PDA

View Full Version : Education ACLU to Kansas school district: Cancel creationist assemblies about Dinosaurs


Bump
04-21-2013, 09:49 PM
http://www.reddit.com/tb/1ct42w


The American Civil Liberties Union has warned a southwest Kansas school district against holding mandatory student assemblies that feature a creationist group.

“Teaching or otherwise promoting creationism is, simply put, unlawful,” the ACLU wrote in a letter to Hugoton Public Schools superintendent Mark Crawford on Friday. “As the District is surely aware, the federal courts have been unequivocally clear that efforts to inject religious beliefs regarding the origin of life into public school science curricula are constitutionally impermissible, no matter what form they take.”

Hugoton Public Schools invited Creation Truth Foundation’s founder Dr. G. Thomas Sharp to teach the “Truth about Dinosaurs” at two assemblies next week. At least one of the assemblies will be mandatory for all students and teachers.

The group has created teaching materials “explaining the origins, extinction and possible existence of dinosaurs” from a Biblical view and believes the dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex walked the Earth as early as 100,000 years ago rather more than 65 million years ago. In a lecture uploaded to YouTube last year, Sharp criticized scientists for ignoring the great flood of the Bible.

“We respectfully request the District take immediate and concrete steps to remedy these problems,” the ACLU concluded. “The first step would be to cancel the planned mandatory school assemblies now set for next week.”

However, superintendent Crawford has said he will not call off the assemblies. He told The Kansas City Star the assemblies will not promote creationism, despite the beliefs and mission of the Creation Truth Foundation.

“I agree with the ACLU, in that, if a mandatory all-school assembly where creationist truths or creationist beliefs were expressed, that would be inappropriate public-school content, and that is not the case,” Crawford said. “It’s completely and totally school appropriate.”

KILLER_CLOWN
04-21-2013, 09:52 PM
Nothing wrong with teaching different viewpoints, however neither side should be mandatory unless it's a private school.

Dave Lane
04-21-2013, 09:55 PM
Stupid beyond belief. Its crap like this that makes me speak up about the stupidity of the theist position at the drop of a hat

Dave Lane
04-21-2013, 09:56 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_0Ca88xNw_w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Prison Bitch
04-21-2013, 10:32 PM
It's interesting he says the Dinos are 100,000 years old. If a creationist believes humankind to be only 6,000 years old then Dinos were around 94,000 years earlier and that means the strict Biblical story didn't happen in 7 days. Of course this assumes he's a Bible believer and not just a creationist.

Brainiac
04-21-2013, 10:34 PM
Nothing wrong with teaching different viewpoints, however neither side should be mandatory unless it's a private school.
They aren't different viewpoints. One is a religion. The other isn't.

The fact that scientific facts conflict with your religious beliefs doesn't make science a competing religion. It just means that primitive religious beliefs often don't stand up very well under the scrutiny of the scientific method.

I realize that I'm wasting my time here. I guess I can't give up on the hope that maybe, just maybe, for one brief instant you'll have a flash of understanding that will lead you to question the authority that has ruled your entire thought process for your entire life.

Like I said, I'm wasting my time.

cosmo20002
04-21-2013, 11:02 PM
Nothing wrong with teaching different viewpoints, however neither side should be mandatory unless it's a private school.

It is when one of the viewpoints contradicts fact. The timeframe when Tyrannosaurus Rex walked the Earth is not a matter of opinion. Maybe we could also teach a different viewpoint on 2 + 2 = ?

KILLER_CLOWN
04-21-2013, 11:03 PM
It is when one of the viewpoints contradicts fact. The timeframe when Tyrannosaurus Rex walked the Earth is not a matter of opinion. Maybe we could also teach a different viewpoint on 2 + 2 = ?

It is, unless you have absolute proof which you do not.

Bowser
04-21-2013, 11:13 PM
It is, unless you have absolute proof which you do not.

You doubt carbon dating results?

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-21-2013, 11:14 PM
It is, unless you have absolute proof which you do not.

JFC. Let's break out the Creation Museum's refutation of radiocarbon dating, then.

RedDread
04-21-2013, 11:17 PM
It is, unless you have absolute proof which you do not.

LOL at the "you weren't there you don't know argument." Nobody has absolute proof that a god exists (for obvious reasons) but they will shit all over scientific findings all day long.

It would be like me saying Jesus didn't exist because we can't prove he lived 100%. Lets be honest, we only have some unproven relics and historical accounts, neither of which prove without a doubt that he existed.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-21-2013, 11:18 PM
Here's something else I don't have absolute proof of:

That cupcakes won't become sentient tomorrow, realize humanity as a threat, then launch a global war against us wherein they plunge humanity back into the Stone Age.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-21-2013, 11:21 PM
You doubt carbon dating results?

Very much so, you can get Incredibly different dates from items that are about the same age old. The stats are there if you care to look.

RedDread
04-21-2013, 11:28 PM
Very much so, you can get Incredibly different dates from items that are about the same age old. The stats are there if you care to look.

I'm beginning to get a very clear picture of you. Belief in the unknowable but absolute skepticism regarding everything science.

Ask yourself, shouldn't you apply that same level of skepticism to everything you're told?

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-21-2013, 11:30 PM
Very much so, you can get Incredibly different dates from items that are about the same age old. The stats are there if you care to look.

This is bullshit. You aren't getting a 65 million year difference in carbon dating results.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-21-2013, 11:30 PM
I'm beginning to get a very clear picture of you. Belief in the unknowable but absolute skepticism regarding everything science.

Ask yourself, shouldn't you apply that same level of skepticism to everything you're told?

No, because I know that is based on faith and what is in your soul.

RedDread
04-21-2013, 11:31 PM
No, because I know that is based on faith and what is in your soul.

Then you will never be saved.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-21-2013, 11:32 PM
And your faith is based upon editorial judgments (Council of Nicea says "Hi!") and translation errors.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-21-2013, 11:34 PM
And your faith is based upon editorial judgments (Council of Nicea says "Hi!") and translation errors.

You forgot to add in your opinion.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-21-2013, 11:34 PM
Then you will never be saved.

LMAO ok

KChiefer
04-21-2013, 11:35 PM
Saw this on reddit today, haven't seen if it's been confirmed to be authentic. Real or not, this is what creationists want in public schools...


4th grade science test from a school in SC
http://i.imgur.com/TYpLJpOh.jpg

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1crzuz/actual_4th_grade_science_test_from_a_school_in_sc/

KILLER_CLOWN
04-21-2013, 11:37 PM
Saw this on reddit today, haven't seen if it's been confirmed to be authentic. Real or not, this is what creationists want in public schools...

http://i.imgur.com/TYpLJpOh.jpg

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1crzuz/actual_4th_grade_science_test_from_a_school_in_sc/

False that is from a PRIVATE school and Creationist want either both sides taught or the unproven facts stricken from record completely.

RedDread
04-21-2013, 11:38 PM
False that is from a PRIVATE school and Creationist want either both sides taught or the unproven facts stricken from record completely.

So all of their shit essentially?

You see how stupid this is?

KChiefer
04-21-2013, 11:39 PM
False that is from a PRIVATE school and Creationist want either both sides taught or the unproven facts stricken from record completely.

Great. The FACT is, we don't need any creationist ideas in PUBLIC schools...or private schools for that matter.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-21-2013, 11:41 PM
So all of their shit essentially?

You see how stupid this is?

Either teach both as religion or only teach the facts, pretty simple and neither are needed in public schools.

BucEyedPea
04-21-2013, 11:41 PM
Great. The FACT is, we don't need any creationist ideas in PUBLIC schools...or private schools for that matter.

Gawd, what a Stalinist. :doh!:

KILLER_CLOWN
04-21-2013, 11:42 PM
Great. The FACT is, we don't need any creationist ideas in PUBLIC schools...or private schools for that matter.

If this were a true dictatorship then yes that would be true, thankfully we're not there yet.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-21-2013, 11:43 PM
You forgot to add in your opinion.

There is no opinion there. It is documentable fact that the Council of Nicea made a conscious editorial decision about what books to put in the Bible and which ones to leave out (here's where you say God told them what to put in there). It's also true that many of the Biblical translations taken as fact are incorrect, as the translators made errors along the way when translating (often) Aramaic to Hebrew to Latin to various types of English.

And that's but one translation strain.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-21-2013, 11:45 PM
I hope Killer Clown realizes that he can't definitively prove he's not a figment of some Hobo's imagination.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-21-2013, 11:45 PM
There is no opinion there. It is documentable fact that the Council of Nicea made a conscious editorial decision about what books to put in the Bible and which ones to leave out (here's where you say God told them what to put in there). It's also true that many of the Biblical translations taken as fact are incorrect, as the translators made errors along the way when translating (often) Aramaic to Hebrew to Latin to various types of English.

And that's but one translation strain.

I believe the KJV was spiritually guided, it's really up to the individuals' belief. I believe the original was written in Greek.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-21-2013, 11:46 PM
I hope Killer Clown realizes that he can't definitively prove he's not a figment of some Hobo's imagination.

Nor do I really care.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-21-2013, 11:48 PM
I believe the KJV was spiritually guided, it's really up to the individuals' belief. I believe the original was written in Greek.

The NT was.

Again, I was talking about one translation strain, not all. See where the potential for error comes in?

KILLER_CLOWN
04-21-2013, 11:48 PM
The NT was.

Again, I was talking about one translation strain, not all. See where the potential for error comes in?

Absolutely.

Dave Lane
04-21-2013, 11:52 PM
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSs6PHQW7qC7MLrQvq6XEdb95OmnqAQp40FkNyLRWPqBbGl2cL_

KChiefer
04-21-2013, 11:54 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_0Ca88xNw_w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Preach on, Brother! :rockon:

BucEyedPea
04-21-2013, 11:58 PM
He's for free or affordable health care. He must be an atheistic communist. Remember how many they killed for their religion. LMAO

He twisted the Founding Fathers and our early history around too....most commies do.

KChiefer
04-21-2013, 11:58 PM
I hope Killer Clown realizes that he can't definitively prove he's not a figment of some Hobo's imagination.

ROFL

Dave Lane
04-21-2013, 11:59 PM
Preach on, Brother! :rockon:

I met Aronra this weekend. Cool dude went to lunch with him. He's a gentleman and an incredible intellect.

