The creationists are BACK

[BlindBoo]

It is probably true that you think anyone who opposes teaching Creation Mythology in science class is a fascist democrat.

I understand that paying attention is very difficult for you - but go back and read my post on the Dingo and the kitchen trash.

Evolution is fact, creationism is not science. If someone wants to believe that god directed evolution, that's fine with me - but the mechanism of evolution IS indisputable.

What you don't grasp is that I'm a civil libertarian, I support liberty. That support is not dependent on whether I agree with the person exercising their rights or not. I support the right of people to pray at the flag pole, to pray at football games and to have a nativity scene on sacred government ground - because government ain't my god. As an agnostic, I don't share their faith, as a Libertarian, I defend their rights.

I understand your need to insult people whom you think you disagree with. 1. Evolution is a scientific theory. 2. Creationism is not and should not be taught as science.

Your dingo story. Your claim of being a civil libertarian and your views on prayer have nothing to do with the two items I think we agree on.

 

[Newby]

It is probably true that you think anyone who opposes teaching Creation Mythology in science class is a fascist democrat.

I understand that paying attention is very difficult for you - but go back and read my post on the Dingo and the kitchen trash.

Evolution is fact, creationism is not science. If someone wants to believe that god directed evolution, that's fine with me - but the mechanism of evolution IS indisputable.

What you don't grasp is that I'm a civil libertarian, I support liberty. That support is not dependent on whether I agree with the person exercising their rights or not. I support the right of people to pray at the flag pole, to pray at football games and to have a nativity scene on sacred government ground - because government ain't my god. As an agnostic, I don't share their faith, as a Libertarian, I defend their rights.

Does empirical evidence ring any bells? There is none that unequivocally supports your statement therefore from a scientific standpoint your statement is incorrect.

That was the only part of his statement that I disagreed with.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I understand your need to insult people whom you think you disagree with.

I disagree with Allie on this subject, yet I've not insulted her - in fact I defended her.

Nah, it's not whether I agree or not. I respect Allie, even when I disagree.

1. Evolution is a scientific theory.

Scientific theories are fact, gravity, electromagnetism, germs causing disease, etc.

2. Creationism is not and should not be taught as science.

Agreed.

 

[Newby]

It is probably true that you think anyone who opposes teaching Creation Mythology in science class is a fascist democrat.

I understand that paying attention is very difficult for you - but go back and read my post on the Dingo and the kitchen trash.

Evolution is fact, creationism is not science. If someone wants to believe that god directed evolution, that's fine with me - but the mechanism of evolution IS indisputable.

What you don't grasp is that I'm a civil libertarian, I support liberty. That support is not dependent on whether I agree with the person exercising their rights or not. I support the right of people to pray at the flag pole, to pray at football games and to have a nativity scene on sacred government ground - because government ain't my god. As an agnostic, I don't share their faith, as a Libertarian, I defend their rights.

I understand your need to insult people whom you think you disagree with. 1. Evolution is a scientific theory. 2. Creationism is not and should not be taught as science.

Your dingo story. Your claim of being a civil libertarian and your views on prayer have nothing to do with the two items I think we agree on.

Are you saying that science doesn't study creationism? Science has no interest in the origins of the universe, the planets, or human life? I'm guessing they do, we're just not advanced enough to understand any of it enough to have any solid theories about it. There was the big bang theory for instance, but you can still question what ignited it all. It's definitely something for the science world to investigate. Your bias against religion automatically eliminates so many possibilities that you allow many of them to be dismissed out right. Not very scientific of you. I've never seen it as science versus religion. I think science proves religion in many instances, it's just the discovery of what has been created, regardless of what you believe about how it was created at the beginning.

 

[BlindBoo]

I understand your need to insult people whom you think you disagree with.

I disagree with Allie on this subject, yet I've not insulted her - in fact I defended her.

Nah, it's not whether I agree or not. I respect Allie, even when I disagree.

1. Evolution is a scientific theory.

Scientific theories are fact, gravity, electromagnetism, germs causing disease, etc.

2. Creationism is not and should not be taught as science.

Agreed.

Correction, one thing we agree on. Scientific theories are not scientific facts. Like the fact that objects, for the most part, accelerate towards earth at 32 ft per second/per second. A fact of gravity. Yet the overall theory of Gravity still has some questions.

http://www.topology.org/sci/grav.html

 

[BlindBoo]

No one is arguing that species haven't changed over the millenium, no one is claiming the Bible is a scientific text. And just because you haven't said anything about not believing in God doesn't mean that many, many people believe that the Theory of Evolution debunks the idea of God, when it clearly does not. If the Theory of Evolution can be taught in schools, then the different theories on the origins of human life should also be allowed to be taught.

