# TN, 5 Others States Introduce Bills To Prohibit Teaching Evolution



## Madeline (Feb 14, 2011)

> House Bill 368 (PDF), introduced in the Tennessee House of Representatives on February 9, 2011, is the sixth antievolution bill introduced in a state legislature in 2011, and the first introduced in Tennessee since 2007. The bill, if enacted, would require state and local educational authorities to "assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies" and permit teachers to "help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught."
> 
> The only examples provided of "controversial" theories are *"biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."* The sole sponsor of HB 368 is Bill Dunn (R-District 16), who, according to Project Vote Smart, answered yes to the question Should Tennessee require its public schools to teach evolution as theory rather than scientific fact? in 1996  the same year in which the Tennessee legislature considered a bill (SB 3229/HB 2972) that would have provided for *the suspension or dismissal of any teacher or administrator who taught evolution as a fact rather than a theory.*



Antievolution legislation in Tennessee | NCSE

So, this used car dealer knows enough to prohibit teaching certain aspects of science?  No wonder this nation continues to fall behind others on the level of science mastery of its students.

Legally required stupidity...what will they think of next?

Your reaction?


----------



## Madeline (Feb 14, 2011)




----------



## The Joe (Feb 14, 2011)

I think the combination of believing in global warming and thinking man is his own god does more to bastardise the "level of science mastery".  If you weren't so closed minded, you would see that evolution exists even with the inclusion of intelligent design.  Maybe liberals should had reached across the aisle and showed some tolerance in allowing the mentioning of intelligent design in class.  Had this been done, I feel that it is safe to say that this bill wouldn't exist.  After all, without God, you have no rights.


----------



## Madeline (Feb 14, 2011)

The Joe said:


> I think the combination of believing in global warming and thinking man is his own god does more to bastardise the "level of science mastery".  If you weren't so closed minded, you would see that evolution exists even with the inclusion of intelligent design.  Maybe liberals should had reached across the aisle and showed some tolerance in allowing the mentioning of intelligent design in class.  Had this been done, I feel that it is safe to say that this bill wouldn't exist.  After all, without God, you have no rights.



Which part of "freedom of religion" or "separation of church and state" is confusing to you, Joe?

You want to believe the Earth is 5,000 years old and teach your child that, fine by me.  But WTF gives you any right to teach that nonsense to MY child?


----------



## AllieBaba (Feb 14, 2011)

The conflict arises when retarded teachers insist on teaching evolution as a theory which explains the existence of life on earth, and when they treat some theories of descent as *fact*. 

Our education system is crap. I was just saying today that I find it offensive that VALENTINE'S DAY is such a huge issue at the school...the kids are hyped up for weeks over it; while I see the inherent usefulness of learning to address and distribute cards (I guess) to your classmates, that, on TOP of the stupid sugar blow out in the afternoon, makes me just want to pull them out and homeschool them. Except I can't teach kids for crap. Still, I'm dreading tonight. And this morning was a nightmare.

So we spend all this energy on VALENTINE'S DAY but the educators can't educate themselves and the kids properly about evolution and it's place in the world. They have to make it into this big deal that explains away all religious theory, and that's just wrong. It's not the place of our schools to teach that, and if that's what they're going to insist on teaching, then guess what? They are going to be shut down and prevented from saying anything about it at all.

Morons.


----------



## Anachronism (Feb 14, 2011)

Madeline said:


> Which part of "freedom of religion" or "separation of church and state" is confusing to you, Joe?
> 
> You want to believe the Earth is 5,000 years old and teach your child that, fine by me.  But WTF gives you any right to teach that nonsense to MY child?



Maddie,

Likewise, what gives the school the right to teach my child (if I had any) that a Scientific THEORY called Evolution is the only acceptable version of how the world came to be?

Personally, I like what the high school in my hometown did..... They taught the *THEORY* (unproven, scientific belief) and also included a small bit of curriculum documenting that there are other *THEORIES* out there which are contridictory to the *THEORY* of Evolution relative to how the world and humanity came to be.

My problem is when you have these school systems teaching Evolution as SCIENTIFIC LAW instead of THEORY.


----------



## AllieBaba (Feb 14, 2011)

Exactly.

My 7 y.o. son comes home telling me which animals today came from which dinosaurs.

And he's not talking about things like crocs and white sharks; he's being taught that warm blooded furry creatures have descended straight from brontosauri (brontosauruses??? lol). I don't think his teacher believes that; but she's teaching a curriculum and that's the curriculum. We're in a charter school, with a natural resources focus, that works hand in hand with a PALEO project in this area. PALEO...they dig up bones around here. They want to make it a tourist trade. They want to join with the school to do it.

Literally. They want to make a big Paleo/School complex where the kids go to school in the same geographical site that the Paleo operates. They want to share funds, participate in the school. 

While I am proud of the beauty and interest of our geographic location and like having the paleo project here; it is endlessly fascinating and fun; I don't want my child being taught things that are MEANT to challenge their faith. I know the guy who runs the Paleo. I know what his agenda is. I have heard him opine on the concept of God. I don't want his agenda taught to the kids. His agenda is to *educate* kids out of faith, and that is NOT the job of the schools.


----------



## Madeline (Feb 14, 2011)

I cannot believe we are going to debate the validity of evolution AGAIN.  Will you religious wingnuts PLEASE confine your reality-denial to the home and the Sunday School classroom?






I do not get WTF the pay off could possibly be for religious people to raise kids who are scientific nitwits.  I seriously don't...but whatever, _get your paws offa the public schools_.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 14, 2011)

Anachronism said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Which part of "freedom of religion" or "separation of church and state" is confusing to you, Joe?
> ...




Because scientific FACTS support the theory. Just like they support the THEORY of gravity

Which scientific FACTS do you have to support the THEORY of creationism?

Are you OK with schools teaching there are no scientific facts supporting creationism? How about that scientific FACTS do not support the Bible?


