The creationists are BACK

[Polk]

Good for the people of Georgia!!!

Kids should not be taught the quack theory of evolution as a fact.

The Christianists and the Islamists: two branches of the same crazy tree.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What is the difference between a "belief" and a "hypothesis"? Appearantly it is the difference between what you seem to personally believe and what you don't, eh? Falling back on this type of rhetoric simply proves you don't have any reasoned response, doesn't it?

First, I saw "a-religious" and read "anti-religious". I apologize for that.

Second, this goes to the core of the scientific method. A valid hypothesis has to have a null hypothesis. Despite what people claim, a hypothesis is more than an "educated guess". A belief is a personal thing. There is no standard for it. Most people believe in God without holding that belief to the standard that there might not be a God (the null of the belief).

It's the difference between an organized and systemic method of asking questions and seeking answers and one that isn't.

Although I could say that as an engineer, I know design when I see it and that random occurances have a greater likelihood of undoing themselves than progressing in a readable pattern. Either way, science and scientific method are predicated on hypothetical conclusions based on observable facts and research, so if it is easily observed that random occurances are not as likely as a design, how is that not science as a hypothesis to work from? Oh, because you say so? So far that really is the only answer you seem capable of providing, right?

The overwhelming majority of scientists say so. It's a pretty basic and simple argument, which is why "design" lost in Dover.

Simply because you choose to see "design" doesn't make it a scientifically defensible position.

I fail to see any intelligence in a design of the human body that includes a multitude of "design flaws". If you dispute that, feel free to explain the intelligence behind autoimmune diseases and cancer.

Actually, most scientists I know agree that an aspect of engineering and design is the most obvious explanation of the universe and more specifically animated life and the Earth's ability to support it. Barring the multi-verse theory a single universe would still have the most incredible unrealistic odds of random occurrence imaginable.

Occam's Razor would suggest that be the first hypothesis employed by virtue of its intuitive and statistical likelihood, especially when compared with all other hypothesis which to this point is not well supported in objective terms. There are more gaps and unanswered questions than supported aspects of observation and speculation in many commonly supported theories.

O.K. Short and limited version...The existence of a place (the Earth) that is capable of sustaining life and has numerous mechanisms to preserve and enhance said life is in and of itself virtually impossible without some forethought and engineering, even if it isn't flawless. The existence of life, something that we don't even have a coherent hypothesis for the origination of, and its interdependence is further evidence of engineering.

As to design flaws, show me a perfect design in anything. I can't ignore the multitude of things that work exceptionally well because some things have flaws in them. Considering we don't even appreciate the full scope of the variables in play, bashing the design is pretty arrogant, in my opinion. Even that animals and plants die is a necessity as it turns out if they are capable of reproduction, so what appears to be flaws might be required imperfections.

Natural selection is the designer. Natural selection keeps what works and abandons what doesn't, just as any designer would do.

 

[Uncle Kenny]

First, I saw "a-religious" and read "anti-religious". I apologize for that.

Second, this goes to the core of the scientific method. A valid hypothesis has to have a null hypothesis. Despite what people claim, a hypothesis is more than an "educated guess". A belief is a personal thing. There is no standard for it. Most people believe in God without holding that belief to the standard that there might not be a God (the null of the belief).

It's the difference between an organized and systemic method of asking questions and seeking answers and one that isn't.



The overwhelming majority of scientists say so. It's a pretty basic and simple argument, which is why "design" lost in Dover.

Simply because you choose to see "design" doesn't make it a scientifically defensible position.

I fail to see any intelligence in a design of the human body that includes a multitude of "design flaws". If you dispute that, feel free to explain the intelligence behind autoimmune diseases and cancer.

Actually, most scientists I know agree that an aspect of engineering and design is the most obvious explanation of the universe and more specifically animated life and the Earth's ability to support it. Barring the multi-verse theory a single universe would still have the most incredible unrealistic odds of random occurrence imaginable.

Occam's Razor would suggest that be the first hypothesis employed by virtue of its intuitive and statistical likelihood, especially when compared with all other hypothesis which to this point is not well supported in objective terms. There are more gaps and unanswered questions than supported aspects of observation and speculation in many commonly supported theories.