Dave Lane
04-22-2013, 12:15 AM
He's for free or affordable health care. He must be an atheistic communist. Remember how many they killed for their religion. LMAO

He twisted the Founding Fathers and our early history around too....most commies do.

Actually, they killed all those people because of their lack of belief in Unicorns. Really. And it makes just as much sense as your comment.

Dave Lane
04-22-2013, 12:21 AM
Saw this on reddit today, haven't seen if it's been confirmed to be authentic. Real or not, this is what creationists want in public schools...


4th grade science test from a school in SC
http://i.imgur.com/TYpLJpOh.jpg

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1crzuz/actual_4th_grade_science_test_from_a_school_in_sc/

ROFLROFL

This raises a lot of questions for someone from Europe.
If a school is completely private and does not follow a standardized educational program, how can it be considered a valid education? How can you apply to college with it? Do the schools just have some sort of nudge nudge deals with each other?
How far up in your studies can this go? Can a college or university have privately set goals on what is required to become a bachelor, master or a doctor*? Or is this the reason why which school you got your degree from is such a big deal over there?
(*More importantly, could I set up a private school and declare myself a Bachelor of Awesome Sciences?)

As another person from Europe, I have more questions. The standard for what kids need to learn to maintain accreditation - does this really not include knowledge in natural sciences, geology, biology, genetics, etc?
Also, can you get into every college / university you want to with an education lacking these subjects or do some universities not accept people from private, Christian schools?

Pitt Gorilla
04-22-2013, 12:26 AM
LMAO Kansas.

KChiefer
04-22-2013, 12:40 AM
ROFLROFL

This raises a lot of questions for someone from Europe.
If a school is completely private and does not follow a standardized educational program, how can it be considered a valid education? How can you apply to college with it? Do the schools just have some sort of nudge nudge deals with each other?
How far up in your studies can this go? Can a college or university have privately set goals on what is required to become a bachelor, master or a doctor*? Or is this the reason why which school you got your degree from is such a big deal over there?
(*More importantly, could I set up a private school and declare myself a Bachelor of Awesome Sciences?)

As another person from Europe, I have more questions. The standard for what kids need to learn to maintain accreditation - does this really not include knowledge in natural sciences, geology, biology, genetics, etc?
Also, can you get into every college / university you want to with an education lacking these subjects or do some universities not accept people from private, Christian schools?

I just pulled my degree from my butt and it turns out I'm a Doctor of Uber Mysterious Biblical Anecdotal pSeudo Sciences. Who knew!?

KILLER_CLOWN
04-22-2013, 07:41 AM
The typical atheistic circle jerk going on here, shocked I am. Poor retarded souls.

AussieChiefsFan
04-22-2013, 09:08 AM
Saw this on reddit today, haven't seen if it's been confirmed to be authentic. Real or not, this is what creationists want in public schools...


4th grade science test from a school in SC
http://i.imgur.com/TYpLJpOh.jpg

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1crzuz/actual_4th_grade_science_test_from_a_school_in_sc/My god....

Dave Lane
04-22-2013, 09:18 AM
My god....

Yes and I assume pun intended...

AussieChiefsFan
04-22-2013, 09:18 AM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_0Ca88xNw_w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>That was amazing. :clap:

Brainiac
04-22-2013, 09:26 AM
I believe the KJV was spiritually guided, it's really up to the individuals' belief. I believe the original was written in Greek.
Radical Muslims believe the Quran was spiritually guided too.

Nice company you keep.

Oh wait, that's different, because YOUR religion is the RIGHT religion. I forgot.

loochy
04-22-2013, 09:40 AM
Radical Muslims believe the Quran was spiritually guided too.

Nice company you keep.

Oh wait, that's different, because YOUR religion is the RIGHT religion. I forgot.

Why would he choose a religion that he doesn't think is right?

KILLER_CLOWN
04-22-2013, 09:46 AM
Why would he choose a religion that he doesn't think is right?

It's all the same to the untrained atheist. :shrug:

mikey23545
04-22-2013, 11:01 AM
Nothing wrong with teaching different viewpoints, however neither side should be mandatory unless it's a private school.

So when should they hold the "The Earth is Flat!" assembly?

HolyHandgernade
04-22-2013, 11:52 AM
Nothing wrong with teaching different viewpoints, however neither side should be mandatory unless it's a private school.

Science is not a viewpoint, science is a process.

Creationism is a belief system, one that often rejects scientific investigation into the validity of claims.

Science, like math and language arts are not viewpoints, they are tools for understanding and creating rational and critical thinking.

Belief systems can be paths towards fields of knowledge not accessed by empirical study, but, creationism is not even that. Creationism is an attempt to validate a particular belief that is expressly unscientific, in other words, pseudo science.

I cannot believe you just suggested science should not be mandatory in school.

"Yes, I know I express ignorant views via an informational and communicative medium that would have been impossible without science, but I think it ought to be optional in school."

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 12:20 PM
Who cares what some religions believe or want to teach. It doesn't harm any of you.

Fish
04-22-2013, 12:24 PM
Who cares what some religions believe or want to teach. It doesn't harm any of you.

Read the article, stupid. People care because they're wanting to teach it in a public school. Nobody gives a shit what those idiots teach in their own church. But when they try to bring it into a public school, people absolutely care.

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 12:26 PM
Read the article, stupid. People care because they're wanting to teach it in a public school. Nobody gives a shit what those idiots teach in their own church. But when they try to bring it into a public school, people absolutely care.
No, I wasn't just responding to the article. There are people that care what is taught by these folks in general....even in their own schools because it's harmful to them.

But since you asked me to go by the article—this is the problem with government education. I still would allow very local districts to decide on what to teach based on their own local demographic. Or get rid of govt schools and give folks a tax credit to pay for it themselves and have something to help the less fortunate.

WhawhaWhat
04-22-2013, 12:37 PM
I bet this group uses scenes from Land of the Lost to describe how things were when Jesus was alive.

Bump
04-22-2013, 01:11 PM
Who cares what some religions believe or want to teach. It doesn't harm any of you.

my nephew lives in Kansas and they're not rich enough to get him a good education, therefore public schools. And it's just ridiculous that they would even try to teach that bullshit, trying to warp young people's minds when they are most susceptible.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-22-2013, 01:27 PM
Science is not a viewpoint, science is a process.

Creationism is a belief system, one that often rejects scientific investigation into the validity of claims.

Science, like math and language arts are not viewpoints, they are tools for understanding and creating rational and critical thinking.

Belief systems can be paths towards fields of knowledge not accessed by empirical study, but, creationism is not even that. Creationism is an attempt to validate a particular belief that is expressly unscientific, in other words, pseudo science.

I cannot believe you just suggested science should not be mandatory in school.

"Yes, I know I express ignorant views via an informational and communicative medium that would have been impossible without science, but I think it ought to be optional in school."

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

I wasn't referring to science..dumb dumb dumb

KILLER_CLOWN
04-22-2013, 01:28 PM
my nephew lives in Kansas and they're not rich enough to get him a good education, therefore public schools. And it's just ridiculous that they would even try to teach that bullshit, trying to warp young people's minds when they are most susceptible.

Uh-Huh. LMAO

KILLER_CLOWN
04-22-2013, 01:29 PM
I bet this group uses scenes from Land of the Lost to describe how things were when Jesus was alive.

I bet they don't and I'm sorry this post didn't generate the comedy you thought it might. I will pray for you.

loochy
04-22-2013, 01:30 PM
my nephew lives in Kansas and they're not rich enough to get him a good education, therefore public schools. And it's just ridiculous that they would even try to teach that bullshit, trying to warp young people's minds when they are most susceptible.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/28184016.jpg

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 01:30 PM
my nephew lives in Kansas and they're not rich enough to get him a good education, therefore public schools. And it's just ridiculous that they would even try to teach that bullshit, trying to warp young people's minds when they are most susceptible.

People can and do change their minds when they grow up. In fact many reject what they were taught for awhile, then return but some never do. So long as we're free new information is available.

However, I did say to provide for those who can't afford a private school.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-22-2013, 01:32 PM
So when should they hold the "The Earth is Flat!" assembly?

Even Jesus dispelled this myth but not one soul here cares for his lessons, including leftist poster mikey!

WhawhaWhat
04-22-2013, 01:50 PM
I bet they don't and I'm sorry this post didn't generate the comedy you thought it might. I will pray for you.

If there was someone who I thought it might amuse, it was you. I'm devastated.

Dave Lane
04-22-2013, 02:17 PM
Even Jesus dispelled this myth but not one soul here cares for his lessons, including leftist poster mikey!

Mikey is a leftist? Holy shit is there even a fringe of a ledge where the right can gather? Is that space about 6 nano-meters wide?

Fish
04-22-2013, 02:28 PM
Even Jesus dispelled this myth but not one soul here cares for his lessons, including leftist poster mikey!

How do you know? Were you there to hear him say it?

KILLER_CLOWN
04-22-2013, 02:47 PM
How do you know? Were you there to hear him say it?

Here it is from Isaiah

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

There was also a passage where Jesus was describing it...i'll find it later.

Fish
04-22-2013, 03:28 PM
Here it is from Isaiah

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

There was also a passage where Jesus was describing it...i'll find it later.

So you weren't there to actually hear it? But you still regard it as truth?

Funny how you disregard scientific claims about the age of the Earth, on the basis that none of us were there for direct observation, when you don't bother to apply the same requirement to your own beliefs. Hypocrite...

KILLER_CLOWN
04-22-2013, 04:39 PM
So you weren't there to actually hear it? But you still regard it as truth?

Funny how you disregard scientific claims about the age of the Earth, on the basis that none of us were there for direct observation, when you don't bother to apply the same requirement to your own beliefs. Hypocrite...

Please pay attention dipshit, I said it is based upon faith.

Fish
04-22-2013, 04:57 PM
Please pay attention dipshit, I said it is based upon faith.

Exactly. Which is why science is taught in schools, while beliefs based on faith are not.

Brock
04-22-2013, 04:58 PM
Sure wish the rapture would hurry up and take these assholes.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-22-2013, 05:23 PM
Exactly. Which is why science is taught in schools, while beliefs based on faith are not.

