (i.e. microevolution)?

I’m not a religious person, so I ask that question to those who are. Again, I’m not trying to say you are wrong, just trying to better understand your position.

If microevolution is proven to occur, isn’t it a reasonable conclusion that, when combined with the fossil record (however incomplete), DNA, and other such evidence, that macroevolution could occur?
most on this thread are not arguing against evolution in toto, they are arguinig against it being the final/only answer.Is it a bit of arrogance that leads some to discount evolution? Let me explain: Does it make some feel better that humans were created in the image of an all-powerful, omniscient being that has the power to grant never ending life, rather than a bunch of monkeys? the arrogance dispalyed on this thread is from the pro-evolution posters, mainly that skyfffad dude.Personally, I believe that both sides of the evolutionary theory should be taught--that it has its pros and cons. Hell, other than math and chemistry, that could be applied to damn near every subject. :)
Bingo!! and Rep worthy :thumb:

headsnap
03-09-2005, 09:36 AM
Good to hear. Kentucky must be bass ackwards then, as i've never heard of combining grades like that. I'd probably be outraged as well.

It's part of KERA(the Kentucky Education Reform Act) that was passed in the early 90's. They combine the grades of 1st and 2nd and 4th and 5th, with the idea that the students wil tutor each other. My daughter is paired up with a 2nd grader who she has to tutor as a first grader. This is an optional part of KERA that not all schools participate in, and there is another(older) school in our local area that does not participate. We put in a request for a transfer, but were denied.

There are also other issues...

Mark M
03-09-2005, 09:49 AM
most on this thread are not arguing against evolution in toto, they are arguinig against it being the final/only answer.

I didn't have time to read the whole thread. My fault ... :doh!:

the arrogance dispalyed on this thread is from the pro-evolution posters, mainly that skyfffad dude.
From the three pages I read, there is plenty of that to go around on both sides. :)

My point wasn't that people were being arrogant in their positions. It's just that we, as humans (including myself), have what my wife and I call a "specio-centric" attitude. This means that we are better than every other creature that has ever walked the earth, and are in no way related to them because ... well, we're HUMAN! How could we possibly be descended from some damn, dirty ape?

Bingo!! and Rep worthy :thumb:
I dunno if it's rep worthy ... just logical. If you're going to teach something that has fallacies, then teach both sides. Evolution, psychology, sociology ... all have multiple theories, and no one should be taught in lieu of all others.

Give the kids (or even adults) all of the facts, then let them decide themselves.

MM
~~:)

Herzig
03-09-2005, 09:58 AM
It's part of KERA(the Kentucky Education Reform Act) that was passed in the early 90's. They combine the grades of 1st and 2nd and 4th and 5th, with the idea that the students wil tutor each other. My daughter is paired up with a 2nd grader who she has to tutor as a first grader. This is an optional part of KERA that not all schools participate in, and there is another(older) school in our local area that does not participate. We put in a request for a transfer, but were denied.

There are also other issues...

As a school teacher, I think the biggest problem with education is mismanagement(ie school admin, school board, superintendants). Ironically, this is where a huge chunk of the money goes. Also, I think that there are too many different entities(local gov and state govs.) that make decisions for educators who have little experience or no clue how to solve educational challenges. IMO, I wonder if we would be better off "trimming" the fat, cutting most of these jobs and decision makers out of the process and have a federal education agency in charge of a lot of the administrative educational issues to establish some nationwide uniformity in public schools.

Saulbadguy
03-09-2005, 10:00 AM
Yes, I agree administration needs some deep cuts...but holding teachers accountable for their perfomance would be a good start, as well.

tiptap
03-09-2005, 10:30 AM
Did you drink your orange juice today?

Most of us think of orange juice as a good source of vitamin C. Vitamins are trace materials that are necessary but aren't produced by humans. Usually vitamins are thought of as catalysts but there is a difference with Ascorbic Acid. We all know that without some source of vitamin C we develop scurvy. Scurvy is the breakdown of collagen that is used to 'stick' together skin, arteries and veins and other stuff. Scurvy means you are falling apart internally and externally.
So here is the thing. Humans have 3 of the 4 steps in producing their own vitamin C. The fourth step is the potentially fatal genetic defect. It is miscoded and the resulting enzyme doesn't work to complete the last step for humans to produce their own vitamin C. Most all animals in the world can produce this vital material in their own physiology. However we share this very same defect with those primate represented by monkeys (New and Old World) and apes. (Lorises and lemurs do maintain this working enzyme). Why would God have let only defective monkeys, apes and humans on the Ark? (And guinea pigs but their defective gene is at one of the other steps and is unlike primates.) It seems more believeable that this is a mistake that has been passed on genetically linking these animals with a common ancestor rather than hundreds of animals that all just happen to have this defect and only those getting on the Ark. Want to know why smart monkeys and apes aren't found far from the tropics. It is because they need good sources of vitamin C. Humans developed meat eating as a source for vitamin C and also brought our plants to sow and eat in moving away from the tropics. Nevertheless the connection for this fatal defect ties us to other primates is a way that is hard to understand if the creation accounts are true. Yet it proceeds naturally as a inherited trait from a macroevolutionary concept. (no fossils were employed in making this determination)

http://www.roccomanzi.it/IMP-VITAMINERALI/SCIENZIATI
/scienziati-docu/stone/NatuHistoAscoAcidEvoMammals_file
/NatuHistoAscoAcidEvoMammals.htm

Herzig
03-09-2005, 10:39 AM
Yes, I agree administration needs some deep cuts...but holding teachers accountable for their perfomance would be a good start, as well.

That's what NCLB attempts to do by letting every state come up with a 3 or 4 day test to measure student knowledge. I believe that it is flawed to measure a school based only one 3 day test that is different in every state. Come into my room and see what I do. Test me as well. Give my students a questionaire and learn their opinion of me and my teaching practices.

But let's not stop there with accountability. Hold parents accountable as well. Penalize parents who don't show up to parent teacher conferences and PTA meetings, those who don't make their kids come to school(poor attendance records), who don't make them do or help them with homework, etc. Penalize parents who don't discipline their children. Another big problem with education is the breakdown happening in today's society with parenting. Parents who don't live up to these expectations should have to attend a mandatory parenting class that teaches them some mandatory child rearing skills.

alnorth
03-09-2005, 10:41 AM
most on this thread are not arguing against evolution in toto, they are arguinig against it being the final/only answer.

Thats fine, Science itself doesnt have one single version of evolution either. The scientific community is almost completely united behind some form of evolution theory, but disagree on a few minor details that will continue to be hashed out over time. What pisses off scientists is when the religious fundamentalists use this apparent disagreement on minor technical points as a reason to discredit the whole theory, which is rediculous.

The various versions of evolution could be taught in science class, but the differences are so minor and technical, way above the heads of grade-school level, that they get only one general overall picture. Well leave the debates for the upper-level college biology students.

Now, if you want creationism or intelligent design taught, then you need to have something more concrete than "because I said so". Science is about verifiability and trying to disprove theories to make them stronger. Intelligent design is, by its nature, unverifiable. It therefore belongs in a religious studies or western civ class.