O.K. Short and limited version...The existence of a place (the Earth) that is capable of sustaining life and has numerous mechanisms to preserve and enhance said life is in and of itself virtually impossible without some forethought and engineering, even if it isn't flawless. The existence of life, something that we don't even have a coherent hypothesis for the origination of, and its interdependence is further evidence of engineering.

As to design flaws, show me a perfect design in anything. I can't ignore the multitude of things that work exceptionally well because some things have flaws in them. Considering we don't even appreciate the full scope of the variables in play, bashing the design is pretty arrogant, in my opinion. Even that animals and plants die is a necessity as it turns out if they are capable of reproduction, so what appears to be flaws might be required imperfections.

Natural selection is the designer. Natural selection keeps what works and abandons what doesn't, just as any designer would do.

If only it wasn't contradicted in numerous lines especially humans. Of course, then it is random mutation or some other philosophy of what makes things evolve.

 

[geauxtohell]

.............The overwhelming majority of scientists say so.................................

which only demonstrates that most 'scientists' are not very good at what they do.

How are they wrong?

This should be rich.

 

[Gadawg73]

You went to a religious school that didn't have any classes in religion? I find that ironic and difficult to believe. Of course I don't believe they teach it as "fact" as it is generally taught as accepted theory, which is not the same thing. Teaching it as fact is irresposible and inaccurate as well as it isn't proven, not even well enough to be complete as a theory. I can only assume you are misrepresenting the actual teachings by virtue of intentional or mistaken characterization, but either way, no responsible entity would teach evolution as fact as it isn't. Also, religious instruction has no appearant detrimental effect on academic proformance as asserted by the poster I was responding to. On the contrary, it appears to have a positive effect even when it is completely seperate from sciences as most religous education seems to prefer, as you pointed to.

As an aside, was the graduation, literacy and college placement rate higher in that school than the local public school? Did they offer a religious course of study? Just wondering...

Where did I claim that the religous school I went to had no classes in religion. In fact they did and it was an Army Captain that had just returned from the Nam that taught those classes. I attended Sewanee Academy and Sewanee Military Academy in the mid 1960s.
I took Biology 101 at the university. Evolution was taught at fact.
Emory University and Mercer University, 2 of the finest private RELIGOUS schools in the country teach evolution in Biology as FACT.
Name one university that does not teach it as fact other than the 3 religous schools that don't.
Again, where did I ever state at any time I never took any religion classes in high school.
Do you just make it up as you go?

After all the questions and comment I have made, you solely respond to what is an obviously sarcastic comment and ignore all else? As to teaching evolution as fact, that is irresponsible as it isn't fact, nor is it supported by complete or proven reliable data. This isn't my opinion, it is the admitted liability of current science, it requires absolute proof for hypothesis to be "fact".

Evolution is the accepted hypothesis as it hasn't been disproven and has substantiation that is compelling while still incomplete and inadequate to be fact. The fact that the theory has changed drasticly, but is still in some way intact is what makes it the dominant hypothesis.

Gravity has not been proven either.
Go jump off of your roof head first and see if that isn't fact.
The scientific method is ALWAYS testing to prove false. If they can't the theory is considered to be fact. That is how it is in all science.

Amazing here that many times I have called folks out on what they claimed I said and the answer always is "it was a sarcastic comment".

 

[AllieBaba]

God is an unproven idea believed in on faith. The government is real. If rights come from an entity that cannot even be demonstrated to exist,

the rights don't exist.

The government cannot give you rights they can only protect the rights you have.
Life Liberty and the pursuit of happniess

That is merely a theory some Men concocted.

Where do you go when someone violates your rights? Do you go to God? Or do you go to the Government?

Typically it's the government that's doing the violating.

People who go to the government for everything are foolish. Rights are granted by God, and God alone. But they are defended by PEOPLE, who stand up for the right thing, and often die doing so.

 

[AllieBaba]

God given rights?

What about the divine right of kings? The justification for absolutism.