As I've stated repeatedly, please try to keep up. Keep your bullshit religion out of my school.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-22-2013, 05:25 PM
Sure wish the rapture would hurry up and take these assholes.

It isn't happening, there isn't a pretrib rapture.

Dave Lane
04-22-2013, 06:23 PM
It isn't happening, there isn't a pretrib rapture.

How do you know were you there?

Brock
04-22-2013, 06:24 PM
It isn't happening, there isn't a pretrib rapture.

Pity.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-22-2013, 06:56 PM
How do you know were you there?

Because it isn't taught, it's a nice little device invented to escape pain but it's no more real than rainbows and unicorns.

Brock
04-22-2013, 07:01 PM
Because it isn't taught, it's a nice little device invented to escape pain but it's no more real than rainbows and unicorns.

So it's the same as the rest of the horseshit you believe.

Cannibal
04-22-2013, 07:12 PM
Saw this on reddit today, haven't seen if it's been confirmed to be authentic. Real or not, this is what creationists want in public schools...


4th grade science test from a school in SC
http://i.imgur.com/TYpLJpOh.jpg

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1crzuz/actual_4th_grade_science_test_fromhi_a_school_in_sc/

This shit and home schooling is contributing significantly to the downfall of our country.

Brando
04-22-2013, 07:18 PM
This is nice. Maybe they can follow up with Fred and Margie Phelps with a presentation on human sexuality.

WilliamTheIrish
04-22-2013, 07:44 PM
Can somebody explain to me where in the article it states that Hugoton school district will be teaching creationism?

It's two assemblies. It's like having a magician do card tricks for the kids.

mlyonsd
04-22-2013, 07:45 PM
This shit and home schooling is contributing significantly to the downfall of our country.Yeah.....no.

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 07:49 PM
This shit and home schooling is contributing significantly to the downfall of our country.

Homeschooling will help to restore America. Remember, now this homeschooling idea started with left-wing hippies not the religious right. It was the unschooling movement.


Ron Paul's Eleven Point Plan to Saving America

10. Education: Dr. Paul would like to see the U.S. Department of Education return its powers to the states and parents. He proposes and intends to give parents a $5,000 tax credit per child for kids K-12 to help with all the costs of education. He is supportive of home-schooling and will veto legislation that interferes with parents choosing to home-school their children.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laura-trice/ron-paul-11-point-plan_b_947832.html

Bump
04-22-2013, 07:50 PM
This shit and home schooling is contributing significantly to the downfall of our country.

ROFL

Raiderhader
04-22-2013, 07:53 PM
It's interesting he says the Dinos are 100,000 years old. If a creationist believes humankind to be only 6,000 years old then Dinos were around 94,000 years earlier and that means the strict Biblical story didn't happen in 7 days. Of course this assumes he's a Bible believer and not just a creationist.

Yeah, I had to do a double take when I saw that.

Raiderhader
04-22-2013, 07:56 PM
They aren't different viewpoints. One is a religion. The other isn't.

There are plenty of people in the world hat treat science like a religion.

The fact that scientific facts conflict with your religious beliefs doesn't make science a competing religion. It just means that primitive religious beliefs often don't stand up very well under the scrutiny of the scientific method.

I realize that I'm wasting my time here. I guess I can't give up on the hope that maybe, just maybe, for one brief instant you'll have a flash of understanding that will lead you to question the authority that has ruled your entire thought process for your entire life.

Like I said, I'm wasting my time.


Uhm, has your side produced a missing link that ISN'T fake that I have not heard about?

Cannibal
04-22-2013, 08:03 PM
Paranoid, religious fanatics creating more generations of paranoid, religious fanatics and perverting their knowledge of science is not good for the country.

RedNeckRaider
04-22-2013, 08:14 PM
Can somebody explain to me where in the article it states that Hugoton school district will be teaching creationism?

It's two assemblies. It's like having a magician do card tricks for the kids.

Which is really how all these invisible men stories got started to begin with :)

Brainiac
04-22-2013, 08:23 PM
There are plenty of people in the world hat treat science like a religion.?

You're right. They're called creationists.


Uhm, has your side produced a missing link that ISN'T fake that I have not heard about?
Well, there's Homo Erectus and Australopithecus for starters. But the evolution deniers will always move the goalposts on that, because no matter how many transitional fossils are found, they'll always point to a gap and say "Aha! The link there is MISSING!!!".

Creationists love to talk about the Piltdown Man hoax. Piltdown Man was an obvious fake. The Creationists will cling to that hoax with their dying breath and use it to argue that all transitional fossils are actually hoaxes.

But guess what? It wasn't a bunch of Creationists who proved the Piltdown Man was a hoax. It was a bunch of skeptical scientists who noticed major inconsistencies between Piltdown Man and all of the real transitional fossils found elsewhere, both before and after the Piltdown Man hoax.

In November 1953, Time published evidence gathered variously by Kenneth Page Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clark and Joseph Weiner proving that the Piltdown Man was a forgery and demonstrating that the fossil was a composite of three distinct species. It consisted of a human skull of medieval age, the 500-year-old lower jaw of a Sarawak orangutan and chimpanzee fossil teeth. Someone had created the appearance of age by staining the bones with an iron solution and chromic acid. Microscopic examination revealed file-marks on the teeth, and it was deduced from this that someone had modified the teeth to a shape more suited to a human diet.

That's how science works. Scientists don't accept things based upon faith. They question, question, question, and when something doesn't fit, they figure out why. If something is a hoax, the hoax is inevitably exposed because every other scientist in the world is carefully scrutinizing the claim.

There's a pretty big difference between the scientific method and dogmatic religious teachings that emphasize the importance of accepting those teachings on faith alone, and threatening the listeners with eternal torture in hell if they don't. If you can't see the difference, it's because you've shut off the rational part of your brain because you're terrified by the prospect of eternal damnation if you dare to question authority.

Fish
04-22-2013, 08:26 PM
It's like having a magician do card tricks for the kids.

While this is totally true, the OP says it's a mandatory thing. And the rules are pretty clear on separating church and state.

http://imageshack.us/a/img195/2879/29006101514617130501552.jpg

mlyonsd
04-22-2013, 08:36 PM
Creationists are almost as dangerous as global warming scientists.

Brainiac
04-22-2013, 08:38 PM
Creationists are almost as dangerous as global warming scientists.

Tim Tebow > Creationists

Raiderhader
04-22-2013, 08:42 PM
You're right. They're called creationists.

Sure, nobody but creationists can have religious tendencies. :rolleyes:


Well, there's Homo Erectus and Australopithecus for starters. But the evolution deniers will always move the goalposts on that, because no matter how many transitional fossils are found, they'll always point to a gap and say "Aha! The link there is MISSING!!!".

Well, is the link not still missing? I've seen the human body take many forms in my life. I'm not seeing anything that doesn't look like either a human or a primate. No combination of the two.

Creationists love to talk about the Piltdown Man hoax. Piltdown Man was an obvious fake. The Creationists will cling to that hoax with their dying breath and use it to argue that all transitional fossils are actually hoaxes.

But guess what? It wasn't a bunch of Creationists who proved the Piltdown Man was a hoax. It was a bunch of skeptical scientists who noticed major inconsistencies between Piltdown Man and all of the real transitional fossils found elsewhere, both before and after the Piltdown Man hoax.

In November 1953, Time published evidence gathered variously by Kenneth Page Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clark and Joseph Weiner proving that the Piltdown Man was a forgery and demonstrating that the fossil was a composite of three distinct species. It consisted of a human skull of medieval age, the 500-year-old lower jaw of a Sarawak orangutan and chimpanzee fossil teeth. Someone had created the appearance of age by staining the bones with an iron solution and chromic acid. Microscopic examination revealed file-marks on the teeth, and it was deduced from this that someone had modified the teeth to a shape more suited to a human diet.

That's how science works. Scientists don't accept things based upon faith. They question, question, question, and when something doesn't fit, they figure out why. If something is a hoax, the hoax is inevitably exposed because every other scientist in the world is carefully scrutinizing the claim.

There's a pretty big difference between the scientific method and dogmatic religious teachings that emphasize the importance of accepting those teachings on faith alone, and threatening the listeners with eternal torture in hell if they don't. If you can't see the difference, it's because you've shut off the rational part of your brain because you're terrified by the prospect of eternal damnation if you dare to question authority.


Yeah, sorry, you got the wrong guy here.

mlyonsd
04-22-2013, 08:48 PM
Tim Tebow > Creationists
Tim Tebow > Global warming scientists. Your move.

La literatura
04-22-2013, 08:53 PM
While this is totally true, the OP says it's a mandatory thing. And the rules are pretty clear on separating church and state.

While I agree that science belongs in the public school, and not creationism, the rules aren't very clear about church and state issues. Also, the founders didn't have much concept of public schools. What they did have a conception of was religion in schools. Emphatically. Religion and schools were completely wedded together.

The cartoon is not accurate.

Brainiac
04-22-2013, 09:11 PM
Yeah, sorry, you got the wrong guy here.
So you DO see the difference difference between (1) the scientific method and (2) dogmatic religious teachings that emphasize the importance of accepting those teachings on faith alone, and threatening the listeners with eternal torture in hell if they don't accept those teachings?

Please explain the difference.

Raiderhader
04-22-2013, 09:23 PM
So you DO see the difference difference between (1) the scientific method and (2) dogmatic religious teachings that emphasize the importance of accepting those teachings on faith alone, and threatening the listeners with eternal torture in hell if they don't accept those teachings?

Please explain the difference.

I see the difference generally speaking. I do not see it in this specific issue. There are plenty of holes in the evolution theory. Yet it is clung to as dogmatically as Christians cling to creationism, if not more so. At least Christians admit that there is faith involved. Evolutionists keep trying to claim scientific fact with said holes still evident.

When you can offer me 100% undeniable proof then we will have something to discuss. Until then, it takes just as much faith for me to believe in evolution as it does for me to believe in intelligent design.