Not that I think theres a contradiction, *I* happen to believe in intelligent design as well. I believe God used evolution as his tool to create life, and he chose many or most of the mutations according to his plan. However, I wouldnt want my belief taught in science classes any more than I'd want genesis in science class.

alnorth
03-09-2005, 10:47 AM
Oh, and before I forget, I'll answer some of the confusion about the law of thermodynamics, entropy, etc and evolution. Entropy states that in a closed system, all matter continually progresses from a state of order to disorder, everything breaks apart into simpler forms.

So, creationists often argue that the laws of thermodynamics and entropy discredit evolution, where matter progresses from a state of disorder (or simpler forms) to order (or more complex forms).

Theres one problem with that. Entropy occurs only within a closed system, where you have a black box shielding your area of study from any input or output. The Earth is not a closed system. We have this enormous, gigantic source of incoming energy that is pounded onto the planet with brutal force every day, you may have heard of it or even seen it from time to time.

Its called the sun. If you extend the black box to include the sun, then someday, barring any input from the rest of our galaxy, the sun will burn out and well all quickly die and progress to disorder.

headsnap
03-09-2005, 11:00 AM
That's what NCLB attempts to do by letting every state come up with a 3 or 4 day test to measure student knowledge. I believe that it is flawed to measure a school based only one 3 day test that is different in every state. Come into my room and see what I do. Test me as well. Give my students a questionaire and learn their opinion of me and my teaching practices.

But let's not stop there with accountability. Hold parents accountable as well. Penalize parents who don't show up to parent teacher conferences and PTA meetings, those who don't make their kids come to school(poor attendance records), who don't make them do or help them with homework, etc. Penalize parents who don't discipline their children. Another big problem with education is the breakdown happening in today's society with parenting. Parents who don't live up to these expectations should have to attend a mandatory parenting class that teaches them some mandatory child rearing skills.
now this thread is getting somewhere! :thumb:

schools should also be able to get back to diciplining(sp) the students, but our legal system makes that an impossibility.

Clint in Wichita
03-09-2005, 11:33 AM
Religion, in all its forms, should be banned from public schools' curriculum. If a kid wants to pray, fine. Do it in silence.

"Intelligent design"? What evidence is there to support this theory other than the Bible? A gut feeling? A hunch?

Lzen
03-09-2005, 11:43 AM
Yes, I agree administration needs some deep cuts...but holding teachers accountable for their perfomance would be a good start, as well.


Saul, you're fired. :p

donkhater
03-09-2005, 11:46 AM
Without trudging through what I am sure is an interesting thread, I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in on this.

The more I delve deeper into science and think about the origins of life, I become more convinced that there is intelligent design behind it all.

As a Ph.D. chemist, it is an amazing leap for me to think that random amounts of base elements not only came together over a relatively small amount of time to form molecules, but that those molecules (amino acids) also did so with a right handed chiral nature to form larger molecules (proteins) THEN those proteins (ribosomes) made other proteins WITHOUT MISTAKE IN REPLICATION.

Gradully that mass of proteins formed into a cell, became a living thing, and that living thing evolved eventually into an being that comtemplates it's own creation.

I'm sorry, but that seems incredibly unlikely over the course of only a few billion years.

Microevolution (random genetic mutations of DNA) to account for species evolution may be entirely plausible, but the 'evolution' of element-chiral molecule-macromolecule-self assembling macromolecule-cell-aminal-human being has absolutely no basis in fact.

Lzen
03-09-2005, 11:49 AM
That's what NCLB attempts to do by letting every state come up with a 3 or 4 day test to measure student knowledge. I believe that it is flawed to measure a school based only one 3 day test that is different in every state. Come into my room and see what I do. Test me as well. Give my students a questionaire and learn their opinion of me and my teaching practices.

But let's not stop there with accountability. Hold parents accountable as well. Penalize parents who don't show up to parent teacher conferences and PTA meetings, those who don't make their kids come to school(poor attendance records), who don't make them do or help them with homework, etc. Penalize parents who don't discipline their children. Another big problem with education is the breakdown happening in today's society with parenting. Parents who don't live up to these expectations should have to attend a mandatory parenting class that teaches them some mandatory child rearing skills.

I was with you up until the part about forcing parents to discipline. That would be way too much gov't involvement. I agree, some parents should do better to discipline. But I'll be damned if I'm gonna have some school or other gov't agency telling me how to raise my kids. Of course, I'm not one that would fall into your descriptions since I always go to their parent teacher conferences and I am the main disciplinarian in the house. :)

If you give them that power, they could also turn around and tell you that you're giving too much discipline. You can't spank your kids. Give them love, not timeouts. Or you can't smack them on the back of the head to straighten up their attitude. Nope, no can do.

yunghungwell
03-09-2005, 11:51 AM
Having read about 85-90% of this thread (I grew weary.) I am now exhausted and I will have to do some work to relax. rochambeau

Lzen
03-09-2005, 11:59 AM
On the school vouchers topic:

Like Saul, I think our school system here is pretty good. However, one thing that really pisses me off is this desegregation program. If you're white, you're stuck in whatever school is closest. But if you're a minority, you can choose whatever school you like. That is crap. It's discrimination. But they don't look at it that way since it's against white people.

Without going into details, I've had personal experiences with this, in case you couldn't tell. First time was when I was in high school. And more recently involving my own kids.

Lzen
03-09-2005, 12:13 PM
Oh yeah, and I don't agree with teaching creationism in public schools. They would surely screw that up. That's what Sunday school is for anyway. But I just have a problem with all the evolution supporters that claim it to be a fact. It's still just the theory of evolution. Unless you've witnessed it, you cannot say it is a fact.

MOhillbilly
03-09-2005, 12:14 PM
I belive in evolution,but i also believe that the Adamites were a race created by God for God.
id go into it but people would just call me a bigot.

Saulbadguy
03-09-2005, 12:15 PM
Its not discrimination. Its kind of stupid, though. I've had a personal experience with it myself.

The way it works is, if you are white, and want to go to a different school, you can't choose Topeka West, but you can choose Topeka High or Highland Park.

If you are black, you can't go to HPHS, but are free to go to THS or TWHS.

Racial "balance" is what they are shooting for.

Saulbadguy
03-09-2005, 12:16 PM
For instance, if you lived in Topeka High district, and wanted to transfer, and you were black, you had to choose TWHS. If you were white, you'd have to go to HPHS.

Mark M
03-09-2005, 12:19 PM
I'm sorry, but that seems incredibly unlikely over the course of only a few billion years.

I don't necessarily disagree with your post, but this part caught my attention.

"Only" a few billion years?

Do any of us have any idea of how truly huge that number is? Think about all we as a species have seen and done in the last, oh, say 500 years ... realizing the earth isn't flat to flight, space travel, etc. etc. etc.

Now, multiply that by 2,000,000 to get to just one billion years. And according to some estimates, the earth is, what, 5 billion years old?

I'm tellin' ya ... that's a long, long, crazy long time.