They are not scientific theories, they ARE RELIGOUS BELIEFS.
ID has been proven to be nothing more than creationsim and that is religous belief.
God, whether someone believes in him or not, has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
I believe in God and Evolution.
Faith is a belief and has nothing to do with science.

I never said that it had anything to do with science. No one has said it should be taught specifically in science class. What humankind understands about our own existance and its origins is just a grain of sand in the oceans, if want to put all of your 'faith' in that, more power to you.

I also noted that you said you *believed* in evolution, and that's because you would have to believe, since it's never been proven.

I think they have. But to be safe if they want to teach it in say, a class on various religions, I got nothing to argue with you about, except the Steelers.

Illinois Association of School Boards: School Board Journal

 

[Dr.Drock]

I agree with all that except the nativity scene, that's an example of government endorsing religion.

It's an example of government tolerating the free exercise of religion.

Tolerating is when others endorse their religion and being ok with it, government isn't supposed to endorse religion, but yes it is supposed to tolerate it.



It'd be a huge deal in this country if the government put up a bunch of muslim or hindu artifacts because we wouldn't want them to endorse those religions, that's supposed to go across the board in terms of all religions.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yanno........people would get much farther if they remembered what Einstein said......

"Science without theology is blind, and theology without science is crippled."

As far as creationism? If you can scientifically prove it with repeatable results, yeah....teach it.

But, you can't right now, because all you're saying is "God did it, I don't understand it, but because of my faith in God, I don't have to investigate it."

If Creationists would let go of their 6,000 year old earth, and do actual scientific work, you'd probably figure out that in Genesis, when God said "let there be Light", ever stop to consider maybe that was a reference to the Big Bang?

 

[Jack Fate]

Wikipedia is not a scholarly site. College professors will not accept a paper with Wiki listed as the source. That is from the founder of Wikipeida.

True, but that's only if you do surface research. Wikipedia itself has references from which you can get additional info and WOULD be aceptable to a professor. Merely rejecting something out-of-hand because it comes from Wiki is sheer laziness, IMO.

He gave the link to Wikipedia. Using Wiki as your source is sheer laziness.

 

[Jack Fate]

Yanno........people would get much farther if they remembered what Einstein said......

"Science without theology is blind, and theology without science is crippled."

As far as creationism? If you can scientifically prove it with repeatable results, yeah....teach it.

But, you can't right now, because all you're saying is "God did it, I don't understand it, but because of my faith in God, I don't have to investigate it."

If Creationists would let go of their 6,000 year old earth, and do actual scientific work, you'd probably figure out that in Genesis, when God said "let there be Light", ever stop to consider maybe that was a reference to the Big Bang?

You can't scientifically prove evolution. Why the double standard?

You make a huge mistake if you think all creationists believe the earth is 6000 years old. That is ignorance.

 

[Dr.Drock]

True, but that's only if you do surface research. Wikipedia itself has references from which you can get additional info and WOULD be aceptable to a professor. Merely rejecting something out-of-hand because it comes from Wiki is sheer laziness, IMO.

He gave the link to Wikipedia. Using Wiki as your source is sheer laziness.

I gave 2 links, flat out ignoring one because you don't like the other is sheer laziness.



Though, in order to be an evolution denier you have to be lazy. Short instances of reading and basic google searches would keep one from ever being an evolution denier.

 

[Jack Fate]

He gave the link to Wikipedia. Using Wiki as your source is sheer laziness.

I gave 2 links, flat out ignoring one because you don't like the other is sheer laziness.



Though, in order to be an evolution denier you have to be lazy. Short instances of reading and basic google searches would keep one from ever being an evolution denier.

I didn't ignore the other. I just didn't mention it. Even the founder of Wikipedia doesn't endorse his site for serious research. Go argue with him.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I gave 2 links, flat out ignoring one because you don't like the other is sheer laziness.



Though, in order to be an evolution denier you have to be lazy. Short instances of reading and basic google searches would keep one from ever being an evolution denier.

I didn't ignore the other. I just didn't mention it. Even the founder of Wikipedia doesn't endorse his site for serious research. Go argue with him.

Hence why I told you to click on the other one, there's no reason for us to be discussing ur issue with one of the links when 2 were provided.

 

[Jack Fate]

He gave the link to Wikipedia. Using Wiki as your source is sheer laziness.