Wildcat2005
04-22-2013, 09:35 PM
There is no such thing as a "missing link"
Every species is an intermediate of where it came from and what it will become

Modern apes are not ancestors to humans
Species dont morph into already existing species; this isnt pokemon

The progressions that have lead to the modern day human are not a mystery
It is all laid out plain as day in the fossil record and more importantly in the genetic codes

Raiderhader
04-22-2013, 09:38 PM
There is no such thing as a "missing link"
Every species is an intermediate of where it came from and what it will become

Modern apes are not ancestors to humans
Species dont morph into already existing species; this isnt pokemon

The progressions that have lead to the modern day human are not a mystery
It is all laid out plain as day in the fossil record and more importantly in the genetic codes

See? There isn't even agreement among evolutionists as to wich version of evolution is correct.

And you all want to be taken seriously.....

Wildcat2005
04-22-2013, 09:48 PM
See? There isn't even agreement among evolutionists as to wich version of evolution is correct.

And you all want to be taken seriously.....

He gave a couple examples of primitive humanoids that would resemble what some think a "missing link" might look like

I just stated that the idea that there is a missing link between humans and their primate ancestors is not one held by scientists or anyone with understanding of the theory of evolution

The link has already been established, there are no secrets where humans came from

He was just listing examples of more primative humanoids; what I said did not contract anything he wrote

Brando
04-22-2013, 09:50 PM
Tim Tebow > Global warming scientists. Your move.

Tim Tebow<Mark Sanchez

Raiderhader
04-22-2013, 09:51 PM
He gave a couple examples of primitive humanoids that would resemble what some think a "missing link" might look like

I just stated that the idea that there is a missing link between humans and their primate ancestors is not one held by scientists or anyone with understanding of the theory of evolution

The link has already been established, there are no secrets where humans came from

He was just listing examples of more primative humanoids; twas no contradiction

But not everyone accepts that. Just like not everyone accepts the Big Bang theory. My point stands; the evolution community is at odds with itself on the particulars.

Garcia Bronco
04-22-2013, 09:54 PM
Where humans came from isn't the question for me. The question for me is where did the galaxy and universe come from?

HolyHandgernade
04-22-2013, 10:09 PM
I wasn't referring to science..dumb dumb dumb

I apologize then, so help me out. When you say "neither", what two things are you referring to?

Wildcat2005
04-22-2013, 10:10 PM
But not everyone accepts that. Just like not everyone accepts the Big Bang theory. My point stands; the evolution community is at odds with itself on the particulars.

Both are accepted by 99% of the scientific community
Both are among the more well supported theories that exist

True that not everyone accepts them as correct, but the reasons why people seem to doubt them usually stem from ignorance of what the theories actually say

All of the evidence supports the theory of evolution, especially the genetics
It would be quite the longshot if all of that was wrong

HolyHandgernade
04-22-2013, 10:15 PM
Here it is from Isaiah

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

There was also a passage where Jesus was describing it...i'll find it later.

You do realize that the conception of the "universe" at this time was that the earth was a flat circle and that the "heavens" rotated around it. It doesn't describe an "orb".

http://etb-cosmology.blogspot.com/2012/04/ancient-hebrew-conception-of-universe.html

Raiderhader
04-22-2013, 10:15 PM
Both are accepted by 99% of the scientific community
Both are among the more well supported theories that exist

True that not everyone accepts them as correct, but the reasons why people seem to doubt them usually stem from ignorance of what the theories actually say

All of the evidence supports the theory of evolution, especially the genetics
It would be quite the longshot if all of that was wrong


Wait a minute, I keep being told this scientific FACT. So now which is it? Fact, or theory?

|Zach|
04-22-2013, 10:16 PM
It isn't science.

|Zach|
04-22-2013, 10:19 PM
Wait a minute, I keep being told this scientific FACT. So now which is it? Fact, or theory?

Great, another person who doesn't understand what the word theory means in relation to science.

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 10:20 PM
I think it's high time atheists fund their own schools the way some religions fund their own schools.
If they really want to be free of this material.

Wildcat2005
04-22-2013, 10:20 PM
Wait a minute, I keep being told this scientific FACT. So now which is it? Fact, or theory?

Scientific Theories are working models comprised of facts
Theories dont become facts and visa versa

But in order for an idea to reach theory status, it must of been published in a peer reviewed journal and have an overwhelming amount of evidence and facts to support it

Brando
04-22-2013, 10:23 PM
Hey I got an idea. Save the brainwashing for Sunday school. It's bad enough that churches don't pay taxes
Let's not waste my tax dollars on the sky daddy and his only begotten easter bunny.

mr. tegu
04-22-2013, 10:42 PM
Wait a minute, I keep being told this scientific FACT. So now which is it? Fact, or theory?

You got it. You discovered the dirty little secret. I guess we can go ahead and forget all about evolution now.

mr. tegu
04-22-2013, 10:42 PM
Great, another person who doesn't understand what the word theory means in relation to science.

A new one seems to pop up in every thread like this.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-22-2013, 10:44 PM
Creationists are almost as dangerous as global warming scientists.

Dangerous to the status quo whereas the latter is a danger to our very existence.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-22-2013, 10:45 PM
Ahhh the old religion disguised as science, hmmm nothing new to see here move along.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-22-2013, 10:46 PM
There is no such thing as a "missing link"
Every species is an intermediate of where it came from and what it will become

Modern apes are not ancestors to humans
Species dont morph into already existing species; this isnt pokemon

The progressions that have lead to the modern day human are not a mystery
It is all laid out plain as day in the fossil record and more importantly in the genetic codes

I love the goalposts that constantly move, it's like arguing with Al Gore. LMAO

Dave Lane
04-22-2013, 10:48 PM
Hey I got an idea. Save the brainwashing for Sunday school. It's bad enough that churches don't pay taxes
Let's not waste my tax dollars on the sky daddy and his only begotten easter bunny.

Holy shit a Brando sighting!

KILLER_CLOWN
04-22-2013, 10:50 PM
Q: Where would we be without the creator?

A: You wouldn't exist

next........

Brando
04-22-2013, 10:59 PM
Q: Where would we be without the creator?

A: You wouldn't exist

next........

We would be sitting here bullshitting about creationism and the chocolate penii.

Brando
04-22-2013, 10:59 PM
Holy shit a Brando sighting!

Good to see you too Dave!

notorious
04-22-2013, 11:08 PM
http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4824413196256674&pid=15.1

KILLER_CLOWN
04-22-2013, 11:23 PM
Holy shit a Brando sighting!

I carbon dated his last post and it ends up being billions and billions of years ago.

Brando
04-22-2013, 11:33 PM
I carbon dated his last post and it ends up being billions and billions of years ago.

Actually it was three days ago. I just came back. What did I miss?

KILLER_CLOWN
04-23-2013, 12:05 AM
Actually it was three days ago. I just came back. What did I miss?

Not much just having some fun with these peeps! :D

Brainiac
04-23-2013, 03:12 AM
I see the difference generally speaking. I do not see it in this specific issue. There are plenty of holes in the evolution theory. Yet it is clung to as dogmatically as Christians cling to creationism, if not more so. At least Christians admit that there is faith involved. Evolutionists keep trying to claim scientific fact with said holes still evident.

When you can offer me 100% undeniable proof then we will have something to discuss. Until then, it takes just as much faith for me to believe in evolution as it does for me to believe in intelligent design.
I'll make a deal with you: When you can offer me 1/10th of 1% undeniable proof regarding the story of Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel, then we'll have something to discuss. Until then, you've got nothing.

Nobody clings to evolution dogmatically. It's a shame you don't understand the scientific method. I'd have hoped that the history of how the Piltdown Man Hoax was doubted and eventually completely debunked BY SCIENTISTS would have helped you to understand that. But clearly it doesn't.

Brainiac
04-23-2013, 03:40 AM
Wait a minute, I keep being told this scientific FACT. So now which is it? Fact, or theory?
http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll271/TigerTailgater/not_this_shit_again.jpg

Once again you demonstrate your appalling lack of knowledge regarding science. How the hell are we supposed to take you seriously?

Stephen Jay Gould summed it up very nicely several decades ago:

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

You said you would consider evolution only if I could offer you 100% undeniable proof that it occurs. I said I would consider the Biblical story of creationism if you could offer me 1/10th of 1% undeniable proof that it occurs.

Which of us is being open-minded here, and which of us is clinging fiercely to a dogmatic belief? Which of us is willing to consider the other's position with nothing to gain or lose by doing so, and which of us has been told repeatedly his entire life that his FAITH is the only thing preventing him from being tortured unmercifully and eternally by Satan?

Deeply religious people have a vested interest in keeping the faith, regardless of whether their religion is Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Wicca, or the worship of the ancient gods like Zeus and Hercules. Scientists have no vested interest in believing anything simply because some authority figure told them they must believe or they will perish. Scientists simply observe and then try to understand and explain.

And by the way, scientists are the ones who cured polio, cured many forms of cancer, developed antibiotics, discovered electricity, designed automobiles and airplanes, and got mankind out of the caves. Scientists have made our civilization possible. Without scientists, we would still be cavemen.

/rant

Fish
04-23-2013, 08:36 AM
Wait a minute, I keep being told this scientific FACT. So now which is it? Fact, or theory?

:facepalm:

It never fails...

It's ironic, considering that you've never heard a conspiracy theory that you don't believe. What's the most recent one you've latched on to? The US government is poised to imprison all its citizens? Isn't that right? I think you've already made it clear that your interpretation of the truth is a little bit flawed.....

KILLER_CLOWN
04-23-2013, 08:41 AM
:facepalm:

It never fails...

It's ironic, considering that you've never heard a conspiracy theory that you don't believe. What's the most recent one you've latched on to? The US government is poised to imprison all its citizens? Isn't that right? I think you've already made it clear that your interpretation of the truth is a little bit flawed.....

Same old responses, almost robotic. You're a conspiracy Theorist if you don't worship at the same altar as I do!

ptlyon
04-23-2013, 08:52 AM
Get Gaz in here and see if he remembers when dinosaurs walked the earth

Brainiac
04-23-2013, 08:53 AM
Same old responses, almost robotic. You're a conspiracy Theorist if you don't worship at the same altar as I do!
I don't think he was calling Raiderhader a conspiracy theorist because he's a creationist. He was calling him a conspiracy theorist because he makes numerous posts on this forum defending all sorts of conspiracy theories.

You know, kind of like how you do.

Wait a minute, I'm beginning to see a pattern here: those who don't understand science (a) believe all of the wacky conspiracy theories, and (b) believe that every word in the book of Genesis is literally true.

http://www.pulpinternational.com/images/postimg/x-files_poster.jpg

Fish
04-23-2013, 08:55 AM
Same old responses, almost robotic. You're a conspiracy Theorist if you don't worship at the same altar as I do!