MM
~~:shrug:

MOhillbilly
03-09-2005, 12:24 PM
For instance, if you lived in Topeka High district, and wanted to transfer, and you were black, you had to choose TWHS. If you were white, you'd have to go to HPHS.


thats a very very very broad POV. Its what one would say if they only scratched the surface ALL american "Oldtime" christian religion is based on the POV of the Adamites.And it didnt really change until the 1940s on.

If there were only Adam Eve Cain And Able.

Whos the "THEY" the bible refers to when Cain is cast out of the Garden that "will slay me"?
And if Cain built his own city and took a bride WTF were the peoples he married into?

Mark M
03-09-2005, 12:39 PM
thats a very very very broad POV. Its what one would say if they only scratched the surface ALL american "Oldtime" christian religion is based on the POV of the Adamites.And it didnt really change until the 1940s on.

If there were only Adam Eve Cain And Able.

Whos the "THEY" the bible refers to when Cain is cast out of the Garden that "will slay me"?
And if Cain built his own city and took a bride WTF were the peoples he married into?

My wife brought this up one time in Sunday school when she was like 11. Needless to say, the teacher had no answer.

She was told to never ask any more questions, or not show up at all.

MM
~~ROFL

Lzen
03-09-2005, 12:47 PM
Its not discrimination. Its kind of stupid, though. I've had a personal experience with it myself.

The way it works is, if you are white, and want to go to a different school, you can't choose Topeka West, but you can choose Topeka High or Highland Park.

If you are black, you can't go to HPHS, but are free to go to THS or TWHS.

Racial "balance" is what they are shooting for.

Okay, you are right. But it is stupid. I actually went to HP my freshmen year in high school and absolutely hated it. I couldn't transfer to Topeka High because of this policy. :cuss: I ended up having my friend's mom sign papers for legal guardianship so that I could live with her and go to Topeka High.

MOhillbilly
03-09-2005, 12:47 PM
My wife brought this up one time in Sunday school when she was like 11. Needless to say, the teacher had no answer.

She was told to never ask any more questions, or not show up at all.

MM
~~ROFL

its because the bible is and wasnt translated properly for generations.
And like many people they just take the shit w/out question because its what people consider religous heritage.


its also(the Aramites theory) why there is no missing link they can find skulls w/ african features but not w/ caucasian.

i over stated when i said i "believe" but its something that did spark an intrest.

donkhater
03-09-2005, 12:48 PM
I don't necessarily disagree with your post, but this part caught my attention.

"Only" a few billion years?

Do any of us have any idea of how truly huge that number is? Think about all we as a species have seen and done in the last, oh, say 500 years ... realizing the earth isn't flat to flight, space travel, etc. etc. etc.

Now, multiply that by 2,000,000 to get to just one billion years. And according to some estimates, the earth is, what, 5 billion years old?

I'm tellin' ya ... that's a long, long, crazy long time.

MM
~~:shrug:
For the series of events to unfold as I laid out, a billion years is indeed a small amount of time. In fact calculations performed by physicists suggest that there is no way the the element-to-human evolution could take place on that time scale.

Yes a billion years is a lot of time, but I also think that people underestimate the amount of time that would be required for even a samll amount of evolution to occur, let alone the creation of life.

Cochise
03-09-2005, 12:49 PM
And if Cain built his own city and took a bride WTF were the peoples he married into?

I think it's fairly clear that Cain married a sister. Since Adam's family was the only one on earth at the time, this would logically have been the only way to produce subsequent generations. Additionally, the Bible does say that Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters; Cain and Abel are the only ones we know by name I believe, but it is affirmed that there are unnamed others as well.

At the time, moral laws governing the taking of a close relative as a wife had not yet been given, and logically speaking, would be the only way for the human race to have expanded beyond the second generation.

Simplex3
03-09-2005, 12:49 PM
...I could spend a lot of time explaining the difference but I think the easiest thing to do is to point out that there is also a "Theory of Gravity", which is somewhat similar to the Theory of Evolution as far as conensus in the scientific community.

Let's go over some scientific theories which held concensus in their day:

1. The earth is flat.

2. The earth is the center of the universe.

3. The moon is made of cheese.

4. In the 1900's it was scientific concensus that by the year 2000 New York City would have an enormous problem with all the horse crap from the expanding population.

If 99 of 100 people theorize that 2+2=5 that doesn't mean they're right.

MOhillbilly
03-09-2005, 12:53 PM
I think it's fairly clear that Cain married a sister. Since Adam's family was the only one on earth at the time, this would logically have been the only way to produce subsequent generations. Additionally, the Bible does say that Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters; Cain and Abel are the only ones we know by name I believe, but it is affirmed that there are unnamed others as well.

At the time, moral laws governing the taking of a close relative as a wife had not yet been given, and logically speaking, would be the only way for the human race to have expanded beyond the second generation.

OK but when they kick him out whos going to slay him? and if the bible is a record of the geneoligy of Adam why was it important to just name 2 males and not a sister or two?

Why was isreal split into two nations?

Clint in Wichita
03-09-2005, 12:57 PM
I think it's somewhere between amusing and frightening that some people will go to great lengths to "prove" that evolution didn't or couldn't occur, yet believe that some super-creature created the entire universe from nothing. There is absolutely no evidence of creation. None. The "But it's sooo complex argument is worthless. The ancient Greeks and Romans thought that lightning was so complex that they attributed it to gods, too. If a 747 had flown overhead, they would've assumed that was the workings of one god or another.


Intelligent design is a joke, and yet another by-product of the current religious right nonsense.

AustinChief
03-09-2005, 12:59 PM
For the series of events to unfold as I laid out, a billion years is indeed a small amount of time. In fact calculations performed by physicists suggest that there is no way the the element-to-human evolution could take place on that time scale.

Yes a billion years is a lot of time, but I also think that people underestimate the amount of time that would be required for even a samll amount of evolution to occur, let alone the creation of life.

you are joking right?

What physicist would be dumb enough to make a statement so patently ignorant as that one? I would dearly love to see these calculations...

I can PROVE to you that evolution occurs.. I can't however prove that it occurred in the past.. not without a time machine at least.... but I can definitely SHOW you evolution in the present day... and it won't take me close to a billion years to show it...

MOhillbilly
03-09-2005, 01:00 PM
Intelligent design is a joke, and yet another by-product of the current religious right nonsense.

whos religous right? all holy books teach one kind of creationism or another.
Humans like to believe they didnt climb outta the same swamp as the cat on the floor licking its good spot.

Clint in Wichita
03-09-2005, 01:01 PM
you are joking right?

What physicist would be dumb enough to make a statement so patently ignorant as that one? I would dearly love to see these calculations...

I can PROVE to you that evolution occurs.. I can't however prove that it occurred in the past.. not without a time machine at least.... but I can definitely SHOW you evolution in the present day... and it won't take me close to a billion years to show it...


How about right now:

Why don't wisdom teeth fit properly in most people?

Clint in Wichita
03-09-2005, 01:03 PM
whos religous right? all holy books teach one kind of creationism or another.
Humans like to believe they didnt climb outta the same swamp as the cat on the floor licking its good spot.


Let's stop pretending that "intelligent design" and the story of creation in the Bible are 2 different things, because they're not...at least not in this part of the country.