----------



## Ravi (Feb 14, 2011)

More dumbing down of students...pretty soon we'll look like a backwater on the level of Pakistan.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 14, 2011)

Madeline said:


> > House Bill 368 (PDF), introduced in the Tennessee House of Representatives on February 9, 2011, is the sixth antievolution bill introduced in a state legislature in 2011, and the first introduced in Tennessee since 2007. The bill, if enacted, would require state and local educational authorities to "assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies" and permit teachers to "help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught."
> >
> > The only examples provided of "controversial" theories are *"biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."* The sole sponsor of HB 368 is Bill Dunn (R-District 16), who, according to Project Vote Smart, answered yes to the question Should Tennessee require its public schools to teach evolution as theory rather than scientific fact? in 1996  the same year in which the Tennessee legislature considered a bill (SB 3229/HB 2972) that would have provided for *the suspension or dismissal of any teacher or administrator who taught evolution as a fact rather than a theory.*
> 
> ...



My reaction is that you are over reacting.

It is "The theory of evolution" not the fact of evolution.  The reason it's a theory is b/c there are vast gaps in this theory.

And it's not like they are opting for the creation myth.  Even though dna testing gives the basic of the myth some creadance.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 14, 2011)

Madeline said:


> The Joe said:
> 
> 
> > I think the combination of believing in global warming and thinking man is his own god does more to bastardise the "level of science mastery".  If you weren't so closed minded, you would see that evolution exists even with the inclusion of intelligent design.  Maybe liberals should had reached across the aisle and showed some tolerance in allowing the mentioning of intelligent design in class.  Had this been done, I feel that it is safe to say that this bill wouldn't exist.  After all, without God, you have no rights.
> ...



What gives you the right to force a theory as fact on my children?

Oh and

States rights come into play in schools.  Even with the useless DoE.


----------



## Immanuel (Feb 14, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Anachronism said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



As pointed out earlier in the thread the facts support the evolution of a species.  We can all see that dogs and cats have "evolved" through the years, what we can't see and is not a proven fact, is that a dog becomes a whale or an ape becomes a man or the ancestor of an ape becomes man in one branch and ape in another.  

I think the idea of disallowing the teaching of evolution is a bad idea.  However, that is not what the quote in the OP states is being done here.  Evolution should most definitely be taught at least until there is something that proves it to be wrong... not saying that will ever happen, mind you.  

Where I always have a problem is when teachers try to teach the Theory of Evolution as an answer to how life began on earth.  When they begin to teach Abiogensis as fact, I balk.

Immie


----------



## Madeline (Feb 14, 2011)

O for the love of Mike, if you lose your car keys, Immie, do you jump to the conclusion that a leprechan stole them?  Or do you keep looking for your keys?

The holes in the record of evolution are not proof that God exists.


----------



## Madeline (Feb 14, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > The Joe said:
> ...



No state has the legal right to violate the constitution.  Teaching public school children that God exists does EXACTLY that.


----------



## R.D. (Feb 14, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Because scientific FACTS support the theory. Just like they support the THEORY of gravity


Who're you kidding?  Schools teach gravity is a _theory
_?


 If they had the facts to back them they  wouldn't be theories then would they?


----------



## Ravi (Feb 14, 2011)

R.D. said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Because scientific FACTS support the theory. Just like they support the THEORY of gravity
> ...


Everyone knows that things don't fall down when you drop them. God PUSHES things to the ground when you let go of them.


----------



## Anachronism (Feb 14, 2011)

Madeline said:


> I cannot believe we are going to debate the validity of evolution AGAIN.  Will you religious wingnuts PLEASE confine your reality-denial to the home and the Sunday School classroom?



No problem. Right after you science-geeks stop trying to teach every child that if it cannot be scientifically "proven" it doesn't exist.



rightwinger said:


> Because scientific FACTS support the theory. Just like they support the THEORY of gravity
> 
> Which scientific FACTS do you have to support the THEORY of creationism?
> 
> Are you OK with schools teaching there are no scientific facts supporting creationism? How about that scientific FACTS do not support the Bible?



If the FACTS support it so clearly, why isn't Evolution of the Species accepted as SCIENTIFIC *LAW* rather than *THEORY*. Kind of a big hole in your arguement there, winger. The word "Theory" indicates that it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt at this time.

Where/When have I ever even mentioned the Bible? I haven't. I'm not a follower of an Abrahamic religion. That doesn't mean I don't believe in the concept of Divine Creation.

I would be more than fine with schools teaching...... *NO SINGLE THEORY ON THE CREATION OF THE WORLD CAN BE PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AT THIS TIME.* How does that strike you?


----------



## Immanuel (Feb 14, 2011)

Madeline said:


> O for the love of Mike, if you lose your car keys, Immie, do you jump to the conclusion that a leprechan stole them?  Or do you keep looking for your keys?
> 
> The holes in the record of evolution are not proof that God exists.



Did I say that those holes were proof?  No, I did not.  I never even thought that they were.

You seem to be the one jumping to conclusions. 

The holes are there whether you admit it or not.  The fact that those holes are there leaves room for argument that you live in a fairy tale land. 

Immie


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 14, 2011)

Madeline said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Where did it state that they want to teach creation of teach about god in your original post?  did I miss it?  cuz if they want to teach about god they can as a seperate subject, what they can't do is teach a specific religion.


----------



## Immanuel (Feb 14, 2011)

Madeline said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Funny, but it seems that you are the only one throwing God into this discussion.  I did not mention God nor did Two Thumbs.

Immie


----------



## Madeline (Feb 14, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



Nonsense.  The "intelligence" in "Intelligent Design" is God, and you know it, Immie.

Let's not be coy here.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 14, 2011)

Ravi said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Einstien thought things were pushed down.

It was on the Science channel with a host of physists.  My head was throbbing, when they were done and that was just a lead in to explaining why another theory may be valid.


----------



## blu (Feb 14, 2011)

I was really hoping this would be an Onion headline. Let TN stay at the bottom of the barrel, its what they deserve for electing such leaders. I can't wait to read the history books in 50 years though where they are considered as foolish as Scientologists though


----------



## Anachronism (Feb 14, 2011)

Madeline said:


> The holes in the record of evolution are not proof that God exists.



Nor are those things that science can understand "proof" that God does not exist.