No, he's a conspiracy theorist for believing any and every conspiracy theory presented on this forum. I don't encourage anybody to worship at any alter. I encourage the opposite.

I know you feel threatened by independent thought that doesn't align with your religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean that any topic you feel threatened by is considered an alternative or competitor to your religion. You sound really ignorant when you keep insisting that.

Boise_Chief
04-23-2013, 09:04 AM
Quote:
Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

A theory is never a Fact. A theory is a conclusion based on a series of facts. If it were a fact it would never be called a theory.

You all are having a nice pissing match but the absolutes thrown around in here are amazing.

Dave Lane
04-23-2013, 09:39 AM
http://i.imgur.com/oqqWPSX.jpg

Dave Lane
04-23-2013, 09:44 AM
Quote:
Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

A theory is never a Fact. A theory is a conclusion based on a series of facts. If it were a fact it would never be called a theory.

You all are having a nice pissing match but the absolutes thrown around in here are amazing.

To me a fact is a conclusion that has been proven over and over. Gravity is a theory and a fact. There IS gravity, its just not fully understood. The same can be said for evolution.

Brainiac
04-23-2013, 05:11 PM
Quote:
Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

A theory is never a Fact. A theory is a conclusion based on a series of facts. If it were a fact it would never be called a theory.

You all are having a nice pissing match but the absolutes thrown around in here are amazing.
1. Reading comprehension fail.
2. See #1.
3. Is gravity a fact?

Garcia Bronco
04-23-2013, 05:17 PM
http://i.imgur.com/oqqWPSX.jpg

I doubt that exacts all the costs, but ask yourself this. What is the NUMBER 1 source of all our problems? Exponential Population growth. Our generations will see the population of this planet exceed the resources here to sustain us. Think about it.

So do we still want to feed everyone?

For the good of the whole?

Probably not.

Brock
04-23-2013, 08:13 PM
I doubt that exacts all the costs, but ask yourself this. What is the NUMBER 1 source of all our problems? Exponential Population growth. Our generations will see the population of this planet exceed the resources here to sustain us. Think about it.

So do we still want to feed everyone?

For the good of the whole?

Probably not.

So let's not talk about contraception because god doesn't like it for some reason.

Raiderhader
04-23-2013, 08:51 PM
I'll make a deal with you: When you can offer me 1/10th of 1% undeniable proof regarding the story of Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel, then we'll have something to discuss. Until then, you've got nothing.

I never claimed to have anything other than my own personal belief. I actually have spent more time attempting to debunk evolution than I have prop up creationism. So, I'm not sure where that leaves us....

Nobody clings to evolution dogmatically.

Bullsh!t no one does. Look at how viciously it is defended and its detractors attacked, just with in this very thread. No, nothing dogmatic about the support of that unproven theory at all. :rolleyes:

It's a shame you don't understand the scientific method. I'd have hoped that the history of how the Piltdown Man Hoax was doubted and eventually completely debunked BY SCIENTISTS would have helped you to understand that. But clearly it doesn't.

We see two different things with the story of the Piltdown Man (and other missing link hoaxes): you see the search for truth, which I agree there are those who do actively seek it. I see, in addition to that, men who will do dishonest things to achieve their goal, or agenda. While in its purest form, science is a wonderful thing and something to be explored, it is run by humans, who can be either truth seeking or self seeking. Science is in no way immune from human corruption. Same with Christianty, or any other religion for that matter. We humans have a knack for making things fit our own needs and desires.

Dave Lane
04-23-2013, 09:05 PM
I doubt that exacts all the costs, but ask yourself this. What is the NUMBER 1 source of all our problems? Exponential Population growth. Our generations will see the population of this planet exceed the resources here to sustain us. Think about it.

So do we still want to feed everyone?

For the good of the whole?

Probably not.

Well how about just the healthcare or give it to NASA?

mlyonsd
04-23-2013, 09:08 PM
Well how about just the healthcare or give it to NASA?
Give us some numbers on how much churches give back to society and we'll talk.

Dave Lane
04-23-2013, 09:11 PM
Give us some numbers on how much churches give back to society and we'll talk.

0 - $71 billion = -$71 billion

mlyonsd
04-23-2013, 09:19 PM
0 - $71 billion = -$71 billionYou don't think at least part of those tax savings goes to feed, clothe, and house the poor?

Raiderhader
04-23-2013, 09:19 PM
http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll271/TigerTailgater/not_this_shit_again.jpg

Once again you demonstrate your appalling lack of knowledge regarding science. How the hell are we supposed to take you seriously?

Stephen Jay Gould summed it up very nicely several decades ago:



http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

Not all theories are based in facts. You assertion that they are is quite ridiculous.

You said you would consider evolution only if I could offer you 100% undeniable proof that it occurs. I said I would consider the Biblical story of creationism if you could offer me 1/10th of 1% undeniable proof that it occurs.

Which of us is being open-minded here, and which of us is clinging fiercely to a dogmatic belief? Which of us is willing to consider the other's position with nothing to gain or lose by doing so, and which of us has been told repeatedly his entire life that his FAITH is the only thing preventing him from being tortured unmercifully and eternally by Satan?

I told you last night, you have the wrong guy for this type of argument. I spent quite a few YEARS not knowing what I believed or what I was going to end up believing. And my questions started with religion and God specifically. I openly researched not just the religious beliefs I had grown up with but, the opposing views as well in search of just some kind of answer to satisfy my doubts and fears. I looked into evolution even more than I would have ever imagined. My parents did the exact opposite of what most parents would do in that situation (God bless them), they allowed me to seek the answers I was craving instead of trying to force me to accept their beliefs. Dad even went so far as to offer me the ability to cease praying before meals and skipping church if I didn't feel comfortable with those things. I took him up on the first and, on the second declined, just in the hope of hearing something at some point that would sway me one way or the other. And I reached a point where I didn't really care which way it was, I just wanted to be settled in my mind with some kind of answer.

I have, with the most open of minds studied both sides of the issue. Ultimately I made the choice that made the most sense to me. That is why I require a 100% proof, because I have already been down that road. Nothing out there currently has been able to convince me that evolution is the truth of the matter.

So with all of that being said, if this attack on people who hold to religion is your best counter argument, I would suggest finding someone else to have this debate with. Because with me, it will not even score you cheap debating points, let alone score as an actual argument.

Deeply religious people have a vested interest in keeping the faith, regardless of whether their religion is Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Wicca, or the worship of the ancient gods like Zeus and Hercules. Scientists have no vested interest in believing anything simply because some authority figure told them they must believe or they will perish. Scientists simply observe and then try to understand and explain.

I could very easily make the counter argument that people who cling to an unproven theory like evolution have a vested interest in seeing it sustained, as it allows for them to disavow a higher power that they are accountable to. Therefore, they can live whatever kind of lifestyle they desire with out worry of being judged. Restrictions and rules, and ultimately law slowly starts to become extinct with a supreme power to answer to.

And by the way, scientists are the ones who cured polio, cured many forms of cancer, developed antibiotics, discovered electricity, designed automobiles and airplanes, and got mankind out of the caves. Scientists have made our civilization possible. Without scientists, we would still be cavemen.

/rant

With out rule of law, and with out freedom, we would still be "cavemen". It is order, decency and liberty that allow people to grow and achieve greatness. Even scientific greatness.

Raiderhader
04-23-2013, 09:26 PM
:facepalm:

It never fails...

It's ironic, considering that you've never heard a conspiracy theory that you don't believe.

Exaggeration and/or conjecture. Or simply, a theory. :) There a plenty of conspiracy theories I do not subscribe to.

What's the most recent one you've latched on to? The US government is poised to imprison all its citizens? Isn't that right? I think you've already made it clear that your interpretation of the truth is a little bit flawed.....

That is your opinion. You can no more prove me wrong than I can prove myself correct. What we have here is the case of yet another working theory in progress.

Brando
04-23-2013, 09:31 PM
I'm going to start a religion that worships Priest Holmes and nachos. At least I know those two things are real.
How do you feel about me getting tax exempt status for that?

Through deductive reasoning which we've acquired through evolution it is clear that there isn't some being that created us in his image. That is unless he's a Jabba the Hut mother fucker that believes in rape, murder and war.

He gave us free will but has already predetermined our path. Well which the fuck is it?

Sorry but I chose to be good and moral because that's how I choose to live my life. Not because I expect to be granted eternity at Worlds of Fun.

I won't bomb the prayer threads because I am all for allowing people the choice to believe what they want. However don't force your childish beliefs on me or my children.

stevieray
04-23-2013, 09:41 PM
I'm going to start a religion that worships Priest Holmes and nachos. At least I know those two things are real.
How do you feel about me getting tax exempt status for that?

Through deductive reasoning which we've acquired through evolution it is clear that there isn't some being that created us in his image. That is unless he's a Jabba the Hut mother ****er that believes in rape, murder and war.

He gave us free will but has already predetermined our path. Well which the **** is it?

Sorry but I chose to be good and moral because that's how I choose to live my life. Not because I expect to be granted eternity at Worlds of Fun.

I won't bomb the prayer threads because I am all for allowing people the choice to believe what they want. However don't force your childish beliefs on me or my children.
free will or predetermined? both..you make a wrong turn on a long journey, it takes longer to arrive.

you can choose to be good and moral, that doesn't get you eternity at "WOF"

force beliefs? like evolution? musn't have much faith in its validity, if you are sooooooo intimdated by the view of God the Creator...but i get it..evolution is now a relgion. a false one, but still a religion.

Brando
04-23-2013, 09:50 PM
free will and predetermined? both..you make a wrong turn on a long journey, it takes longer to arrive.

you can choose to be good and moral, that doesn't get you eternity at "WOF"

force beliefs? like evolution? musn't have much belief in it, if you are sooooooo intimdated by the view of God the Creator...but i get it..evolution is now a relgion. a false one, but still a religion.

Evolution isn't some fairy tale based off of a bunch of other religions like Christisantaclaus. There is actual scientific proof.
Religion is big business and always has been.

I'm not intimidated by God the creator I just actually use my brain to deduce logical opinions.