As far as humans being so much better that cats, I have my doubts.

AustinChief
03-09-2005, 01:04 PM
How about right now:

Why don't wisdom teeth fit properly in most people?

That would date back to our ancestors with much much larger jaws....

Or of course it could be that the Creator wanted to give us poor ly designed mouths for a reason...

Clint in Wichita
03-09-2005, 01:07 PM
That would date back to our ancestors with much much larger jaws....

Or of course it could be that the Creator wanted to give us poor ly designed mouths for a reason...


Maybe "unintelligent design" accounts for wisdom teeth.

Give the almighty a dunce cap and send him to the corner for the rest of class.

AustinChief
03-09-2005, 01:10 PM
Even the POPE believes in Evolution... I went to Catholic shcool my entire life... I was taught evolution...creationism would have been laughed out of the classroom...

alnorth
03-09-2005, 01:13 PM
Let's stop pretending that "intelligent design" and the story of creation in the Bible are 2 different things, because they're not...at least not in this part of the country.

As far as humans being so much better that cats, I have my doubts.

They are two different things to many people though. I see the story of genesis as a wonderful story, a cultural legend or myth passed down through the generations. I dont believe in it literally as laid out in the bible, and the few creationists who are insisting on literal creationism being taught in school are ruining a perfectly good story by forcing it to come under scrutiny when it probably never should have been in the first place.

"Intelligent design" as far as I see it, is granting that science is more or less right, and then trying to find a way to fit religion into it so that they peacefully coexist. Sometimes I can see the point that people make when they argue that our world is so incredibly complex, with any of millions of factors making life impossible on earth if things would have turned out differently. However, the fact remains that it did happen, no matter how unlikely you might try to say it is. Unlikely != impossible. Now, if you want to believe in "intelligent design" and say that a mysterious force intentionally caused the correct conditions and mutations to happen as part of a grand plan, I have no problem with that, I more or less subscribe to that belief as well.

As long as it isnt taught in science class. Intelligent design has no evidence and it is impossible to construct an experiment that would either show consistency with, or disprove intelligent design, so it doesnt belong in science class. Keep it at home, in western civ class, religious studies classes, wherever, its not like intelligent design isnt getting a fair hearing. You can hardly swing a dead cat in this country without smacking it into a discussion on intelligent design, in a perfectly good setting outside of a Science class.

Herzig
03-09-2005, 01:13 PM
Even the POPE believes in Evolution... I went to Catholic shcool my entire life... I was taught evolution...creationism would have been laughed out of the classroom...

I'm proud that Catholics are progressive on this issue compared to other Christians. It would be interesting to see all other Christian denominations' stance on evolution. Anyone have a link?

Cochise
03-09-2005, 02:12 PM
1. when they kick him out whos going to slay him?

2. if the bible is a record of the geneoligy of Adam why was it important to just name 2 males and not a sister or two?

3. Why was isreal split into two nations?

1. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. I know that before he was sent away, it says God would take vengance on anyone who killed him as punishment. But it doesn't say those people are not members of his genetic family, and I don't see anything that says he would be slain AFTER he left. I think this command precluded anyone from going to look for him, for the purposes of revenge.

Again, like in the first reply I made to you, I think this must necessarily apply to others in the family, as they were the only other humans, at the time of course.

2. I'm not sure why no one else was named. One reason might be that it is important to understand the literary style of the time, though.

Conventional wisdom might hold that Genesis was written by Moses, who would have written it in Hebrew. The Hebrew literary style was one that did not place the same importance on full detail as our culture does; a recount was considered accurate on the basis of whether the essential points of the story were preserved, and the meaning intact. I don't believe that a writer of the time would have saw it necessary to name all the sons and daughters of Adam. I think they likely would have considered it sufficient to mention that there were others.

Just one possible answer.

3. I'm not sure what you mean by this. I vaguely remember that in the later OT (sometime after David, after Solomon) there was a split over taxes or some such. But I don't remember the details.

Not saying I have all the answers, or even that my answers are right. Just sharing some possible explainations. It is understandable that a piece of literature written in an ancient language many thousands of years ago would often be hard to understand to a 21st century reader. There are a lot of things I don't understand either, but I think a reader near the time of the writing would have.

ROYC75
03-09-2005, 02:18 PM
OK OK one question for you evolutionist.......

If evolution happened, rather we came from monkeys or not, what the hell are we going to be in another 2000 years, 10,000 or a million, billion ?

How long did this take place before we were talking ?

:shake:

ROYC75
03-09-2005, 02:19 PM
I'm proud that Catholics are progressive on this issue compared to other Christians. It would be interesting to see all other Christian denominations' stance on evolution. Anyone have a link?


The General Baptist believe that evolution is crap..... period.

Cochise
03-09-2005, 02:29 PM
The General Baptist believe that evolution is crap..... period.

I was raised Baptist, and I think that generally there is no belief in the 'big bang' theory or of the origin of homo sapien being a lower life form.

I personally and many other people I knew at the time did believe in evolution, on a micro level. But, when you draw it out to one species developing malformations that pass down to their children and result in one species changing entirely into another, I think that kind of thing is pretty hard to believe.

And that's what we're all doing here, isn't it? I doubt if any of us have doctorates in the appropriate sciences. We're all simply choosing what seems most reasonable to us.

Clint in Wichita
03-09-2005, 02:33 PM
OK OK one question for you evolutionist.......

If evolution happened, rather we came from monkeys or not, what the hell are we going to be in another 2000 years, 10,000 or a million, billion ?

How long did this take place before we were talking ?

:shake:


No sane "evolutionist" would claim to know what humans will look like in the distant future.

They leave the fortune-telling to the religious.

tiptap
03-09-2005, 02:34 PM
For the series of events to unfold as I laid out, a billion years is indeed a small amount of time. In fact calculations performed by physicists suggest that there is no way the the element-to-human evolution could take place on that time scale.

Yes a billion years is a lot of time, but I also think that people underestimate the amount of time that would be required for even a samll amount of evolution to occur, let alone the creation of life.

Please provide some reference. The flow of energy through the biosystem of earth powers the present growth and turnover of carbon based material. In an energy flow system the matter involved will respond to the flow of energy. It is essentially an engine.
It is interesting that you insist upon a top/down ID explanation when as a chemist you understand that the addition of one than a second proton, neutron and electron moves the elements from F to Ne to Na. All with quite striking differences. In a sense the topology of the space compiling these atoms is altered extensively by only the count of the constituents. This same process, the topological expression in space of the numbering of atoms in this case leads to ALL of the materials we see around us. The building block of living material is the cell and that its efficiency should displace prior self organizing expressions shouldn't be difficult to understand seeing the breath and depth that life demonstrates on earth. This is a bottom up understanding. You know building blocks. And the asscociation of those building blocks is not from design. It is coordianted by 'spheres' of electromagnetic arrangements of constituent atoms. Some arrangement of elements are more likely than others. And the energy flow through material changes the dynamic of interplay.

Do you think there is no connection between the creatures through time on earth? Are the fossils evidence of what if not the reflection of the diversity existing is some prior era and the antecedent for present diversity?

tiptap
03-09-2005, 02:56 PM
OK OK one question for you evolutionist.......