Madeline said:


> No state has the legal right to violate the constitution.  Teaching public school children that God exists does EXACTLY that.



Please show me the words "Separation of Church and State" in the Constitution. They're not there. Honestly, the school system should not be involved in religion at all; either in terms of advocating for or against ANY form of religious or spiritual faith.


----------



## Madeline (Feb 14, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > O for the love of Mike, if you lose your car keys, Immie, do you jump to the conclusion that a leprechan stole them?  Or do you keep looking for your keys?
> ...



If I know A B C _ E F existed, is it scientifically valid to infer that D also existed, Immie?

Or should I instead treat the abscence of D in the record as "scientific proof that God exists"?


----------



## blu (Feb 14, 2011)

I really feel sorry for kids who parents push such crap on them, they might as well just send them straight to minimum wage agencies


----------



## Immanuel (Feb 14, 2011)

Madeline said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Um, I read your quote in the OP.  I saw nothing at all about teaching Intelligent Design.  Nor would I support teaching ID unless it was simply mentioned as an alternative idea to Evolution.

I do not think we should be teaching "Life began..." in any manner whatsoever as no one at all knows how life began.  

Immie


----------



## editec (Feb 14, 2011)

Madeline said:


> > House Bill 368 (PDF), introduced in the Tennessee House of Representatives on February 9, 2011, is the sixth antievolution bill introduced in a state legislature in 2011, and the first introduced in Tennessee since 2007. The bill, if enacted, would require state and local educational authorities to "assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies" and permit teachers to "help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught."
> >
> > The only examples provided of "controversial" theories are *"biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."* The sole sponsor of HB 368 is Bill Dunn (R-District 16), who, according to Project Vote Smart, answered yes to the question &#8220;Should Tennessee require its public schools to teach evolution as theory rather than scientific fact?&#8221; in 1996 &#8212; the same year in which the Tennessee legislature considered a bill (SB 3229/HB 2972) that would have provided for *the suspension or dismissal of any teacher or administrator who taught evolution as a fact rather than a theory.*
> 
> ...


 
To paraphase Forest Gump's mama, *stupid is as stupid does*?

I'm telling you, America has a history of going though these religious revivalist _anti-intellectual_ periods. 

And every time the American zietgeist goes though one of these periods, these kinds of of knuckle dragging imbeciles are given platforms to spew their ignorant dreck, usually by some political party that needs their votes.

This insanity too will pass, Mad.


----------



## Immanuel (Feb 14, 2011)

blu said:


> I was really hoping this would be an Onion headline. Let TN stay at the bottom of the barrel, its what they deserve for electing such leaders. I can't wait to read the history books in 50 years though where they are considered as foolish as Scientologists though



The fact is that the title of the thread is misleading and it appears to have been intentionally so.

Immie


----------



## Madeline (Feb 14, 2011)

Anachronism said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > The holes in the record of evolution are not proof that God exists.
> ...



One such form of religious instruction is to teach -- in a science class! -- that God exists.

As for separation of church and state, the constitution is as the SCOTUS says it is.  Dun like that?  Then you must also be offended at constitutional provisions creating the Judiciary and checks and balances.

Can't have that both ways, Anachronism.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 14, 2011)

Madeline said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Then you don't understand what is meant by intellegent design.

It's not "the" god, as in one of the many gods we have, but a vast intellegence that got all these coincedences to occur so we can live here.

this is not some all loving being, blah blah blah.  It's a "theory" of how we came about.  The idea that it's just dumb luck, strikes me as non-sense.


----------



## Immanuel (Feb 14, 2011)

Madeline said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



The series of letters known as the alphabet is a set figure that we all agree upon.  Not so with the "missing links" you so adamantly insist must exist.

Immie


----------



## AllieBaba (Feb 14, 2011)

Really?

When was the last anti-intellectual period and what defined it?

There's nothing intellectual about lying to children and using lies to undermine their faith. It's pure old-fashioned propaganda technique...


----------



## HUGGY (Feb 14, 2011)

Madeline said:


> > House Bill 368 (PDF), introduced in the Tennessee House of Representatives on February 9, 2011, is the sixth antievolution bill introduced in a state legislature in 2011, and the first introduced in Tennessee since 2007. The bill, if enacted, would require state and local educational authorities to "assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies" and permit teachers to "help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught."
> >
> > The only examples provided of "controversial" theories are *"biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."* The sole sponsor of HB 368 is Bill Dunn (R-District 16), who, according to Project Vote Smart, answered yes to the question Should Tennessee require its public schools to teach evolution as theory rather than scientific fact? in 1996  the same year in which the Tennessee legislature considered a bill (SB 3229/HB 2972) that would have provided for *the suspension or dismissal of any teacher or administrator who taught evolution as a fact rather than a theory.*
> 
> ...



Gotta love those hill billies.


----------



## blu (Feb 14, 2011)

I don't even argue with creationists anymore, in 20-30 years they will only be remembered in history books and will be openly mocked as other extremists do


----------



## blu (Feb 14, 2011)

HUGGY said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > > House Bill 368 (PDF), introduced in the Tennessee House of Representatives on February 9, 2011, is the sixth antievolution bill introduced in a state legislature in 2011, and the first introduced in Tennessee since 2007. The bill, if enacted, would require state and local educational authorities to "assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies" and permit teachers to "help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught."
> ...



at least they know how to BBQ, would be terrible if they required a brain


----------



## Madeline (Feb 14, 2011)

blu said:


> I don't even argue with creationists anymore, in 20-30 years they will only be remembered in history books and will be openly mocked as other extremists do



Dun be so sure.  The Scopes Monkey Trial was held in 1925.  In TN, ironically.


----------



## AllieBaba (Feb 14, 2011)

They're openly mocked now.

By liars who say their pretend science explains the origins of the universe and precludes the existence of God.

The true ignorami are the retards who think it's okay to lie to children.


----------



## AllieBaba (Feb 14, 2011)

And, for those who are interested, the bible details exactly how believers would be mocked and lied about by those who claim to be "wise".


