Sixteen percent of all U.S. science teachers are creationists, according to a recent national survey.
In one of the most authoritative studies ever carried out, the results revealed that creationism – despite being challenged and dismissed by courts as an unconstitutional endorsement of religion – continues to be a staple in many science classrooms.
Michael Berkman, a political scientist at Pennsylvania State University in University Park and who conducted the survey with a group of colleagues, said that teachers, ultimately, held the final word when it comes to what is taught in the classroom.
"Ultimately, they are the ones who carry it out," Berkman explained to ABC News.
While a majority of the nearly 1,000 teachers surveyed in the poll said that they spent at least three to 10 hours of classroom hours covering evolution, a quarter of all teachers also said they covered creationism and intelligent design – about half of whom said that they believed it was a "valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species.”
Two percent of all teachers said evolution was not covered at all in their classrooms.
An examination of the survey results also revealed that 16 percent of all U.S. science teachers said they believed God had created human beings and the earth within the last 10,000 years.
The release of the recent survey results comes at a time when evolution has been increasingly scrutinized, challenged, and debated throughout many schools.
Many public school teachers and students who share views contradicting or challenging the tenets of Darwinism in the classroom claim they have been marginalized, discriminated, or ostracized.
In response, Louisiana, Missouri, Alabama, and Michigan have been prompted to pass a series of “Academic Freedom” bills.
Lawmakers say that the bills would guarantee the freedom of teachers and students to examine and challenge the tenets of Darwinism in classrooms without fear of reprisal.
“What these bills seek to do is to restore Charles Darwin’s approach to teaching evolution – to teach it in a balanced, objective fashion,” explained Casey Luskin, an attorney with the pro-intelligent design Discovery Institute, in a statement.
RSS
viking, the story of Abraham is shared by Paul in allegory form, but it doesn't change the fact that Sarah had Isaac and that Hagar had Ishmael so how do you make that say we can't take the Creation story as presented in the Book of Genesis literally. Especially since both Paul and Christ refer to God as the Creator and no New Testament writer to include Christ ever questions the Creation story as presented in the Book of Genesis.
viking, the Old Testament contains the Law it is not only the Law. Paul was not negating the teaching or truths of the Old Testament he was dealing with those who were saying believers still had to adhere to the requirments of the Law that had been both fulfilled and were no longer necessary as a result of the work of Christ on Calvary. Christ and Paul constantly referred to both the teachings and truths of the Old Testament, neither of them ever did away with the Old Testament. Truth is truth and I and many other believers believe that the Bible both Old and New Testament alike is the inerrant, plenary, Word of God.
Sorry nbeliever post was a little long
5:5 For we, through the Spirit, by faith wait for the hope of righteousness. 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision amounts to anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith working through love.
In humility I put forth that Paul himself that the Genesis presentation of Abraham's wives and children is given to us not as literal history but as allegory to help us understand spirtiual truth not the natural world. In fact this is how the vast majority of Christians Theologians from Augustine through Thomas Aquinas and up to the present day have understood Genesis.
Further we must understand the OT this way in order to accept the teachings of Christ when he refers to himself as the cornerstone rejected. An old testament literalist is required to believe that Christ was saying that he was a piece of rock.
I believe that the OT literalists of today are seeking to live under the "law" and thus they spend much of their time arguing over the OT rather than spreading the good news.
Believer thank you for your response,
As a brother in Christ I write. Let me address Paul last.
First I agree with you when you say.
"Christ did not speak to a lot of issues while on earth, His primary mission was to come and save us from our sins" and is not our Commission to live in conformance with Christs teachings and by our words and acts to spread the good news of redemption and liberty from sin and from the "Law". This is my point exactly. Should not we as Christians be focusing on our commission under the new covenant.
4:21 Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, don’t you listen to the law? 4:22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the free woman. 4:23 However, the son by the handmaid was born according to the flesh, but the son by the free woman was born through promise. 4:24 These things contain an allegory, for these are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children to bondage, which is Hagar. 4:25 For this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers to the Jerusalem that exists now, for she is in bondage with her children. 4:26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 4:27 For it is written,
“Rejoice, you barren who don’t bear.
Break forth and shout, you that don’t travail.
For more are the children of the desolate than of her who has a husband.”*
4:28 Now we, brothers, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 4:29 But as then, he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 4:30 However what does the Scripture say? “Throw out the handmaid and her son, for the son of the handmaid will not inherit with the son of the free woman.”* 4:31 So then, brothers, we are not children of a handmaid, but of the free woman.