If evolution happened, rather we came from monkeys or not, what the hell are we going to be in another 2000 years, 10,000 or a million, billion ?

How long did this take place before we were talking ?

:shake:

This is easy. Extinct. Death is the true for species as well as the individual. Now I'd like to think we make it for several 10 of million of years. But biological evolution is not like physical star evolution. With star evolution the cycle is dependent mainly upon just the mass of the star. Biological evolution is dependent upon the enviroment and the species and the other species in the enviroment. There is very little predictive power to the future in such events. It is like the weather. We can be assured that there will be rain and sunshine somewhere on earth but the exact time and location can not be determined very far out in time. So the future will have continuing quadrapedal, chordate mammalian expressions and all kinds of expressions of those forms.

C-Mac
03-09-2005, 02:58 PM
I was raised Baptist, and I think that generally there is no belief in the 'big bang' theory or of the origin of homo sapien being a lower life form.

I personally and many other people I knew at the time did believe in evolution, on a micro level. But, when you draw it out to one species developing malformations that pass down to their children and result in one species changing entirely into another, I think that kind of thing is pretty hard to believe.

And that's what we're all doing here, isn't it? I doubt if any of us have doctorates in the appropriate sciences. We're all simply choosing what seems most reasonable to us.

Yes, even though many here are quite knowledgeable.
As I see it, "life only coming from life" is the only conclusion that could be applied based on all we understand at this time. The evolutionist theory of one species starting from goo, then eventually turning into another species has gaps as wide as the galaxy. The fossil record backs, what many here dissagree with, that whole life forms suddenly appeared here on the earth. Those are recorded true geological physical scientific fact findings..... but hey were humans, just because they say the world is round, doesnt mean we have to believe it.

Cochise
03-09-2005, 03:02 PM
Yes, even though many here are quite knowledgeable.
As I see it, "life only coming from life" is the only conclusion that could be applied based on all we understand at this time. The evolutionist theory of one species starting from goo, then eventually turning into another species has gaps as wide as the galaxy. The fossil record backs, what many here dissagree with, that whole life forms suddenly appeared here on the earth. Those are recorded true geological physical scientific fact findings..... but hey were humans, just because they say the world is round, doesnt mean we have to believe it.

That is the basis of what I think for the most part. There are really only two explainations. Either there was a designer, or it was all random chance. One of them, to me, is much easier to believe.

Mark M
03-09-2005, 03:03 PM
Is it just me, or does anyone else's brain hurt after reading a tiptap post?

The guy's making feel stupider by the minute ...

MM
~~:)

Lzen
03-09-2005, 03:08 PM
At first, ages were assigned to different rock strata by use of the Thoery of Evolution itself. Evolutionists assumed that more complicated forms of life developed from simpler life forms. They also assumed that this took millions and millions of years. So different rock strata were often identified by the fossils they contained, and ages were simply assigned.

....Scientists use.....radiometric dating....materials "decay" at a very slow rate....a certain percent of radioactive elements slowly turn into other elements. Carbon 14 turns in to carbon 12. Uranium turns into thorium and then into lead. Rubidium turns into strontium.

Scientists have tried to calculate the age of fossils and rocks by measuring the amounts of these elements, carbon 14, uranium or rubidium, to decay into carbon 12, thorium, or strontium. This figure gives scientists what they believe is the approximate age of the fossil or rock being dated.

....

In some cases radiometric dating seems to work as those who believe in Evolution predict. But in other cases the methods give very different results than are expected. Actually, there are many reasons why radiometric dating cannot be considered reliable.

....

Scientists assume that originally the material in a radiometric sample was carbon 14 or rubidium or whatever. What if originally only part was carbon 14 and part was already carbon 12? What if originally part of the material being measured was rubidium and part was already strontium? Since we do not know what was there originally, the dates may be very far from correct.

....

Experiments have shown that carbon 14, for instance, does change into carbon 12 at different rates, depending on factors like heat and radiation. Also, we now know that high electric voltages definitely change the rate of decay of many elements.

So while carbon dating seems relatively accurate up to its 10,000 to 15,000 year limit, there are serious reasons to doubt the evolutionists' confidence that the Earth's rocks and fossils must be of great age.

Mysteries of the Earth that cast doubt on scientists' present theories can't be explained away by the notion that "given enough time" anything could have happened.

C-Mac
03-09-2005, 03:09 PM
Is it just me, or does anyone else's brain hurt after reading a tiptap post?

The guy's making feel stupider by the minute ...

MM
~~:)

A lot of words cant replace simple facts and simple unknowns that merit no scientific "fact", just theory.

alnorth
03-09-2005, 03:11 PM
The fossil record backs, what many here dissagree with, that whole life forms suddenly appeared here on the earth.

That depends on what you mean by "whole life forms". If your meaning tiny sea creatures, shells, etc then sure. Single-celled organisms dont leave fossils, so its not like you found a stunning inconsistency here or anything.

If your trying to say that lizards, mammals, etc just suddenly poofed into existence where before there was nothing, no the fossil record doesnt show it.

I'm not particularly interested in how life started. Maybe it was all random chance out of goo, maybe God created life out of the goo and used evolution to steer things along, or maybe there was no goo and God created the first bacteria out of thin air. Whatever, none of it can really be proven with what we know at this point in time, but none of this is particularly relevant to evolution.

C-Mac
03-09-2005, 03:13 PM
At first, ages were assigned to different rock strata by use of the Thoery of Evolution itself. Evolutionists assumed that more complicated forms of life developed from simpler life forms. They also assumed that this took millions and millions of years. So different rock strata were often identified by the fossils they contained, and ages were simply assigned.

....Scientists use.....radiometric dating....materials "decay" at a very slow rate....a certain percent of radioactive elements slowly turn into other elements. Carbon 14 turns in to carbon 12. Uranium turns into thorium and then into lead. Rubidium turns into strontium.

Scientists have tried to calculate the age of fossils and rocks by measuring the amounts of these elements, carbon 14, uranium or rubidium, to decay into carbon 12, thorium, or strontium. This figure gives scientists what they believe is the approximate age of the fossil or rock being dated.

....

In some cases radiometric dating seems to work as those who believe in Evolution predict. But in other cases the methods give very different results than are expected. Actually, there are many reasons why radiometric dating cannot be considered reliable.

....

Scientists assume that originally the material in a radiometric sample was carbon 14 or rubidium or whatever. What if originally only part was carbon 14 and part was already carbon 12? What if originally part of the material being measured was rubidium and part was already strontium? Since we do not know what was there originally, the dates may be very far from correct.

....

Experiments have shown that carbon 14, for instance, does change into carbon 12 at different rates, depending on factors like heat and radiation. Also, we now know that high electric voltages definitely change the rate of decay of many elements.

So while carbon dating seems relatively accurate up to its 10,000 to 15,000 year limit, there are serious reasons to doubt the evolutionists' confidence that the Earth's rocks and fossils must be of great age.

Mysteries of the Earth that cast doubt on scientists' present theories can't be explained away by the notion that "given enough time" anything could have happened.