----------



## Madeline (Feb 14, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Really?
> 
> When was the last anti-intellectual period and what defined it?
> 
> There's nothing intellectual about lying to children and using lies to undermine their faith. It's pure old-fashioned propaganda technique...



Horseshit.  This "undermining" you speak of only occurs if the children are taught in church that what they learn in science class is wrong.  You dun want your kids to suffer like that?

Join a church that is not anti-science.

Elsewise, the suffering is yours, not that of your entire community.  We have no duty to pretend you might could be correct.


----------



## blu (Feb 14, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> And, for those who are interested, the bible details exactly how believers would be mocked and lied about by those who claim to be "wise".



lololol its always a bad sign when you people start throwing "prophecies" into things

l ron hubbard told scientoligists they would be mocked as well


----------



## Madeline (Feb 14, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> And, for those who are interested, the bible details exactly how believers would be mocked and lied about by those who claim to be "wise".



The bible also lays out the correct way to treat slaves.  BFD.


----------



## blu (Feb 14, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> They're openly mocked now.
> 
> By liars who say their pretend science explains the origins of the universe and precludes the existence of God.
> 
> The true ignorami are the retards who think it's okay to lie to children.



its science class.... please learn the difference


----------



## AllieBaba (Feb 14, 2011)

I wonder if the science teachers will teach the kids today that the hubble took pictures of what LOOKS to be an alien spaceship and how many children are encouraged to consider that possibility...compared to the number of teachers who will say the pictures LOOK LIKE a cross and let the kids ponder that? I mean...is an alien space ship more *scientific* than a cross?

Lol...


----------



## HUGGY (Feb 14, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> And, for those who are interested, the bible details exactly how believers would be mocked and lied about by those who claim to be "wise".



All religions have built in self defense mechanisms.  Hardly an independent endorsement.


----------



## blu (Feb 14, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> I wonder if the science teachers will teach the kids today that the hubble took pictures of what LOOKS to be an alien spaceship and how many children are encouraged to consider that possibility...compared to the number of teachers who will say the pictures LOOK LIKE a cross and let the kids ponder that? I mean...is an alien space ship more *scientific* than a cross?
> 
> Lol...





yep, i think its time to add you to ignore. signs that someone is truly crazy involve finding "signs" in common events as well as thinking "propheices" of some god relate to your everyday life


----------



## R.D. (Feb 14, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > R.D. said:
> ...


 I am too new here to know if Ravi was being funny  or dumb


----------



## AllieBaba (Feb 14, 2011)

Maddie, the day you say that schools have a right to invade church and "prevent" ANYTHING from being taught is the day I identify you as a lunatic. For real.

It figures that the one to shriek "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" is the one most committed to bringing the state into church and shutting it down.

Though not surprising.


----------



## Immanuel (Feb 14, 2011)

R.D. said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



It is Ravi's sense of humor.

She's cool and so is Madeline although for some reason many here do not like them.  Me? I find if you treat them like you want to be treated they will return the favor.

Immie


----------



## blu (Feb 14, 2011)

R.D. said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



hes trolling the creationist/ID people who think there must be a god b/c science can't explain everything yet


----------



## AllieBaba (Feb 14, 2011)

Still waiting for evidence of past "anti-intellectual" movements.

Funny.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 14, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Anachronism said:
> ...



But we do know much more than that. We know that single cell creatures existed before multiple cell creatures. We know that over time, creatures became more complex.

There are no fossil records showing all levels of complexity existing millions of years ago. In looking at rock strata we can tell which type of animals and plants existed during which periods

That is Scientific FACT


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 14, 2011)

R.D. said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



She was being an ass.

I was being serious.  The Science channel is awesome.  there series on how the earth was made is what caused to believe there is something out there.


----------



## Madeline (Feb 14, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Still waiting for evidence of past "anti-intellectual" movements.
> 
> Funny.



Astronomy. - The Retreat of the Church after its Victory over Galileo.


----------



## AllieBaba (Feb 14, 2011)

blu said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if the science teachers will teach the kids today that the hubble took pictures of what LOOKS to be an alien spaceship and how many children are encouraged to consider that possibility...compared to the number of teachers who will say the pictures LOOK LIKE a cross and let the kids ponder that? I mean...is an alien space ship more *scientific* than a cross?
> ...



And yet it's not crazy to see an alien spaceship?

Please ignore me. Your contributions consist of nothing more than elitist howling, gnashing of teeth, and trolling lies. So I would be perfectly happy if you never responded to me again. Your posts are a waste of time and space, so have at.


----------



## Madeline (Feb 14, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Maddie, the day you say that schools have a right to invade church and "prevent" ANYTHING from being taught is the day I identify you as a lunatic. For real.
> 
> It figures that the one to shriek "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" is the one most committed to bringing the state into church and shutting it down.
> 
> Though not surprising.



That day has long since passed, Allie.  You cannot (usually) deny your child life-saving medical care on religious grounds.  You cannot sacrifice animals (usually) in the ritual your faith prescribes.

Freedom of religion is not freedom to do as you please, no matter what.


----------



## xsited1 (Feb 14, 2011)

Madeline said:


> ...
> 
> Your reaction?



Send your kids to private schools.  You'll be glad you did.


----------



## AllieBaba (Feb 14, 2011)

Madeline said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for evidence of past "anti-intellectual" movements.
> ...



omg, and that proves anti-intellecutual movements are common in the US exactly HOW?

This is a big topic, maddie. It requires big thoughts and not a little understanding of science, religion, the public ed system AND history, and you are out on all counts. Sorry.


----------



## Madeline (Feb 14, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



The mere fact that you want children to be taught there is a Great Sky Father is enough to render that teaching wholly unconstitutional in a public school, Two Thumbs.  It is not necessary to layer on benevolence.


----------



## Nosmo King (Feb 14, 2011)

The Joe said:


> I think the combination of believing in global warming and thinking man is his own god does more to bastardise the "level of science mastery".  If you weren't so closed minded, you would see that evolution exists even with the inclusion of intelligent design.  Maybe liberals should had reached across the aisle and showed some tolerance in allowing the mentioning of intelligent design in class.  Had this been done, I feel that it is safe to say that this bill wouldn't exist.  After all, without God, you have no rights.