Who decided that God doesn't give kings rights, he gives the people rights?

(Clue: it wasn't God who decided that...)

We're not talking about the divine right of kings. Try to stick to the subject.

 

[AllieBaba]

Where did I claim that the religous school I went to had no classes in religion. In fact they did and it was an Army Captain that had just returned from the Nam that taught those classes. I attended Sewanee Academy and Sewanee Military Academy in the mid 1960s.
I took Biology 101 at the university. Evolution was taught at fact.
Emory University and Mercer University, 2 of the finest private RELIGOUS schools in the country teach evolution in Biology as FACT.
Name one university that does not teach it as fact other than the 3 religous schools that don't.
Again, where did I ever state at any time I never took any religion classes in high school.
Do you just make it up as you go?

After all the questions and comment I have made, you solely respond to what is an obviously sarcastic comment and ignore all else? As to teaching evolution as fact, that is irresponsible as it isn't fact, nor is it supported by complete or proven reliable data. This isn't my opinion, it is the admitted liability of current science, it requires absolute proof for hypothesis to be "fact".

Evolution is the accepted hypothesis as it hasn't been disproven and has substantiation that is compelling while still incomplete and inadequate to be fact. The fact that the theory has changed drasticly, but is still in some way intact is what makes it the dominant hypothesis.

Gravity has not been proven either.
Go jump off of your roof head first and see if that isn't fact.
The scientific method is ALWAYS testing to prove false. If they can't the theory is considered to be fact. That is how it is in all science.

Amazing here that many times I have called folks out on what they claimed I said and the answer always is "it was a sarcastic comment".

You really are stupid, aren't you?

Landing on one's head doesn't make gravity a fact, anymore than flying in a plane makes it a fact that man can take flight.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The government cannot give you rights they can only protect the rights you have.
Life Liberty and the pursuit of happniess

That is merely a theory some Men concocted.

Where do you go when someone violates your rights? Do you go to God? Or do you go to the Government?

Typically it's the government that's doing the violating.

People who go to the government for everything are foolish. Rights are granted by God, and God alone. But they are defended by PEOPLE, who stand up for the right thing, and often die doing so.

When did God tell us what our rights were, or weren't?

When did God tell us that a first trimester abortion was a woman's right?

 

[PushBack]

Gravity is just a theory too

Gravity is a 100% proven theory that has been scientifically verified and can be repeated.

The so called pseudo theory of evolution has not been proven, nor is it a verifiable fact that can be repeated in the lab..

OMG? What LOL? Did you really just type that? You are cute. Come here son let me pinch your cheek.

 

[PushBack]

I find it strange. The only people who deny evolution are theists. But, not all theists deny evolution.

 

[Uncle Kenny]

Where did I claim that the religous school I went to had no classes in religion. In fact they did and it was an Army Captain that had just returned from the Nam that taught those classes. I attended Sewanee Academy and Sewanee Military Academy in the mid 1960s.
I took Biology 101 at the university. Evolution was taught at fact.
Emory University and Mercer University, 2 of the finest private RELIGOUS schools in the country teach evolution in Biology as FACT.
Name one university that does not teach it as fact other than the 3 religous schools that don't.
Again, where did I ever state at any time I never took any religion classes in high school.
Do you just make it up as you go?

After all the questions and comment I have made, you solely respond to what is an obviously sarcastic comment and ignore all else? As to teaching evolution as fact, that is irresponsible as it isn't fact, nor is it supported by complete or proven reliable data. This isn't my opinion, it is the admitted liability of current science, it requires absolute proof for hypothesis to be "fact".

Evolution is the accepted hypothesis as it hasn't been disproven and has substantiation that is compelling while still incomplete and inadequate to be fact. The fact that the theory has changed drasticly, but is still in some way intact is what makes it the dominant hypothesis.

Gravity has not been proven either.
Go jump off of your roof head first and see if that isn't fact.
The scientific method is ALWAYS testing to prove false. If they can't the theory is considered to be fact. That is how it is in all science.

Amazing here that many times I have called folks out on what they claimed I said and the answer always is "it was a sarcastic comment".