When they talk billions and billions of years......come on, who really knows? But I can assure you of this, the earth itself is one old rock!

alnorth
03-09-2005, 03:14 PM
So while carbon dating seems relatively accurate up to its 10,000 to 15,000 year limit, there are serious reasons to doubt the evolutionists' confidence that the Earth's rocks and fossils must be of great age.

Dont tell me your one of the very last young-earthers left in existence? Even the modern-day intelligent designer movement has disowned and distanced themselves from that line of thinking.

The earth is billions of years old, period and we didnt need to rely solely on fossils or carbon dating to prove that. We've gotten plenty of verification from astronomy.

C-Mac
03-09-2005, 03:21 PM
That depends on what you mean by "whole life forms". If your meaning tiny sea creatures, shells, etc then sure. Single-celled organizisms dont leave fossils, so its not like you found a stunning inconsistency here or anything.

If your trying to say that lizards, mammals, etc just suddenly poofed into existence where before there was nothing, no the fossil record doesnt show it.

I'm not particularly interested in how life started. Maybe it was all random chance out of goo, maybe God created life out of the goo and used evolution to steer things along, or maybe there was no goo and God created the first bacteria out of thin air. Whatever, none of it can really be proven with what we know at this point in time, but none of this is particularly relevant to evolution.

A shell and a skeleton are both viewed as fossils and a leap from goo to a skeleton would logically leave some kind of a trace.
We exist....and that is proven.

Lzen
03-09-2005, 03:22 PM
One of the mysteries that casts doubt on evolutionists' picture of Earth's past is soil. People who believe in the Theory of Evolution think of Earth's crust and of life itself as developing over billions of years. Yet the nature of Earth's soil suggest that it couldn't have happpened that way!

The soil is made up in part of minerals washed out of rocks, and of weathered rock itself that has been broken down into small grains. But alone, such rock material is sterile. Plants can't grow in it; animals can't live on it. It will not support life.

To support life, soil must also contain organic matter.....material that comes from or is made up of once-living things. So soil must contain elements that come from plants and animals.

In fact, soil must also contain vast numbers of living organisms, from single-celled bacteria to tiny animals. The Encyclopedia Britannica says that a square foot of rich soil may contain up to one billion organisms.

These tiny living things help to break down the decaying bodies of plants and animals that have died. The chemicals in the dead organic matter will be used again to grow the plants and animals that replace the ones that died. Also, soil bacteria take nitrogen from rocks and air and release it in forms that can be used by plants.

If we look at the surface of the Earth and ask what is necessary for it to support life, we have to give this answer. We need soil made of weathered rock, and we need the chemicals that water washes from the rocks. We need air and water. But soil also must contain organic matter. And soil must have millions of tiny living organisms in it if anything is to grow.

This poses a difficult problem for those who believe in the slow evolution of Earth's surface and of living things. Where did the soil that living things need in order to exist come from before there were living things to fill the soil with organic matter?

Lzen
03-09-2005, 03:26 PM
Dont tell me your one of the very last young-earthers left in existence? Even the modern-day intelligent designer movement has disowned and distanced themselves from that line of thinking.

The earth is billions of years old, period and we didnt need to rely solely on fossils or carbon dating to prove that. We've gotten plenty of verification from astronomy.


Frankly, I don't think you or I or anyone knows exactly how the Earth was created. Or exactly how life appeared. I will just go by what the Bible says. As ridiculous as that sounds to non believers, it is just as ridiculous to believe a theory that is based upon many assumptions. Yet Evolutionists present their theory as scientific fact. That is what I have a problem with.

Mark M
03-09-2005, 03:27 PM
One of the mysteries that casts doubt on evolutionists' picture of Earth's past is soil. People who believe in the Theory of Evolution think of Earth's crust and of life itself as developing over billions of years. Yet the nature of Earth's soil suggest that it couldn't have happpened that way!

The soil is made up in part of minerals washed out of rocks, and of weathered rock itself that has been broken down into small grains. But alone, such rock material is sterile. Plants can't grow in it; animals can't live on it. It will not support life.

To support life, soil must also contain organic matter.....material that comes from or is made up of once-living things. So soil must contain elements that come from plants and animals.

In fact, soil must also contain vast numbers of living organisms, from single-celled bacteria to tiny animals. The Encyclopedia Britannica says that a square foot of rich soil may contain up to one billion organisms.

These tiny living things help to break down the decaying bodies of plants and animals that have died. The chemicals in the dead organic matter will be used again to grow the plants and animals that replace the ones that died. Also, soil bacteria take nitrogen from rocks and air and release it in forms that can be used by plants.

If we look at the surface of the Earth and ask what is necessary for it to support life, we have to give this answer. We need soil made of weathered rock, and we need the chemicals that water washes from the rocks. We need air and water. But soil also must contain organic matter. And soil must have millions of tiny living organisms in it if anything is to grow.

This poses a difficult problem for those who believe in the slow evolution of Earth's surface and of living things. Where did the soil that living things need in order to exist come from before there were living things to fill the soil with organic matter?

Is there soil in the desert (where life exists in the form of some lizards and plants)?

Is there soil at the bottom of the ocean, where life exists?

Is there soil around vents in the ocean floor where temperatures and conditions were once considered entirely too hostile for life to exist, yet life exists there?

MM
~~:shrug:

AustinChief
03-09-2005, 03:28 PM
One of the mysteries that casts doubt on evolutionists' picture of Earth's past is soil. People who believe in the Theory of Evolution think of Earth's crust and of life itself as developing over billions of years. Yet the nature of Earth's soil suggest that it couldn't have happpened that way!

The soil is made up in part of minerals washed out of rocks, and of weathered rock itself that has been broken down into small grains. But alone, such rock material is sterile. Plants can't grow in it; animals can't live on it. It will not support life.

To support life, soil must also contain organic matter.....material that comes from or is made up of once-living things. So soil must contain elements that come from plants and animals.

In fact, soil must also contain vast numbers of living organisms, from single-celled bacteria to tiny animals. The Encyclopedia Britannica says that a square foot of rich soil may contain up to one billion organisms.

These tiny living things help to break down the decaying bodies of plants and animals that have died. The chemicals in the dead organic matter will be used again to grow the plants and animals that replace the ones that died. Also, soil bacteria take nitrogen from rocks and air and release it in forms that can be used by plants.

If we look at the surface of the Earth and ask what is necessary for it to support life, we have to give this answer. We need soil made of weathered rock, and we need the chemicals that water washes from the rocks. We need air and water. But soil also must contain organic matter. And soil must have millions of tiny living organisms in it if anything is to grow.

This poses a difficult problem for those who believe in the slow evolution of Earth's surface and of living things. Where did the soil that living things need in order to exist come from before there were living things to fill the soil with organic matter?