Intelligent design has been thoroughly debunked as 'science'.  There should be no consideration of that canard in any science class except as an example of how politics makes a poor scientist.

Teach the fable of creation in literature class or philosophy class.  Teach science in science classes.

But the bigger question remains: why do some folks still cling to this totally discredited and completely unscientific fable?  My answer is arrogance.  Some folks are too arrogant to believe themselves as mammals.  They somehow believe that mankind has been created solely for a higher purpose: to act as God on earth and have dominion over all living things.  Once you accept the fact that mankind IS an animal, that notion rings hollow.


----------



## Madeline (Feb 14, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> They're openly mocked now.
> 
> By liars who say their pretend science explains the origins of the universe and *precludes the existence of God.*
> 
> The true ignorami are the retards who think it's okay to lie to children.



Where in a public school science text does it say "God does not exist", Allie?

Ghosts and angels "may" also exist.  Should we add them to the science curriculum as well?


----------



## Ravi (Feb 14, 2011)

I hate to tell you all the bad news, but scientists don't think or believe that humans descended from apes or monkeys.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 14, 2011)

Madeline said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > They're openly mocked now.
> ...



Mythology is tought in our local HS, but there is no mention of god.


----------



## Immanuel (Feb 14, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



What? 

I thought dinosaurs existed hundreds of millions of years ago not just millions of years ago?

I did not come into this thread to debate evolution which is evidently what Madeline intended from the beginning.  The title of the thread was about Tennessee attempting to forbid the teaching of evolution.  According to the quote from the article, that is not what Tennessee is attempting to do.  

In this very post that you quoted, I said that forbidding the teaching of Evolution was a bad idea.  I think evolution should be taught.  Nor do I think that the idea that species evolve into different species should be avoided, although since it is not proven it should not be taught as fact.  I do not, however, believe that we should be teaching how life began because we do not know.  We have theories some of which may be well thought out, but we do not as of yet, if we ever will, know how life began.

I did not come into this thread to prove to anyone that God exists.  I never mentioned God until Madeline started throwing God around.  

Immie


----------



## Madeline (Feb 14, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Your public HS has a class on Mythology?  That's odd.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 14, 2011)

Madeline said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



I'm not asking this to be tought in school.

I don't know what you mean by "layer on benevolence".


----------



## Immanuel (Feb 14, 2011)

Ravi said:


> I hate to tell you all the bad news, but scientists don't think or believe that humans descended from apes or monkeys.



No, they believe that the original ancestor was farther up the line.  As I said, when I brought that up.

Immie


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 14, 2011)

Madeline said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



There's one that goes through a number of pantheons and one that runs down monster myth.

Kinda cool actually.  I learned about Greek, Roman (same as Greek, just different names), Norse, Bysintine, etc in Catholic HS.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 14, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > I hate to tell you all the bad news, but scientists don't think or believe that humans descended from apes or monkeys.
> ...


To the contrary...they don't _believe_ anything. They merely attempt to make sense out of it all. In other words, there exists a possibility that somewhere up the line two or more species have a common ancestor but that is only a possibility.


----------



## Madeline (Feb 14, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



Well, no learning is a bad thing, Two Thumbs.  But in schools where we can't get kids to read or do math above a 4th grade level, a class on Mythology seems like gilding the lily.

If it's an elective, I guess I have no beef with it.  It is interesting.


----------



## Immanuel (Feb 14, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Okay, so I can take your meaning in this case based upon your definition of the word "believe" of which there are many.  But, you are right, scientists don't work on "belief", they try to formulate theories based upon known facts.

Immie


----------



## Anachronism (Feb 14, 2011)

Madeline said:


> One such form of religious instruction is to teach -- in a science class! -- that God exists.



And another is to stand up in front of that same class and openly declare that you have a Scientific THEORY that indicates God does not exist. 



Madeline said:


> As for separation of church and state, the constitution is as the SCOTUS says it is.  Dun like that?  Then you must also be offended at constitutional provisions creating the Judiciary and checks and balances.
> 
> Can't have that both ways, Anachronism.



Um..... *NO!!!*

The Constitution is what is written in black and white upon those 8 pages. I am very much offended by ANY FORM of Judicial activism regardless of the level of the Court; and I VERY OFTEN find the Supreme Court to be completely and totally WRONG.


----------



## Madeline (Feb 14, 2011)

Anachronism said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > One such form of religious instruction is to teach -- in a science class! -- that God exists.
> ...



Teachers in science class do not have a "God does not exist" lesson plan, Anachronism.  Again, if you choose to belong to an anti-science church that's on YOU.

As for "judicial activism", that phrase, "separation of church and state" appears first in a treaty, around 1790.  The mere fact that SCOTUS also uses it does not render their decisions "activist".  NOT using it might could render the SCOTUS comatous, and I wonder sometimes if that isn't what you guys would prefer.


----------



## HUGGY (Feb 14, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Still waiting for evidence of past "anti-intellectual" movements.
> 
> Funny.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 14, 2011)

Madeline said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



I, for one, have no problems with teaching the bible in our schools alongside other mythology


----------



## HUGGY (Feb 14, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Sounds like the noises Linda Bartells made when we had sex.


----------



## Toro (Feb 14, 2011)




----------



## Toro (Feb 14, 2011)




----------



## Toro (Feb 14, 2011)




----------



## Toro (Feb 14, 2011)

This is sooooooo bogus.

Is there anyone else besides religious people who put this stuff forward?  

This has nothing to do with science.  It has everything to do with religion.  The people who put this stuff forward are not interested in scientific discovery.  They are interested in demolishing alternative theories about how the world came about that contradict their own theories about the beginning of mankind.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 14, 2011)

Madeline said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



it's an elective.  If it was required, I wouldn't post it in such a kind fashion.

Kids not learning beyond 4th grade is on the parents.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 14, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



same here.

And it would be awesome to watch people go batshitcrazy as the bible got pulled out.


----------



## rdean (Feb 15, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Exactly.
> 
> My 7 y.o. son comes home telling me which animals today came from which dinosaurs.
> 
> ...



you are so "right".  Schools are there to keep 'em fucking stupid.