Tell the family of the 8 year old boy that was blown up last week that it was God's plan.

Why is it that there are so many other animals on earth but the most despicable and vile one was created in your God's image?

Go ahead and pray for my soul and negative rep me. I have yet to see a thing in this fucked up world that leads me to believe we are nothing more than a link in an evolutionary chain.

Xanathol
04-24-2013, 12:57 AM
Atheist are here simply for our entertainment, nothing more. They worship what they call 'science' because they don't understand it ( ex. Carbon dating ). Arguing with them breaks the first rule of the internet - never argue with an idiot, as they only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

mr. tegu
04-24-2013, 08:52 AM
Atheist are here simply for our entertainment, nothing more. They worship what they call 'science' because they don't understand it ( ex. Carbon dating ). Arguing with them breaks the first rule of the internet - never argue with an idiot, as they only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Only an atheist accepts scientific findings. /Xanathol.

Dave Lane
04-24-2013, 08:59 AM
You don't think at least part of those tax savings goes to feed, clothe, and house the poor?

About 1% is the normal trend. Probably not that high for most churches.

Dave Lane
04-24-2013, 09:01 AM
Atheist are here simply for our entertainment, nothing more. They worship what they call 'science' because they don't understand it ( ex. Carbon dating ). Arguing with them breaks the first rule of the internet - never argue with an idiot, as they only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

The second rule of the Internet is never argue with a troll, which either you are, or the most uninformed fool on this site,

blaise
04-24-2013, 09:08 AM
0 - $71 billion = -$71 billion

Those homeless people lining up for meals outside churches must be an illusion.

And no shut ins get meals delivered by churches either.

And church members definitely don't spend their own money to travel to impoverished countries to do things like dig wells and distribute medicine or mosquito nets.

When you act like churches are just all bad and some sort of evil entity, Dave, it just makes you look like a small minded bigot.

Dave Lane
04-24-2013, 09:11 AM
Those homeless people lining up for meals outside churches must be an illusion.

And no shut ins get meals delivered by churches either.

And church members definitely don't spend their own money to travel to impoverished countries to do things like dig wells and distribute medicine or mosquito nets.

When you act like churches are just all bad and some sort of evil entity, Dave, it just makes you look like a small minded bigot.

The same amount of money spent directly is 100 times more effective.

Fish
04-24-2013, 09:13 AM
Exaggeration and/or conjecture. Or simply, a theory. :) There a plenty of conspiracy theories I do not subscribe to.



That is your opinion. You can no more prove me wrong than I can prove myself correct. What we have here is the case of yet another working theory in progress.

It's not my opinion. It's the collectively agreed opinion of hundreds of thousands of scientists that has been in formation for several hundred years. Proof for evolution has been provided, but you've proven unable to understand it. In this thread already, you've shown that you don't know the difference between a theory as it applies to normal conversation, and a Scientific theory, as it applies to explaining factual observations about the world. That's a very fundamental step toward understanding the scientific process.

You keep saying that evolution has its flaws, but every time I've asked, you've run away and refused to answer. So I'll ask again, what are the flaws you've found with evolution? Let's discuss them.

Ebolapox
04-24-2013, 09:18 AM
... because they don't understand it ( ex. Carbon dating )....

wait... carbon dating is actually a very simple concept that even middle-schoolers can understand. are you saying that you don't have the intellect of a middle-schooler?

mr. tegu
04-24-2013, 09:40 AM
Not all theories are based in facts. You assertion that they are is quite ridiculous.

Actually they are. A scientific theory is different than the generic term used by most. This basic lack of understanding of the simplest of differences is one reason people get so frustrated when debating topics such as this. Gravity is only a theory. Einstein must be an idiot.

I told you last night, you have the wrong guy for this type of argument. I spent quite a few YEARS not knowing what I believed or what I was going to end up believing. And my questions started with religion and God specifically. I openly researched not just the religious beliefs I had grown up with but, the opposing views as well in search of just some kind of answer to satisfy my doubts and fears. I looked into evolution even more than I would have ever imagined. My parents did the exact opposite of what most parents would do in that situation (God bless them), they allowed me to seek the answers I was craving instead of trying to force me to accept their beliefs. Dad even went so far as to offer me the ability to cease praying before meals and skipping church if I didn't feel comfortable with those things. I took him up on the first and, on the second declined, just in the hope of hearing something at some point that would sway me one way or the other. And I reached a point where I didn't really care which way it was, I just wanted to be settled in my mind with some kind of answer.

I have, with the most open of minds studied both sides of the issue. Ultimately I made the choice that made the most sense to me. That is why I require a 100% proof, because I have already been down that road. Nothing out there currently has been able to convince me that evolution is the truth of the matter.

So with all of that being said, if this attack on people who hold to religion is your best counter argument, I would suggest finding someone else to have this debate with. Because with me, it will not even score you cheap debating points, let alone score as an actual argument.



I could very easily make the counter argument that people who cling to an unproven theory like evolution have a vested interest in seeing it sustained, as it allows for them to disavow a higher power that they are accountable to. Therefore, they can live whatever kind of lifestyle they desire with out worry of being judged. Restrictions and rules, and ultimately law slowly starts to become extinct with a supreme power to answer to.



With out rule of law, and with out freedom, we would still be "cavemen". It is order, decency and liberty that allow people to grow and achieve greatness. Even scientific greatness.

Your issue seems to be that you think evolution is contradictory to creation or believing in God. (I could be wrong on this though). The only thing it contradicts from a religious perspective is a literal interpretation of the Bible. But guess what? Virtually everything contradicts that and there is really no debating that.

This is what evolution looks like if the present equals 112.

1 + x = 3, 3 + 2x = 7, 7 + 3x = 13, 13 + 4x = 21, 21 + 5x = 31, 31 + 6x = 44, 44 + 7x = 58, 58 + 8x = 74, 74 + 9x = 92, 92 + 10x = 112.

All the numbers are evidence and facts of things that existed and we can observe for which there is no debating. X with its multiplier represents the so called "missing links" and "holes" in the theory. These would be transitional fossils. We can see the clear transition from 1 to 7 because we have 3 in the middle. But there will always be transitions between those.

And you can't prove there are not even more transitions between the 1 and 3 other than x because you cannot prove a negative. i.e. I can NEVER prove there is NOT animal 1.5 between 1 and x but that does not mean the evolution from 1 to 3 and 1 to 7 and 1 to 112 is not clear. This is where many people cling to in order to try to falsify evolution. "You don't have everything!" Even if we did have everything, we could not know it or prove it because we cannot observe what does not exist. Just like we cannot prove Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist.

So although we don't have each and every transitional fossil (we certainly have a lot, if not most of them though), it is pretty clear what each one should look like because we have the factual information of its ancestor and decendent as well as the multiplier representing other facts such as where it was found. But that is the great part. Sometimes x IS found, which turns out to be as predicted by the theory, providing further evidence that the theory as it is, is correct. So x is found well now we need to find the transition between 1 and x because it is predicted or the evidence shows that one could be there. But that doesn't mean the theory is wrong.

I think that this is a good way to show why evolution is "only" a theory.

Disclaimer: This is an analogy I kind of came up with on my own after seeing similar things in the past. But I do think it makes sense. At least to me it does!

Cephalic Trauma
04-24-2013, 09:42 AM
Atheist are here simply for our entertainment, nothing more. They worship what they call 'science' because they don't understand it ( ex. Carbon dating ). Arguing with them breaks the first rule of the internet - never argue with an idiot, as they only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

So all the nobel prize winners, professors/researchers at prominent academic institutions, and the majority of academics are... idiots?


Bold. ****ing. Statement.

RedNeckRaider
04-24-2013, 10:47 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins
This man accepts evolution understanding the overwhelming evidence. He still manages to hold to his Christian beliefs. It amazes me that people still dismiss evolution~

stevieray
04-24-2013, 12:34 PM
Evolution isn't some fairy tale based off of a bunch of other religions like Christisantaclaus. There is actual scientific proof.
Religion is big business and always has been.

I'm not intimidated by God the creator I just actually use my brain to deduce logical opinions.

Tell the family of the 8 year old boy that was blown up last week that it was God's plan.

Why is it that there are so many other animals on earth but the most despicable and vile one was created in your God's image?

Go ahead and pray for my soul and negative rep me. I have yet to see a thing in this ****ed up world that leads me to believe we are nothing more than a link in an evolutionary chain.


sure it is....it came from a guy who flunked out of seminary and med school...someone who claimed the eye could easily disprove his "findings"

and you are intimidated, it's why you've continued to ridicule Him..it's also why , like most here, you play both sides of His existance...when you can take a stand, let me know.

why don't you go tell the parents of the eight year old that their child is the most despicable and vile animal? Jesus said that children were as the Kingdom of God...that little boy is in Heaven.

La literatura
04-24-2013, 12:42 PM
sure it is....it came from a guy who flunked out of seminary and med school...someone who claimed the eye could easily disprove his "findings"


Evolution didn't 'come from' Charles Darwin, though he was certainly a significant scientist who contributed to our understanding of evolution.

Wildcat2005
04-24-2013, 01:00 PM
sure it is....it came from a guy who flunked out of seminary and med school...someone who claimed the eye could easily disprove his "findings"

and you are intimidated, it's why you've continued to ridicule Him..it's also why , like most here, you play both sides of His existance...when you can take a stand, let me know.

why don't you go tell the parents of the eight year old that their child is the most despicable and vile animal? Jesus said that children were as the Kingdom of God...that little boy is in Heaven.

Darwin didnt know about the mechanism of evolution, he was observing natural selection
The theory of evolution did not come from Darwin

Also the eye comment is possibly the most taken out of context quote I can think of from any author

He asks himself a rhetorical question and then in the next paragraph goes on to answer it. He did not ever suggest the human eye refuted changes in hereditary traits, he simply explained how something seemingly irreducible(like an eye) is actually not

Fish
04-24-2013, 01:10 PM
sure it is....it came from a guy who flunked out of seminary and med school...someone who claimed the eye could easily disprove his "findings"

I understand that in religious "Teachings" it's common for stories to be told by one person, and simply be accepted as fact by the rest. But that's not how it works with Science. Evolution didn't "Come from" Darwin. Darwin simply proposed one theory to explain the factual observations of evolution. And that theory has been updated and tweaked and added to ever since, by millions of other scientists making their own observations.