I have observed gravity and believe I will fall, but I don't see any realistic path from any known or supposed primate to human beings that doesn't require some unrealistic assumptions. On the contrary, natural selection would be easier to prove if apes evolved from humans given that we are a pretty easy prey without society, communication and accumulated knowledge, all of which are relatively recent.

 

[Old Rocks]

You went to a religious school that didn't have any classes in religion? I find that ironic and difficult to believe. Of course I don't believe they teach it as "fact" as it is generally taught as accepted theory, which is not the same thing. Teaching it as fact is irresposible and inaccurate as well as it isn't proven, not even well enough to be complete as a theory. I can only assume you are misrepresenting the actual teachings by virtue of intentional or mistaken characterization, but either way, no responsible entity would teach evolution as fact as it isn't. Also, religious instruction has no appearant detrimental effect on academic proformance as asserted by the poster I was responding to. On the contrary, it appears to have a positive effect even when it is completely seperate from sciences as most religous education seems to prefer, as you pointed to.

As an aside, was the graduation, literacy and college placement rate higher in that school than the local public school? Did they offer a religious course of study? Just wondering...

Where did I claim that the religous school I went to had no classes in religion. In fact they did and it was an Army Captain that had just returned from the Nam that taught those classes. I attended Sewanee Academy and Sewanee Military Academy in the mid 1960s.
I took Biology 101 at the university. Evolution was taught at fact.
Emory University and Mercer University, 2 of the finest private RELIGOUS schools in the country teach evolution in Biology as FACT.
Name one university that does not teach it as fact other than the 3 religous schools that don't.
Again, where did I ever state at any time I never took any religion classes in high school.
Do you just make it up as you go?

After all the questions and comment I have made, you solely respond to what is an obviously sarcastic comment and ignore all else? As to teaching evolution as fact, that is irresponsible as it isn't fact, nor is it supported by complete or proven reliable data. This isn't my opinion, it is the admitted liability of current science, it requires absolute proof for hypothesis to be "fact".

Evolution is the accepted hypothesis as it hasn't been disproven and has substantiation that is compelling while still incomplete and inadequate to be fact. The fact that the theory has changed drasticly, but is still in some way intact is what makes it the dominant hypothesis.

And just how has it changed drastically?

There is simply overwhelming evidence in the fossil record, in the very cells in your body.

 

[Uncle Kenny]

I find it strange. The only people who deny evolution are theists. But, not all theists deny evolution.

People who question everything are called scientists, right? They are the ones who search for the proof, one way or the other, instead of "believeing" without question.

 

[Charles_Main]

I have always thought that Creationism and Evolution could co exist. I mean could it not simply be that some god figure created the Universe and the conditions needed for life to evolve.

Not saying that is at all what I believe, I was just saying I always thought the 2 were not necessarily mutually exclusive.

 

[Uncle Kenny]

Where did I claim that the religous school I went to had no classes in religion. In fact they did and it was an Army Captain that had just returned from the Nam that taught those classes. I attended Sewanee Academy and Sewanee Military Academy in the mid 1960s.
I took Biology 101 at the university. Evolution was taught at fact.
Emory University and Mercer University, 2 of the finest private RELIGOUS schools in the country teach evolution in Biology as FACT.
Name one university that does not teach it as fact other than the 3 religous schools that don't.
Again, where did I ever state at any time I never took any religion classes in high school.
Do you just make it up as you go?

After all the questions and comment I have made, you solely respond to what is an obviously sarcastic comment and ignore all else? As to teaching evolution as fact, that is irresponsible as it isn't fact, nor is it supported by complete or proven reliable data. This isn't my opinion, it is the admitted liability of current science, it requires absolute proof for hypothesis to be "fact".

Evolution is the accepted hypothesis as it hasn't been disproven and has substantiation that is compelling while still incomplete and inadequate to be fact. The fact that the theory has changed drasticly, but is still in some way intact is what makes it the dominant hypothesis.

And just how has it changed drastically?

There is simply overwhelming evidence in the fossil record, in the very cells in your body.