I gave 2 links, flat out ignoring one because you don't like the other is sheer laziness.



Though, in order to be an evolution denier you have to be lazy. Short instances of reading and basic google searches would keep one from ever being an evolution denier.

Show us the scientific proof of evolution.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Tolerating is when others endorse their religion and being ok with it, government isn't supposed to endorse religion, but yes it is supposed to tolerate it.

Do you think it's constitutional for the Federal Building in Downtown Los Angeles to endorse ficus? How will the Kentucky Blue Grass feel? Yet they have ficus growing out front, clearly an endorsement of ficus over all other grass and the establishment of ficus as the official grass of the United States.....

It'd be a huge deal in this country if the government put up a bunch of muslim or hindu artifacts because we wouldn't want them to endorse those religions,

They already put up Islamic displays. It's only Christianity which is outlawed. You know this.

 

[Jack Fate]

I didn't ignore the other. I just didn't mention it. Even the founder of Wikipedia doesn't endorse his site for serious research. Go argue with him.

Hence why I told you to click on the other one, there's no reason for us to be discussing ur issue with one of the links when 2 were provided.

You called me lazy. I'm not lazy. You're lazy for using Wikipedia. A lot of dumb shits are still using Wikipedia. That doesn't make me lazy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I gave 2 links, flat out ignoring one because you don't like the other is sheer laziness.



Though, in order to be an evolution denier you have to be lazy. Short instances of reading and basic google searches would keep one from ever being an evolution denier.

Show us the scientific proof of evolution.

There are volumes and volumes of evidence that support the theory of evolution. I suggest you take a course in it.

 

[Jack Fate]

Show us the scientific proof of evolution.

There are volumes and volumes of evidence that support the theory of evolution. I suggest you take a course in it.

Those are books. The bible is also a book.

I want to see the evidence that Dr. Crock wants to see.

I suggest you kiss my ass.

 

[BlindBoo]

I understand that paying attention is very difficult for you - but go back and read my post on the Dingo and the kitchen trash.

Evolution is fact, creationism is not science. If someone wants to believe that god directed evolution, that's fine with me - but the mechanism of evolution IS indisputable.

What you don't grasp is that I'm a civil libertarian, I support liberty. That support is not dependent on whether I agree with the person exercising their rights or not. I support the right of people to pray at the flag pole, to pray at football games and to have a nativity scene on sacred government ground - because government ain't my god. As an agnostic, I don't share their faith, as a Libertarian, I defend their rights.

I understand your need to insult people whom you think you disagree with. 1. Evolution is a scientific theory. 2. Creationism is not and should not be taught as science.

Your dingo story. Your claim of being a civil libertarian and your views on prayer have nothing to do with the two items I think we agree on.

Are you saying that science doesn't study creationism? Science has no interest in the origins of the universe, the planets, or human life? I'm guessing they do, we're just not advanced enough to understand any of it enough to have any solid theories about it. There was the big bang theory for instance, but you can still question what ignited it all. It's definitely something for the science world to investigate. Your bias against religion automatically eliminates so many possibilities that you allow many of them to be dismissed out right. Not very scientific of you. I've never seen it as science versus religion. I think science proves religion in many instances, it's just the discovery of what has been created, regardless of what you believe about how it was created at the beginning.

Um no I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying creationism is the belief that life was created by someone or something. That can not be proved of disproved. However there are scientist who are looking for scientific evidence of an Intellegent Designer. I think ID ventures off into Science Fiction explainations of our origins. I like Larry Nivens' Pak Breeders and Pak Protectors theory myself.

Protector by Larry Niven

http://www.technovelgy.com/graphics/content09/Protector-Niven.jpg

 

[Uncensored2008]

Correction, one thing we agree on. Scientific theories are not scientific facts.

Scientific theories are facts to laymen.

Gravity is a clear example. Prior to 1906, it was a generally accepted idea in physics that bodies had attraction. That gravity was a force exerted by large bodies on smaller ones.

Einstein demonstrated that this simply isn't the case, that there is no attractive force and that gravity is an EFFECT of the distortion of the fabric of space caused by a body. Thus, gravity as a theory was altered.

So, was Newton wrong? Did gravity not function? No, and no. Scientific knowledge is classified as theory because in real science, falsification and refinement are part of the process. (The religion of AGW is exempt from this process.)

Gravity was a fact before 1906 and remained a fact afterwards. The alteration of the mechanics of gravity didn't alter the factual nature of it.

Evolution is a fact. Details will be challenged and changed, but evolution will remain a fact.