----------



## blu (Feb 15, 2011)

Toro said:


>


----------



## Sheldon (Feb 15, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Anachronism said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...





Just to be a nitpicking douche, gravity is also a law.

Force = (mass of one thing x mass of other thing/distance between both masses, squared) constant

Every. Time.

It's ALSO a theory because we don't know for sure HOW it works, we just know that it does.


----------



## Sheldon (Feb 15, 2011)

Why is Creationism/ID even put on a competitive pedestal next to evolution? (Don't answer that)

There's mountains of corroborating evidence to support evolution. C/IS has... what? There's just as much proof that my farts create mini-universes.

There's a substantive difference between a theory and a hypothesis. I even hesitate to call C/ID a hypothesis, because that means it could be tested through the scientific method. But there's no way to falsify it. So if it's not even a falsifiable hypothesis, how could it possibly be a valid idur to introduce into the science classroom? Derp!


----------



## rdean (Feb 15, 2011)

Sheldon said:


> Why is Creationism/ID even put on a competitive pedestal next to evolution? (Don't answer that)
> 
> There's mountains of corroborating evidence to support evolution. C/IS has... what? There's just as much proof that my farts create mini-universes.
> 
> There's a substantive difference between a theory and a hypothesis. I even hesitate to call C/ID a hypothesis, because that means it could be tested through the scientific method. But there's no way to falsify it. So if it's not even a falsifiable hypothesis, how could it possibly be a valid idur to introduce into the science classroom? Derp!



All theories based in mysticism are equally valid.  The reason is because they can't be "disproved".    For instance, we all know the center of the moon is made from edible and soft gooey cheese dip.  No one can prove otherwise, so it must be true.  This is how science works for the right wing.  Now, the truth is they get very angry that someone is comparing the validity of "Samson", whose magical strength was in his dreadlocks, to the center of moon being made from soft, gooey cheese.  Both are equally likely to be true.


----------



## del (Feb 15, 2011)

Madeline said:


> > House Bill 368 (PDF), introduced in the Tennessee House of Representatives on February 9, 2011, is the sixth antievolution bill introduced in a state legislature in 2011, and the first introduced in Tennessee since 2007. The bill, if enacted, would require state and local educational authorities to "assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies" and permit teachers to "help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught."
> >
> > The only examples provided of "controversial" theories are *"biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."* The sole sponsor of HB 368 is Bill Dunn (R-District 16), who, according to Project Vote Smart, answered yes to the question Should Tennessee require its public schools to teach evolution as theory rather than scientific fact? in 1996  the same year in which the Tennessee legislature considered a bill (SB 3229/HB 2972) that would have provided for *the suspension or dismissal of any teacher or administrator who taught evolution as a fact rather than a theory.*
> 
> ...



non existent. i'm sure loons file bills all the time.


----------



## Nosmo King (Feb 16, 2011)

rdean said:


> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> > Why is Creationism/ID even put on a competitive pedestal next to evolution? (Don't answer that)
> ...


Science to the right wing isn't necessarily a matter of believing based on faith alone.  The right wing further disclaims science once science shows that the damage mankind does will cost money to remediate.  This is where they determined that science can be called "junk science".  

Ask a right winger what should be done about hazardous waste sometime.  They will look at the budget and, if it cuts into profit, they will say that hazardous waste was called hazardous based on "junk science".


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 16, 2011)

The Joe said:


> I think the combination of believing in global warming and thinking man is his own god does more to bastardise the "level of science mastery".  If you weren't so closed minded, you would see that evolution exists even with the inclusion of intelligent design.  Maybe liberals should had reached across the aisle and showed some tolerance in allowing the mentioning of intelligent design in class.  Had this been done, I feel that it is safe to say that this bill wouldn't exist.  After all, without God, you have no rights.



That was settled in court. ID is simply creationism dressed in pseudoscience.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 16, 2011)

Anachronism said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Which part of "freedom of religion" or "separation of church and state" is confusing to you, Joe?
> ...



*Every overarching explanation of a major natural phenomonem is a theory. From the Theory of Gravity to the Theory of Relitivity.

There has been no other satisfactory explanation of life on earth that meets the definition of a theory other than evolution. The mythologies of the various religions simply don't count. *

Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Echoing the scientific philosopher Karl Popper, Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time states, "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state, "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." The "unprovable but falsifiable" nature of theories is a necessary consequence of using inductive logic.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 16, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Exactly.
> 
> My 7 y.o. son comes home telling me which animals today came from which dinosaurs.
> 
> ...



Now I can believe that you might think that we evolved directly from dinosaurs, I cannot believe a teacher that has had any biology would state that. Therapsid reptiles are likely our ancestral line.

Well Allie, the whole damned world challenges the faith of those that take the Bible literally.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 16, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> I wonder if the science teachers will teach the kids today that the hubble took pictures of what LOOKS to be an alien spaceship and how many children are encouraged to consider that possibility...compared to the number of teachers who will say the pictures LOOK LIKE a cross and let the kids ponder that? I mean...is an alien space ship more *scientific* than a cross?
> 
> Lol...



Getting real ridiculous there, old girl.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 16, 2011)

madeline said:


> alliebaba said:
> 
> 
> > still waiting for evidence of past "anti-intellectual" movements.
> ...



lol!!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 16, 2011)

Anachronism said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > One such form of religious instruction is to teach -- in a science class! -- that God exists.
> ...



The source of the Seperation of Church and State is the Danbury letter by Thomas Jefferson, and he states the grounds for it are in the Constitution.

Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.


----------



## 8537 (Feb 16, 2011)

Anachronism said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Which part of "freedom of religion" or "separation of church and state" is confusing to you, Joe?
> ...



Do you get upset when your local school teaches the theory of gravity?  Germ theory?