Also, he didn't flunk out of seminary or med school. He quit because it didn't interest him. It was not because he was not capable. He disliked the religious BS. Saying:

Around this time, he had an earnest conversation with John Herbert about going into Holy Orders, and asked him whether he could answer yes to the question that the Bishop would put in the ordination service, "Do you trust that you are inwardly moved by the Holy Spirit". When Herbert said that he could not, Darwin replied "Neither can I, and therefore I cannot take orders" to become an ordained priest

Dave Lane
04-24-2013, 02:40 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/z-h_jNiSczw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Great voice and really nice person.

Brainiac
04-24-2013, 03:10 PM
Not all theories are based in facts. You assertion that they are is quite ridiculous.

You're right. Not all theories are based on facts. Just the scientific ones. :p

A scientific theory is an attempt to interpret and explain facts that have been observed. A non-scientific theory can certainly be based upon anything, including things such as revelation and faith. But, by definition, scientific theories are based only on facts.

Life forms change over time. That's a fact. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain how the process works. That's a theory based upon the facts that have been observed.


So with all of that being said, if this attack on people who hold to religion is your best counter argument, I would suggest finding someone else to have this debate with. Because with me, it will not even score you cheap debating points, let alone score as an actual argument.

I wasn't attacking people who hold to religion, and I'm sorry that you interpreted it that way. I was simply pointing out that it's difficult for deeply religious people to look at things like evolution in an objective manner when they are being told over and over again by the ultimate authority figures in their lives that they'll go to hell if they do. The threat of eternal damnation is a pretty powerful motivator to dismiss an argument without even examining it objectively.


I could very easily make the counter argument that people who cling to an unproven theory like evolution have a vested interest in seeing it sustained, as it allows for them to disavow a higher power that they are accountable to. Therefore, they can live whatever kind of lifestyle they desire with out worry of being judged. Restrictions and rules, and ultimately law slowly starts to become extinct with a supreme power to answer to.
I'll grant you that this is a legitimate counter-argument. I personally don't find it convincing because I think the motivation to avoid eternal damnation is stronger than the motivation to live a hedonistic lifestyle, but you make a fair point.


With out rule of law, and with out freedom, we would still be "cavemen". It is order, decency and liberty that allow people to grow and achieve greatness. Even scientific greatness.
I'll grant this point as well. I wouldn't want to live in a society created by scientific sociopaths. Of course, that begs the question regarding where laws and morals actually originate from. Are they simply learned behavior that people adopt in order to escape punishment from God, or do humans have an innate capacity to do good things and make morally correct choices?

To me, the most exasperating thing about the whole debate is that evolution and religion don't have to be mutually exclusive. Whether a person is a theist or an atheist has nothing to with whether or not the theory of evolution correctly describes the process by which life forms change over time. There are other reasons that drive people to one set of beliefs over the other.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-24-2013, 03:35 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins
This man accepts evolution understanding the overwhelming evidence. He still manages to hold to his Christian beliefs. It amazes me that people still dismiss evolution~

He's french man, that disqualifies his opinion right there.

Brock
04-24-2013, 04:16 PM
sure it is....it came from a guy who flunked out of seminary and med school...someone who claimed the eye could easily disprove his "findings"

and you are intimidated, it's why you've continued to ridicule Him..it's also why , like most here, you play both sides of His existance...when you can take a stand, let me know.

why don't you go tell the parents of the eight year old that their child is the most despicable and vile animal? Jesus said that children were as the Kingdom of God...that little boy is in Heaven.

Emotional gibberish.

La literatura
04-24-2013, 04:24 PM
He's french man, that disqualifies his opinion right there.

Francis Collins is not French. Neither was Francis of Assisi.

La literatura
04-24-2013, 04:25 PM
Darwin didnt know about the mechanism of evolution, he was observing natural selection
The theory of evolution did not come from Darwin

Also the eye comment is possibly the most taken out of context quote I can think of from any author

He asks himself a rhetorical question and then in the next paragraph goes on to answer it. He did not ever suggest the human eye refuted changes in hereditary traits, he simply explained how something seemingly irreducible(like an eye) is actually not

Really? That's interesting. I was sure that stevieray had actually read a book by Charles Darwin and understood its context.

La literatura
04-24-2013, 04:26 PM
I understand that in religious "Teachings" it's common for stories to be told by one person, and simply be accepted as fact by the rest. But that's not how it works with Science. Evolution didn't "Come from" Darwin. Darwin simply proposed one theory to explain the factual observations of evolution. And that theory has been updated and tweaked and added to ever since, by millions of other scientists making their own observations.

Also, he didn't flunk out of seminary or med school. He quit because it didn't interest him. It was not because he was not capable. He disliked the religious BS. Saying:

Really? That's interesting. I was sure that stevieray had actually studied the life of Charles Darwin and knew his biography well enough to teach us lessons about him.

RedNeckRaider
04-24-2013, 04:31 PM
Francis Collins is not French. Neither was Francis of Assisi.

What would it matter if he was LMAO I assumed it was feeble attempt at a joke. I do not take that poster seriously due to his open alliance with a charlatan like Hovind~

Brainiac
04-24-2013, 04:35 PM
To me, the most exasperating thing about the whole debate is that evolution and religion don't have to be mutually exclusive. Whether a person is a theist or an atheist has nothing to with whether or not the theory of evolution correctly describes the process by which life forms change over time. There are other reasons that drive people to one set of beliefs over the other.

I think this bears repeating. People who understand science wouldn't be up in arms about this if religious people were simply trying to spread the word of God and urging other people to join their church. The problem comes when religious people try to re-write the science textbooks and attempt to get their religious beliefs taught in public schools instead of the real, actual, practical science that our students need to learn and understand if we are going to maintain our position as world leaders.

If you choose to deny evolution, fine. If you choose to tell everyone in your churches and in your private schools that evolution doesn't happen and that every word in the Bible is literally true, that's fine too. But to try to take over the public schools and replace scientific fact with religious belief is the thing that is so infuriating. I don't want to go to a doctor who doesn't understand basic Biology because the religious Right prevented him from learning about things that make them uncomfortable.

WhiteWhale
04-24-2013, 06:18 PM
It's all the same to the untrained atheist. :shrug:

Untrained?

I'm glad you acknowledge that it's through training (likely parental) , and not critical thought, that you reached your hilarious conclusions about science.

WhiteWhale
04-24-2013, 06:24 PM
Darwin didnt know about the mechanism of evolution, he was observing natural selection
The theory of evolution did not come from Darwin


While this is true, these folks have no desire to be educated on the facts.

They were trained and taught to reject evolution before they learned anything about it. Some people think critically, and some accept things entirely on an authoritarian basis.

Dave Lane
04-24-2013, 06:27 PM
Really? That's interesting. I was sure that stevieray had actually read a book by Charles Darwin and understood its context.

LMAO :LOL: LMAO

Dave Lane
04-24-2013, 06:34 PM
I think this bears repeating. People who understand science wouldn't be up in arms about this if religious people were simply trying to spread the word of God and urging other people to join their church. The problem comes when religious people try to re-write the science textbooks and attempt to get their religious beliefs taught in public schools instead of the real, actual, practical science that our students need to learn and understand if we are going to maintain our position as world leaders.

If you choose to deny evolution, fine. If you choose to tell everyone in your churches and in your private schools that evolution doesn't happen and that every word in the Bible is literally true, that's fine too. But to try to take over the public schools and replace scientific fact with religious belief is the thing that is so infuriating. I don't want to go to a doctor who doesn't understand basic Biology because the religious Right prevented him from learning about things that make them uncomfortable.

Brainiac dropping it like it was hot...

Raiderhader
04-24-2013, 08:15 PM
It's not my opinion. It's the collectively agreed opinion of hundreds of thousands of scientists that has been in formation for several hundred years. Proof for evolution has been provided, but you've proven unable to understand it. In this thread already, you've shown that you don't know the difference between a theory as it applies to normal conversation, and a Scientific theory, as it applies to explaining factual observations about the world. That's a very fundamental step toward understanding the scientific process.

Wait a minute, the post that this is in response to was in response to my political conspiracy theories. So now what exactly are we talking about?

You keep saying that evolution has its flaws, but every time I've asked, you've run away and refused to answer. So I'll ask again, what are the flaws you've found with evolution? Let's discuss them.

I just went back through this thread twice, and of your 9 current posts in the discussion no where have I seen where you have asked me about the flaws I find with evolution. So you are making sh!t up. If you care to retract your accusation that I have been dodging your questions, I will be more than happy to answer, now that you have actually asked.

La literatura
04-24-2013, 08:39 PM
Wait a minute, the post that this is in response to was in response to my political conspiracy theories. So now what exactly are we talking about?



I just went back through this thread twice, and of your 9 current posts in the discussion no where have I seen where you have asked me about the flaws I find with evolution. So you are making sh!t up. If you care to retract your accusation that I have been dodging your questions, I will be more than happy to answer, now that you have actually asked.

Have you found flaws with the scientific evidence for evolution?

Raiderhader
04-24-2013, 08:59 PM
Actually they are. A scientific theory is different than the generic term used by most. This basic lack of understanding of the simplest of differences is one reason people get so frustrated when debating topics such as this. Gravity is only a theory. Einstein must be an idiot.

Except when it's not. Point in case: the global warming debate has two schools of scientific thought. Basically one side says it exists and the other side says the opposite. Now both sides use factual data to formulate their conclusions. So both, by the standard you and others are suggesting, are scientific theory, or fact or truth or what have you. The two theories cannot both be right as they are diametrically opposed to one another. Thus, scientific theory as you and others claim it to be, is nothing more than a regular ol' theory in and of itself.

As I stated in my case last night in regards to the Piltdown Man hoax, scientists have been known in the past to falsify data and evidence (and not just in that single case) in order to promote their beliefs or agendas. The claim that science is entirely about the search for truth is yet another common theory. It should be that but, has on many occasion fallen short of that lofty mark. Just because someone creates the term "scientific theory" (however pure the original intent may have been) on some data does not automatically make it fact.

Contrary to the accusations made; I fully grasp the concept of scientific theory.

I also fully understand word and mind games, as well as the general art of deception.