I don't see that as an issue at all... single celled life doesn't necessarily need soil and as it evolves to become multiple more complex life forms... the natural lifecycles of these will eventual leave the necessary traces of life in the soil that can later be used to sustain even more complex life...

donkhater
03-09-2005, 03:30 PM
Please provide some reference. The flow of energy through the biosystem of earth powers the present growth and turnover of carbon based material. In an energy flow system the matter involved will respond to the flow of energy. It is essentially an engine.
It is interesting that you insist upon a top/down ID explanation when as a chemist you understand that the addition of one than a second proton, neutron and electron moves the elements from F to Ne to Na. All with quite striking differences. In a sense the topology of the space compiling these atoms is altered extensively by only the count of the constituents. This same process, the topological expression in space of the numbering of atoms in this case leads to ALL of the materials we see around us. The building block of living material is the cell and that its efficiency should displace prior self organizing expressions shouldn't be difficult to understand seeing the breath and depth that life demonstrates on earth. This is a bottom up understanding. You know building blocks. And the asscociation of those building blocks is not from design. It is coordianted by 'spheres' of electromagnetic arrangements of constituent atoms. Some arrangement of elements are more likely than others. And the energy flow through material changes the dynamic of interplay.

Do you think there is no connection between the creatures through time on earth? Are the fossils evidence of what if not the reflection of the diversity existing is some prior era and the antecedent for present diversity?

Here is my question at it's core. How did elements, small molecules, etc, develop over the centuries to a being that can contemplate it's own existence in the universe? Isn't that disturbing to the hardcore evolutionist?

I can't deny the evidence for evolution ----once life has been established. But when and how did that occur? There is no way you are ever going to convince me that mass of electrons, protons and neutrons formed the optically active building blocks of life and then went about self preservation from there.

Mark M
03-09-2005, 03:30 PM
Frankly, I don't think you or I or anyone knows exactly how the Earth was created. Or exactly how life appeared. I will just go by what the Bible says. As ridiculous as that sounds to non believers, it is just as ridiculous to believe a theory that is based upon many assumptions. Yet Evolutionists present their theory as scientific fact. That is what I have a problem with.

I agree that evolution is a theory, not a 100% concrete fact.

But why do you believe the bible to be true? What is in there that convinced you that it's true?

(NOTE: I am NOT trying to get you to question your faith -- I can respect that it's so strong. I'm just curious as to why some believe a book, while others believe science.)

MM
~~:hmmm:

Ghostof
03-09-2005, 03:33 PM
Well I'll be a monkeys uncles!

Ghostof
03-09-2005, 03:33 PM
This whole thread is funnier then a barrel full of monkeys!

Mark M
03-09-2005, 03:35 PM
Looks like the argument AGAINST intelligent design has chimed in ...

MM
~~:shake:

Ghostof
03-09-2005, 03:36 PM
IN a related news story:


Koko, the signing gorilla, has issued a lawsuit citing that schools arent teaching about evolution. When asked for her comment, Koko signed "I like boobs, show me yours"

C-Mac
03-09-2005, 03:36 PM
Frankly, I don't think you or I or anyone knows exactly how the Earth was created. Or exactly how life appeared. I will just go by what the Bible says. As ridiculous as that sounds to non believers, it is just as ridiculous to believe a theory that is based upon many assumptions. Yet Evolutionists present their theory as scientific fact. That is what I have a problem with.

Lzen,
The bible does supports a very old earth.
It also supports the scientifically proven correct order in which life appeared on the earth.
It also supports the exact scientific elements that we are made, that being same as dirt.
Ect, ect.....

Ghostof
03-09-2005, 03:38 PM
Looks like the argument AGAINST intelligent design has chimed in ...

MM
~~:shake:



You are just jealous.

Clint in Wichita
03-09-2005, 03:38 PM
Here is my question at it's core. How did elements, small molecules, etc, develop over the centuries to a being that can contemplate it's own existence in the universe? Isn't that disturbing to the hardcore evolutionist?

I can't deny the evidence for evolution ----once life has been established. But when and how did that occur? There is no way you are ever going to convince me that mass of electrons, protons and neutrons formed the optically active building blocks of life and then went about self preservation from there.


But you can be convinced that a super being that you've never seen created the entire universe in 7 days.

I just wonder what his "move" was: Twitching his nose like Samantha from "Bewitched", or a more dramatic waving of the arms like David Copperfield.

Ghostof
03-09-2005, 03:40 PM
But you can be convinced that a super being that you've never seen created the entire universe in 7 days.

I just wonder what his "move" was: Twitching his nose like Samantha from "Bewitched", or a more dramatic waving of the arms like David Copperfield.



Or better yet, did he take a dump out in the woods and then decided to call it Wichita. . .

Mark M
03-09-2005, 03:41 PM
Or better yet, did he take a dump out in the woods and then decided to call it Wichita. . .

Okay ... that was funny.

MM
~~ROFL

Clint in Wichita
03-09-2005, 03:43 PM
Or better yet, did he take a dump out in the woods and then decided to call it Wichita. . .


How very un-Christian of you.

Besides, you're located in Lawrence? What a shithole.

Saulbadguy
03-09-2005, 03:44 PM
Or better yet, did he take a dump out in the woods and then decided to call it Wichita. . .
ROFL

Nice.. :thumb:

C-Mac
03-09-2005, 03:45 PM
Here is my question at it's core. How did elements, small molecules, etc, develop over the centuries to a being that can contemplate it's own existence in the universe? Isn't that disturbing to the hardcore evolutionist?.

Einstein said it best....... E=Mc2

I can't deny the evidence for evolution ----once life has been established. But when and how did that occur? There is no way you are ever going to convince me that mass of electrons, protons and neutrons formed the optically active building blocks of life and then went about self preservation from there.

I'm wouldnt to try to convince you of such an improbability unless you just want to remove the possibilty of a creator completely out of the picture.

Clint in Wichita
03-09-2005, 03:46 PM
ROFL

Nice.. :thumb:


I've been more ruthless on a good day.

You are too easily amused.

Lzen
03-09-2005, 03:49 PM
I agree that evolution is a theory, not a 100% concrete fact.

But why do you believe the bible to be true? What is in there that convinced you that it's true?

(NOTE: I am NOT trying to get you to question your faith -- I can respect that it's so strong. I'm just curious as to why some believe a book, while others believe science.)

MM
~~:hmmm:

Heh, I don't think any of us is going to convince the others. Let's just say I've had plenty of things happen in my own personal experiences to convince me. Believe it when I say that I questioned my Christian upbringing when I was a teen and early 20s. But many things have happened to me or that I've read that have helped me see the light.

And for those that say why believe a story (the Bible). Well, there are a lot of reasons. Does a jury believe it when several witnesses testify against a defendant? Yes. Have a lot of things that the Bible predicted come true? Yes.

Those are my reasons. I just wonder what non-believers think happens to them when they die. I mean, if you just are dead and there is no afterlife, what's the point of even living? Seems like a crappy way to go through life.

donkhater
03-09-2005, 03:49 PM
But you can be convinced that a super being that you've never seen created the entire universe in 7 days.

I just wonder what his "move" was: Twitching his nose like Samantha from "Bewitched", or a more dramatic waving of the arms like David Copperfield.
Where on earth did I ever say that? If you can't separate the concept of intelligent design from what is written in the Bible, then that is your problem.

I do not subscribe to a single teaching in the Bible. My beliefs on this topic do not come from what I feel are stories and proverbs with an agenda behind it.