----------



## bodecea (Feb 16, 2011)

Madeline said:


> > House Bill 368 (PDF), introduced in the Tennessee House of Representatives on February 9, 2011, is the sixth antievolution bill introduced in a state legislature in 2011, and the first introduced in Tennessee since 2007. The bill, if enacted, would require state and local educational authorities to "assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies" and permit teachers to "help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught."
> >
> > The only examples provided of "controversial" theories are *"biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."* The sole sponsor of HB 368 is Bill Dunn (R-District 16), who, according to Project Vote Smart, answered yes to the question Should Tennessee require its public schools to teach evolution as theory rather than scientific fact? in 1996  the same year in which the Tennessee legislature considered a bill (SB 3229/HB 2972) that would have provided for *the suspension or dismissal of any teacher or administrator who taught evolution as a fact rather than a theory.*
> 
> ...



LOL....they never got over the Scopes Monkey Trial.


----------



## bodecea (Feb 16, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> The conflict arises when retarded teachers insist on teaching evolution as a theory which explains the existence of life on earth, and when they treat some theories of descent as *fact*.
> 
> Our education system is crap. I was just saying today that I find it offensive that VALENTINE'S DAY is such a huge issue at the school...the kids are hyped up for weeks over it; while I see the inherent usefulness of learning to address and distribute cards (I guess) to your classmates, that, on TOP of the stupid sugar blow out in the afternoon, makes me just want to pull them out and homeschool them. Except I can't teach kids for crap. Still, I'm dreading tonight. And this morning was a nightmare.
> 
> ...


Wait...you are saying that Valentine's Day is a SCHOOL INITIATED activity?


----------



## 8537 (Feb 16, 2011)

By the way, if any teacher does this:


> "Quote: Originally Posted by AllieBaba
> The conflict arises when retarded teachers insist on teaching evolution as a theory which explains the existence of life on earth, and when they treat some theories of descent as *fact*.



and teaches that_ evolution explains the existence of life on earth_ they should probably be fired - not because teaching evolution is wrong, but because evolution doesn't offer a theory as to the origins and existence of life on earth.


----------



## bodecea (Feb 16, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> I wonder if the science teachers will teach the kids today that the hubble took pictures of what LOOKS to be an alien spaceship and how many children are encouraged to consider that possibility...compared to the number of teachers who will say the pictures LOOK LIKE a cross and let the kids ponder that? I mean...is an alien space ship more *scientific* than a cross?
> 
> Lol...



Babbling now?


----------



## bodecea (Feb 16, 2011)

Ravi said:


> I hate to tell you all the bad news, but scientists don't think or believe that humans descended from apes or monkeys.



But we all have common ancestors.


----------



## rikules (Feb 16, 2011)

Madeline said:


> > House Bill 368 (PDF), introduced in the Tennessee House of Representatives on February 9, 2011, is the sixth antievolution bill introduced in a state legislature in 2011, and the first introduced in Tennessee since 2007. The bill, if enacted, would require state and local educational authorities to "assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies" and permit teachers to "help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught."
> >
> > The only examples provided of "controversial" theories are *"biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."* The sole sponsor of HB 368 is Bill Dunn (R-District 16), who, according to Project Vote Smart, answered yes to the question &#8220;Should Tennessee require its public schools to teach evolution as theory rather than scientific fact?&#8221; in 1996 &#8212; the same year in which the Tennessee legislature considered a bill (SB 3229/HB 2972) that would have provided for *the suspension or dismissal of any teacher or administrator who taught evolution as a fact rather than a theory.*
> 
> ...





stupid people are ruining America

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/155233-excellent-pot-kettle.html


i wonder what calif-girls' defense of  this will be?

when it comes to teaching "Creation" conservatives say "you should teach BOTH! (evolution AND creation) because if you only teach one side THEN IT IS brainwashing!"

then they turn around and do everything in their power to REMOVE EVOLUTION from schools.....

forgetting completely that they just said "teach BOTH!  else it is brainwashing!"

apparently they want to teach both until they can have evolution banned

then they will STOP saying "teach both" and START saying "evolution is the BIG LIE!  and we should NOT BE TEACHING LIES to our children!"

apparently "brainwashing" is only bad when the other side does it....


----------



## rdean (Feb 16, 2011)

Nosmo King said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Sheldon said:
> ...



They funny thing is, the profit goes to some company.  Nothing the right wing base even gets to keep.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 16, 2011)

8537 said:


> Anachronism said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Like Newton said......that apple fell to earth because God wanted it to


----------



## jeffrockit (Feb 16, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Where did the single cell creatures come from?


----------



## Madeline (Feb 17, 2011)

jeffrockit said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



From the elements....from matter that had no life as we use that term.


----------



## jeffrockit (Feb 17, 2011)

Madeline said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Where did the elements or matter come from?


----------



## Madeline (Feb 17, 2011)

jeffrockit said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



My guess?  These bits of matter and energy are eternal, and have been morphing for eons, and always will.  I dun think anyone knows for sure.


----------



## Immanuel (Feb 17, 2011)

Madeline said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Your guess?  That is so scientific!  

Immie


----------



## 8537 (Feb 17, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Like Newton said......that apple fell to earth because God wanted it to



I don't see any of the folks who discredit evolution by calling it a "theory" jumping out of third-story windows to discredit the theory of gravity.


----------



## 8537 (Feb 17, 2011)

jeffrockit said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



The most basic elements were created in the nano-moments after the Big Bang.  The heavier elements were created in subsequent supernovas etc...

But of course, none of that (nor the origins of life on earth) has anything at all to do with Evolution.


----------



## HUGGY (Feb 17, 2011)

Madeline said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



A lot of people know for sure.  Matter "morphs" from one element to one of less electrons constantly...slowly...predictably.  Matter is fused to higher assemblies of electrons, neutrons and protons from the heat of super novas.  As this fused matter scatters out and away from the exploded super nova it gradually changes to matter lower on the periodic chart.  Not all of the matter fused turns into the maximum number of components.  That is why there is a complete array of elements.

All matter was at one time hydrogen and helium in the beginning.  Then it got "cooked" into denser material which degrades and the process repeats.  Life formed when under the right conditions the four important components of RNA and DNA assembled into spiral codes that self replicate by presenting keys that can only be opened by the right elements in the proper order and timing. It(life) is purely chemical bonding and the proper timing and conditions at the most elemental level.  The most simple life is just the right chemical recipe protected by a shell that prevents the disruption of code within.