Your issue seems to be that you think evolution is contradictory to creation or believing in God. (I could be wrong on this though). The only thing it contradicts from a religious perspective is a literal interpretation of the Bible. But guess what? Virtually everything contradicts that and there is really no debating that.

Bold 1. Incorrect. My problem with evolution is evolution itself. As I said last night, at one point in my life I actively looked at evolution with a complete open mind in search of answers to nagging questions I could not sweep aside. Evolution was never able to prove itself to me.

Bold 2. Your opinion.

This is what evolution looks like if the present equals 112.

1 + x = 3, 3 + 2x = 7, 7 + 3x = 13, 13 + 4x = 21, 21 + 5x = 31, 31 + 6x = 44, 44 + 7x = 58, 58 + 8x = 74, 74 + 9x = 92, 92 + 10x = 112.

All the numbers are evidence and facts of things that existed and we can observe for which there is no debating. X with its multiplier represents the so called "missing links" and "holes" in the theory. These would be transitional fossils. We can see the clear transition from 1 to 7 because we have 3 in the middle. But there will always be transitions between those.

And you can't prove there are not even more transitions between the 1 and 3 other than x because you cannot prove a negative. i.e. I can NEVER prove there is NOT animal 1.5 between 1 and x but that does not mean the evolution from 1 to 3 and 1 to 7 and 1 to 112 is not clear. This is where many people cling to in order to try to falsify evolution. "You don't have everything!" Even if we did have everything, we could not know it or prove it because we cannot observe what does not exist. Just like we cannot prove Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist.

So although we don't have each and every transitional fossil (we certainly have a lot, if not most of them though), it is pretty clear what each one should look like because we have the factual information of its ancestor and decendent as well as the multiplier representing other facts such as where it was found. But that is the great part. Sometimes x IS found, which turns out to be as predicted by the theory, providing further evidence that the theory as it is, is correct. So x is found well now we need to find the transition between 1 and x because it is predicted or the evidence shows that one could be there. But that doesn't mean the theory is wrong.

I think that this is a good way to show why evolution is "only" a theory.

Disclaimer: This is an analogy I kind of came up with on my own after seeing similar things in the past. But I do think it makes sense. At least to me it does!


All well and good. But the evidence that you and others suggest is there is not. The best case that can be made for evolution is in microevolution. There is no indisputable evidence of macroevolution. So, we are still left with nothing but a theory.

Raiderhader
04-24-2013, 09:29 PM
Have you found flaws with the scientific evidence for evolution?

Yes.

Dave Lane
04-24-2013, 09:43 PM
Wow that is the worst misunderstanding of a scientific theory I've ever seen.

Global Warming is not a scientific theory. Its a hypothesis, completely different animal. A scientific theory is like the graduation of a hypothesis, once there is general and near complete agreement of testing by thousands of scientists world wide.

La literatura
04-24-2013, 09:44 PM
Yes.

Have you shared those flaws with us?

Dave Lane
04-24-2013, 09:45 PM
You really are scientifically illiterate.

Dave Lane
04-24-2013, 09:48 PM
Have you shared those flaws with us?

It's too sciencey.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-24-2013, 10:35 PM
The slapdicks are about in this thread, did it hurt the first time?

KILLER_CLOWN
04-24-2013, 10:36 PM
What would it matter if he was LMAO I assumed it was feeble attempt at a joke. I do not take that poster seriously due to his open alliance with a charlatan like Hovind~

Your loss same as your allegiance to the faiders.

RedNeckRaider
04-25-2013, 05:09 AM
Your loss same as your allegiance to the faiders.

I don't base my entire belief system on a football team. Football is the same as Hovind...things that shouldn't be taken serious~

KILLER_CLOWN
04-25-2013, 06:01 AM
I don't base my entire belief system on a football team. Football is the same as Hovind...things that shouldn't be taken serious~

You lost me there, I don't think they are even remotely similar. Most Raider fans do not think straight though. :D

Brainiac
04-25-2013, 08:52 AM
You lost me there, I don't think they are even remotely similar. Most Raider fans do not think straight though. :D

Read the entire sentence, not just the part you bolded.

The meaning is so obvious even a caveman would understand it.

WhiteWhale
04-25-2013, 09:22 AM
All well and good. But the evidence that you and others suggest is there is not. The best case that can be made for evolution is in microevolution. There is no indisputable evidence of macroevolution. So, we are still left with nothing but a theory.

Your refusal to accept evidence does not mean it is not there.

Also, 'micro' and 'macro' evolution are terms only used by people who don't understand the mechanism. It's the same mechanism. Fundies like to separate them because even a child could see what they call 'micro' evolution is happening right in front of them. It is not disputable that all dogs have a common living ancestor.

By acknowledging 'micro' evolution, you are acknowledging the process exists. IF you can explain the stopping point of this mechanism, I'm all ears. Ring species do prove that 'types' (as hovind would say) can evolve to the point where one end of the 'ring' cannot breed with the other end of the 'ring' in spite of being the same 'type' with a common ancestor.

Xanathol
04-25-2013, 09:49 AM
Only an atheist accepts scientific findings. /Xanathol.Never said that. In fact, I've had my own opportunities to be a researcher. There is not a thing wrong with science itself -only idiots who try to associate themselves with it.

The second rule of the Internet is never argue with a troll, which either you are, or the most uninformed fool on this site,Its always ironic that the 'troll' is quick to call others 'trolls'. You have said nothing of any value anywhere on this forum. The world is dumber for you having existed in it, much less every time you communicate and spread your ignorance.

wait... carbon dating is actually a very simple concept that even middle-schoolers can understand. are you saying that you don't have the intellect of a middle-schooler?And you just pointed out your own complete failure of basic comprehension - I stated you're the idiot if you lean on carbon dating because even an undergrad at an online community college understands disjoint functions that lacks derivatives, how chaos theory better models growth and decay, and can see how carbon dating - a linear, exponential decay model - is flawed beyond belief. Seriously, have never even taking differential equations?!? Or better yet, have the common sense to see the flaw in the model? "Hmmm... I've mapped out the rate of change here for ~70 years... yup - we're good with projecting that out over millions of years!" Dumbasses.

So all the nobel prize winners, professors/researchers at prominent academic institutions, and the majority of academics are... idiots?

Bold. ****ing. Statement.Obama 'won' a Nobel - it has no ****ing value.

When it come to academics, yes - many are. Those who can, do, those who can't, teach. Snide remark aside, the vast consensus of professors / researchers in the relative fields are fully aware of the problems with C-14 dating - its no new discovery. Problem is, you don't make positive headlines speaking out against the accepted norm.

Xanathol
04-25-2013, 10:01 AM
Your refusal to accept evidence does not mean it is not there.

Also, 'micro' and 'macro' evolution are terms only used by people who don't understand the mechanism. It's the same mechanism. Fundies like to separate them because even a child could see what they call 'micro' evolution is happening right in front of them. It is not disputable that all dogs have a common living ancestor.

By acknowledging 'micro' evolution, you are acknowledging the process exists. IF you can explain the stopping point of this mechanism, I'm all ears. Ring species do prove that 'types' (as hovind would say) can evolve to the point where one end of the 'ring' cannot breed with the other end of the 'ring' in spite of being the same 'type' with a common ancestor.
Genetic material has never - anywhere - been shown to be created anew and added within a lifeform on its on; only taken away or mutated. Ever. Every time you claim so, we laugh at you.

As for dogs having a 'common ancestor' - prove it. You cannot, because there is no proof - only your kindergarten 'this looks a lot like that!' methodology. Once you accept that there probably has always been more than one 'ancestor' of dogs, cross-breeding explains your 'evolution' better than anything else. What's next - are you going to claim you 'evolved' from your mom when your dad bent her over?

Seriously, the assumptions and lack of basic understanding in this thread by the atheists / anti-creationists is embarrassing. Of course, if your IQ wasn't single digits, you wouldn't be in either category, so I guess its a moot point.

stevieray
04-25-2013, 10:18 AM
I understand blahblahblah

Also, he didn't flunk out of seminary or med school. He quit because it didn't interest him. It was not because he was not capable. He disliked the religious BS. Saying:

He (and Wallace) were the first to present a SCIENTIFIC argument for evolution...I stated this because brando used the term SCIENTIFIC fact.

He was a beleiver who turned away, not new or unique.

You drop out...you flunk. pretty simple.

Fish
04-25-2013, 10:52 AM
And you just pointed out your own complete failure of basic comprehension - I stated you're the idiot if you lean on carbon dating because even an undergrad at an online community college understands disjoint functions that lacks derivatives, how chaos theory better models growth and decay, and can see how carbon dating - a linear, exponential decay model - is flawed beyond belief. Seriously, have never even taking differential equations?!? Or better yet, have the common sense to see the flaw in the model? "Hmmm... I've mapped out the rate of change here for ~70 years... yup - we're good with projecting that out over millions of years!" Dumbasses.


Know how I know you're completely full of shit?

KILLER_CLOWN
04-25-2013, 01:44 PM
Know how I know you're completely full of shit?

You have a theory?

Fish
04-25-2013, 09:08 PM
You have a theory?

Look up the definition of linear change, and then do the same for exponential change. Then tell me how carbon dating is a linear, exponential decay model. Both.

And please. Please... have the common sense to tell us what the flaw is, in the linear, exponential decay model of carbon dating...

Explain how it's flawed beyond belief..

Dave Lane
04-25-2013, 10:21 PM
Look up the definition of linear change, and then do the same for exponential change. Then tell me how carbon dating is a linear, exponential decay model. Both.

And please. Please... have the common sense to tell us what the flaw is, in the linear, exponential decay model of carbon dating...

Explain how it's flawed beyond belief..

Hey did I miss Raderhader's rebuttal to the flaws in evolution? I was watching the draft am sure I missed all his proofs.

Fish
04-26-2013, 07:38 AM
Hey did I miss Raderhader's rebuttal to the flaws in evolution? I was watching the draft am sure I missed all his proofs.

Of course you missed it. Because no one has ever seen his secret list of flaws. I've asked in numerous threads to see examples of these flaws, but each time the result has been the same. He's likely convinced that the evil government has released a gang of evolution ninjas, and they're hunting him down at this very moment. I'm sure that's why he hasn't responded with his flaws...