The idea that God created earth and all of creation in 7 'year 2005 human' days is laughable.

I do, however, have a big problem with random elements forming life forms that have feelings of love, hate, anger and joy and find that current evolution theory, while adequate in explaining the progression from primate to man, falls drastically short in explaining when, why and how life began.

I suppose your sarcastic personalitiy is just some byproduct of the unique combination of elements that is you, or did they actually learn that?

Lzen
03-09-2005, 03:50 PM
Or better yet, did he take a dump out in the woods and then decided to call it Wichita. . .

Nope. He called it Clint. ;)

Cochise
03-09-2005, 03:52 PM
Or better yet, did he take a dump out in the woods and then decided to call it Wichita. . .

Nice smack. Unrelated to the thread, no real meaning. Straight out of his playbook. ROFL

keg in kc
03-09-2005, 03:52 PM
This argument isn't about using facts to build a picture of the real world, it's about shoving facts into a box that fits some preexisting belief. Because it's all a matter of faith, whether you choose to believe in an omnipotent invisible friend or survival of the fittest.

Lzen
03-09-2005, 03:53 PM
This argument isn't about using facts to build a picture of the real world, it's about shoving facts into a box that fits some preexisting belief. Because it's all a matter of faith, whether you choose to believe in an omnipotent invisible friend or survival of the fittest.

Well stated.

Ghostof
03-09-2005, 03:54 PM
I've been reading over this thread and have come up with this conclusion....

Most of the Chiefs fans I know only bring up God when the Chiefs fumble or if they are addressing Carl for a mistake he made.

Chiefs not drafting the right people = more people talking about religion

Lzen
03-09-2005, 03:55 PM
Where on earth did I ever say that? If you can't separate the concept of intelligent design from what is written in the Bible, then that is your problem.

I do not subscribe to a single teaching in the Bible. My beliefs on this topic do not come from what I feel are stories and proverbs with an agenda behind it.

The idea that God created earth and all of creation in 7 'year 2005 human' days is laughable.

I do, however, have a big problem with random elements forming life forms that have feelings of love, hate, anger and joy and find that current evolution theory, while adequate in explaining the progression from primate to man, falls drastically short in explaining when, why and how life began.

I suppose your sarcastic personalitiy is just some byproduct of the unique combination of elements that is you, or did they actually learn that?

So help me to understand your beliefs. You don't believe in the Bible but you do believe in intelligent design? What intelligence? Aliens? Perhaps like that movie about 5-6 years ago, Mission To Mars?

Lzen
03-09-2005, 03:56 PM
I've been reading over this thread and have come up with this conclusion....

Most of the Chiefs fans I know only bring up God when the Chiefs fumble or if they are addressing Carl for a mistake he made.

Chiefs not drafting the right people = more people talking about religion

Perhaps you only see what your eyes allow.






.........oh.....errr....uhhh....grasshopper.
:)

Herzig
03-09-2005, 03:58 PM
Einstein said it best....... E=Mc2



I'm wouldnt to try to convince you of such an improbability unless you just want to remove the possibilty of a creator completely out of the picture.

I'm with you on this one. I think God and evolution can coexist. Not all of the Bible is meant to be taken literally, although many do so. We all must keep in mind that the Bible has been translated many times. Has anyone here tried to type in a sentence from a foreign language on Babel fish http://world.altavista.com/ ? The results can be quite eye opening.

Saulbadguy
03-09-2005, 03:59 PM
I don't worry about it too much. IMO, eventually science will dispell creationism, and even religion itself. Nothing will be left unexplained, hence, no need for it.

It won't be in my lifetime, though.

Ghostof
03-09-2005, 04:00 PM
I don't worry about it too much. IMO, eventually science will dispell creationism, and even religion itself. Nothing will be left unexplained, hence, no need for it.

It won't be in my lifetime, though.



Hopefully by then CP and DV will be gone and the Chiefs will have won a few Super Bowls.

donkhater
03-09-2005, 04:01 PM
So help me to understand your beliefs. You don't believe in the Bible but you do believe in intelligent design? What intelligence? Aliens? Perhaps like that movie about 5-6 years ago, Mission To Mars?
A person can believe in a creator without subscribing to the beliefs in the Bible. I give no weight to a series of stories passed down from generations as the truth, particulary when the authors of those stories didn't witnesses it first hand.

I do not believe in aliens. The odds of another planet situated in the universe with the exact specifications of Earth (a prerequisite for life) are astronomical.

Saulbadguy
03-09-2005, 04:01 PM
Hopefully by then CP and DV will be gone and the Chiefs will have won a few Super Bowls.
I would hope so..but by then, who knows if football will even exist. I doubt it.

Saulbadguy
03-09-2005, 04:02 PM
I do not believe in aliens. The odds of another planet situated in the universe with the exact specifications of Earth (a prerequisite for life) are astronomical.
Wow. Thats pretty damn naive.

Garcia Bronco
03-09-2005, 04:02 PM
God (no pun intended) forbid they put both ideas on equal footing and let students decide for themselves.

No shit

Ghostof
03-09-2005, 04:03 PM
What a wierd rep....


"Teaching Evolution in K...

03-09-2005 03:40 PM

Mark M Hmmm ... I'm smarter, better looking, have more money, and am hung well. The answer, then, would be no."

Clint in Wichita
03-09-2005, 04:03 PM
Where on earth did I ever say that? If you can't separate the concept of intelligent design from what is written in the Bible, then that is your problem.

I do not subscribe to a single teaching in the Bible. My beliefs on this topic do not come from what I feel are stories and proverbs with an agenda behind it.

The idea that God created earth and all of creation in 7 'year 2005 human' days is laughable.

I do, however, have a big problem with random elements forming life forms that have feelings of love, hate, anger and joy and find that current evolution theory, while adequate in explaining the progression from primate to man, falls drastically short in explaining when, why and how life began.

I suppose your sarcastic personalitiy is just some byproduct of the unique combination of elements that is you, or did they actually learn that?

Once you are willing to accept that a super-intelligence created the entire universe, why is the 7-day thing so hard to swallow? I would think that an all-powerful super-being could create the entire universe instantly.

keg in kc
03-09-2005, 04:03 PM
I don't worry about it too much. IMO, eventually science will dispell creationism, and even religion itself. Nothing will be left unexplained, hence, no need for it. I tend to think the more we learn, the more questions we'll find. I don't know if it would be possible to ever unstand everything.

If we did reach that point, however, it could create an interesting paradox. We might disprove the existence of god by becoming gods ourselves, because by the time we understand that much of the universe, we might transcend into a form unlike anything we associate as 'human', and much more like a traditional representation of 'god'.

donkhater
03-09-2005, 04:05 PM
I don't worry about it too much. IMO, eventually science will dispell creationism, and even religion itself. Nothing will be left unexplained, hence, no need for it.

It won't be in my lifetime, though.

Based on the testimony I've heard, science seems to be doing just the opposite--proving creationism.

See the video "Journey Toward Creation" where several noted astrophysicists detail what they've come up with. It is fascinating.

Ghostof
03-09-2005, 04:06 PM
How many people here can the read the bible without thinking of Charleton Heston as Moses??