----------



## Truthmatters (Feb 17, 2011)

What hope is there for our education system if we cant teach facts because of religion?


----------



## Sheldon (Feb 17, 2011)

jeffrockit said:


> Where did the single cell creatures come from?




That question is explored in abiogenesis, which is a separate study from evolution.


----------



## jeffrockit (Feb 18, 2011)

Madeline said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



They had to come from someone or something. Things don't just magically appear. Don't be afraid to answer how they were created as everything has to have a creator. There is no poof and they are there. That is where the Atheist get stonewalled. How did our organs happen. Did the blood come 1st? If so how is it circulated. I guess the heart came first then but then how is its purpose to pump blood needed. It goes on and on and is still unanswered unless you understand that all things had to have a creator.


----------



## HUGGY (Feb 18, 2011)

jeffrockit said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



No Jeff, they didn't.  Read my above post.  The shell I refer to could easily just be a chemical covering like calcium carbonate.  Think of them something akin to an M&M candy.  VERY simple.  As these extremely simple one celled life forms boiled around in the warm water....there was a diverse array of examples and some of these chemically concocted accidents merged with one another combining the properties of their simple needs to sustain replication and purpose and survival.  Some absorbed chemicals/elements to continue replicating...some used light to sustain replication.  Many of these crude combinations released oxygen as a bi product of the chemical replication process.  Try to think of the photo synthetic components as the first crude "eyes".  The oxygen releasing components as the first "lungs". Of course these components gradually became more complex but we are talking VERY simple chemical processes just starting out.  The RNA and DNA components just kept stacking up from very short Keys to replication gradually to more and more complex ones as these "M&M's merged (absorbed one another)adding more diversity and therefore chances of survival.  The brain could very well just have started out as a function of easier RNA codes to assemble than others making it "intelligence" through just beating the odds.  Sort of like..If it works..it is smart.  If it works better it is smarter.  

Again...these are EXTREMELY minor differences gradually being added on as these "M&M's continued to absorb each other.  But as conditions in the "pool" changed the unsuccessful merges lacked the stuff to cope and those things stopped replicating I E ...."died".  The prime directive of the crude DNA and RNA was to replicate only because the ones that didn't...well just didn't.  As the correct assemblies DID survive to replicate they kept on adding "features" and those features needed more features.  NOT *WANTED* features.  The environment created the *NEED*.

At first the laws of chance dictated all change.  Like rolling the dice ...  If only "sevens" were to be successful...then only sevens survived.  But as "sevens" did survive the dice tended to program the DNA and RNA codes favoring "sevens" and "sevens" got rolled more and more frequently.  

Keep in mind that Earth was not the Earth we know today.  There was no free oxygen at first.  Crude life had to adapt to conditions as they changed and oxygen consuming life came much later.  It was the first organisms expelling oxygen through chemical decomposition involving sunlight that CREATED all of the free oxygen that later organisms adapted to leading eventually to US.


----------



## editec (Feb 18, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


 
If the Bible is studied in comparitive religions or in classes about mythology _nobody_ goes "batshit".

It's when that nonsense is taught as an alternative to SCIENCE that people object.

As well they should as far as _THIS_ CHRISTIAN is concerned, FYI.


----------



## 8537 (Feb 18, 2011)

jeffrockit said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



When you start with the  belief that god exists, it's not hard to construct a scenario wherein the only answer to some inquiry is "because there's a god".

But just because we can't explain something doesn't mean it's an act of a creator.  When Copernicus noticed that certain "stars" traveled in retrograde movements he didn't say "well, God must be dragging them around".  He went about figuring out why - and in the process discovered planets.  Now no-one asks why "stars" have retrograde motions.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 18, 2011)

Clay-armored bubbles may have formed first protocells

The research, published online this week in the journal Soft Matter, shows that clay vesicles provide an ideal container for the compartmentalization of complex organic molecules.

The authors say the discovery opens the possibility that primitive cells might have formed inside inorganic clay microcompartments.

"A lot of work, dating back several decades, explores the role of air bubbles in concentrating molecules and nanoparticles to allow interesting chemistry to occur," says lead author Anand Bala Subramaniam, a doctoral candidate at SEAS.

"We have now provided a complete physical mechanism for the transition from a two-phase clay&#8211;air bubble system, which precludes any aqueous-phase chemistry, to a single aqueous-phase clay vesicle system," Subramaniam says, "creating a semipermeable vesicle from materials that are readily available in the environment."


----------



## manifold (Feb 18, 2011)

The idea that schools teach evolution as a fact and not a theory is strawman horse shit.

They don't.


----------



## manifold (Feb 18, 2011)

jeffrockit said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



From God of course...

...but wait, where did God come from?


----------



## manifold (Feb 18, 2011)

jeffrockit said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



If your thesis is correct, then clearly the creator must've had a creator.  And that one a creator.  And that one a creator... and so on...

Perhaps, if you have a half of a brain, you will begin to understand that your thesis, although peddled by many, is a massive fail.


----------



## NekoMouser (Feb 25, 2011)

Anachronism said:


> They taught the *THEORY* (unproven, scientific belief) and also included a small bit of curriculum documenting that there are other *THEORIES* out there which are contridictory to the *THEORY* of Evolution relative to how the world and humanity came to be.
> My problem is when you have these school systems teaching Evolution as SCIENTIFIC LAW instead of THEORY.



Out of sheer curiosity...can you name even a single competing SCIENTIFIC theory for evolution? 
Then, can you explain to me how the biological theory of evolution has anything at all to do with "how the world came to be?" (Or how life "came to be" for that matter. In fact, just go ahead and tell us what, exactly, you think evolution covers scientifically.)
Then, can you show me a single institution teaching evolution as a "scientific law" instead of a scientific theory?
Then, just for fun, can you provide what you think the proper scientific definitions are for a scientific law and a scientific theory?


----------



## jeffrockit (Feb 28, 2011)

manifold said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



I see in lieu of any real debate you have only high school insults.


----------