In my lifetime, the theory of evolution has been refined and modified numerous times in fundamental ways. Natural selection has been redefined and lines of evolution have been completely changed from previous hypothesis because data showed inaccuracies and required re-evaluation. The evidence has redirected us because it has conformed and denied previously held conclusions and that will continue until we eventually have a complete and accurate answer.

Those answers you speak of have changed from 1971 to 2011 and as we advance they will continue to change and the evidence in fossil records and in our very cells is collected more accurately and with greater requisite understanding and as experimentation gives us more complete and accurate answers.

Are you under the impression evolution has been static?

 

[Uncle Kenny]

I have always thought that Creationism and Evolution could co exist. I mean could it not simply be that some god figure created the Universe and the conditions needed for life to evolve.

Not saying that is at all what I believe, I was just saying I always thought the 2 were not necessarily mutually exclusive.

I agree, I just think evolution lends itself to more experimentation while creation or even intelligent design don't offer much expansion or experimentation, at least not at this time. The fact that both are treated like religions is ironic.

 

[geauxtohell]

Scientists are often, spectacularly, wrong. And never so wrong as when they are wrong EN MASSE.

And they are wrong en masse why? Because you proclaim it to be so?

 

[geauxtohell]

Actually, most scientists I know agree that an aspect of engineering and design is the most obvious explanation of the universe and more specifically animated life and the Earth's ability to support it. Barring the multi-verse theory a single universe would still have the most incredible unrealistic odds of random occurrence imaginable.

Occam's Razor would suggest that be the first hypothesis employed by virtue of its intuitive and statistical likelihood, especially when compared with all other hypothesis which to this point is not well supported in objective terms. There are more gaps and unanswered questions than supported aspects of observation and speculation in many commonly supported theories.

O.K. Short and limited version...The existence of a place (the Earth) that is capable of sustaining life and has numerous mechanisms to preserve and enhance said life is in and of itself virtually impossible without some forethought and engineering, even if it isn't flawless. The existence of life, something that we don't even have a coherent hypothesis for the origination of, and its interdependence is further evidence of engineering.

In a near infinite universe, statistical impossibility becomes possible. It's likely that simply being born on Earth is the equivalent of winning the intergalactic lottery.

Furthermore, claiming that there isn't a lot of objective evidence to support evolution is simply false.

As for the origins of the universe/life, which evolution doesn't even touch, while you might reject the Big Bang Theory, it certainly is a "coherent theory".

As to design flaws, show me a perfect design in anything.

I can't. However, if we are going to introduce an all-powerful, divine force into the equation, then the design should be perfection.

As it stands, our design is far from perfect. Even if you ignore the blatant pathological. Why do your maxillary sinuses drain upwards? Why are your joints not well suited for bipedal existance?

I can't ignore the multitude of things that work exceptionally well because some things have flaws in them. Considering we don't even appreciate the full scope of the variables in play, bashing the design is pretty arrogant, in my opinion. Even that animals and plants die is a necessity as it turns out if they are capable of reproduction, so what appears to be flaws might be required imperfections.

It's not arrogant. It's a simple question that design side can never properly answer.

Everyone dies. The pathologies I listed cause early morbidity and mortality.

Are you suggesting that the "designer" created cancers like leukemia to thin the herd?

That's some "designer".

 

[nraforlife]

.............The overwhelming majority of scientists say so.................................

which only demonstrates that most 'scientists' are not very good at what they do.

How are they wrong?

.......................

The choices are soooooo vast- The Evolution Cult, The Man-Made Global Warming Scam, The Nuclear Scare Mongers, The Peak Oil Pimps, The Artificial Intelligence True Believers..........................

Thing is 'science' is larded with con-artists who will say damned near anything for a buck, plus a fair number of marxists fanatics in the manner of Asimov or Sagan who will fib at the drop of a hat for the Party.

The scientific method is as strong a tool as humankind has ever devised for sorting out fact from error. Thing is most 'scientists' have a giant blindspot regarding error when said error strokes their ego and lines their wallet- just like most non-scientists.