5:1 Stand firm therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and don’t be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. 5:2 Behold, I, Paul, tell you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing. 5:3 Yes, I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 5:4 You are alienated from Christ, you who desire to be justified by the law. You have fallen away from grace. 5:5 For we, through the Spirit, by faith wait for the hope of righteousness. 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision amounts to anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith working through love. 5
Viking, in Mark 13:19 there should be a "not" between has and happened it was speaking to future tribulation that will be the most severe tribulation the world has ever experienced.
In fact if you'll read Romans 1:25, Paul writes "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served something created instead of the Creator, whi is blessed forever, Amen." You are 100% correct when you Christ said nothing about evolution, but what is your point because some could say since He didn't then it must not be true and especially since He says in Mark 13:19, "...the kind that has happened since the beginning of the world, which God created,...", Christ did not speak to a lot of issues while on earth, His primary mission was to come and save us from our sins and the other issues He dealt with were pertinent to that time in mainly Jewish history, culture, tradition, and religion His not talking to an issue doesn't either condone it or negate it, it simply means He did not speak to that issue it simply was not pertinent to His mission.
Viking, please enlighten us as how Paul in Galatians teaches that we are to interpret Genesis figuratively and not literally when it comes to the historic facts taught in Genesis. In Galatia a group of Judaizers was telling new believers that Christ alone wasn't sufficient for salvation must that they must also adhere to Jewish law and specifically for the men circumcision he told them that faith/trust in Christ alone was sufficient, that Christ had fulfilled the Law, and that no one who is saved Jew or Gentile is under the Law, but no where does he tell that church or any church to take the historic facts taught in Genesis figuratively and not literally. (cont,)
igh, as a brother in Christ I would not dispute your last two posts however I would ask how being a disciple of Christ charged with spreading the Good News of redemption from sin and living under grace in any way bears on the issue of sciences understanding of evolution. Again I find no teachings by Christ in any of the gospels on the subject of evolution. Further in direct repudiation of the idea that we are required as Christians to believe that the OT is literal physical truth rather than spiritual truth I would refer you to Paul's letter to the Gallatians in which he explicitly interprets Genesis Figuratively as allegory and chastises the church members for seeking to "live under the law" using the OT as authority to guide their lives rather than living in the liberation of God's grace through Christ.
all God's children should be keepers of the Truth because God lives in you. willing to defend the Faith With Scripture, Just like Jesus did. Truth against Lies. Truth always wins , when light shines the darkness runs! Satan and man make many accusations against God and his Son but Jesus fully manifested his Father on earth, left nothing out, so all can see the Father. All accusations have been proven false and not valid! God is Righteous and satan and mans attacks are worthless.
Despite extensive searching of the Gospels I am unable to find any teaching of Christ's on Darwin's origin of species. Also I found nothing in the gospels where Christ seeks to prove the existence of God. It seems to me that not only is the pursuit of "scientific" evidence for God (ID) a enormous waste of time and inherently doomed to failure (since Science by definition deals with NATURAL phenomena and NATURAL causes and God by definition is supernatural) it is also fully inconsistent with the manner and teachings of Christ. One even wonders seriously if this vanity is what Christ spoke of when he discusses the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit. Is it not the Spirit of god living within us as C.S. Lewis so well describes in "Miracles" which informs us of the truth of Christss revelation. Is not chasing after other "proofs" of god and his covenant a repudiation of this new spirit which is to live within us.
Jesus rocks the whole wide world baby!! :D
HEY SATAN, CANT TOUCH THIS!! WOOOOOOOHOOOOOO
wasnt 'inherit the wind' a documentary? LOL no way hosey!!! its typical of the evil-ution mindset to destroy the faith of many. While they do not enter into life and try to hinder as many as possible who are Saved from entering into eternal life. Typical satanic attacks. Lies, manipulations , distortions of the Holy Word for there own gain.
1Corinthians 1:25 For what seems to be God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and what seems to be God's weakness is stronger than human strength.
1Corinthians 1:26 Now remember what you were, my friends, when God called you. From the human point of view few of you were wise or powerful or of high social standing.
1Corinthians 1:27 God purposely chose what the world considers nonsense in order to shame the wise, and he chose what the world considers weak in order to shame the powerful.
1Corinthians 1:28 He chose what the world looks down on and despises and thinks is nothing, in order to destroy what the world thinks is important.
end, I agree that death for a Christian is good news not bad news because we are going home to be with God for the rest of eternity, but death was never God's idea or plan, death both physical and spiritual is the result of the sins of all mankind and that was the point I was trying to make to ifeelfine is that prior to the sin of Adam and Eve there was no death or destruction everything was perfect and when we get to heaven they will be perfect again.
Darwins theory is just that a theory. Why is it taught as truth? Lies taught as truth, that is brainwashing! They should teach it as it is, a theory. Also, sorry for all people who feel they are descendants of a monkey. I believe I'm created by God!
Re: Believer: Remember that with God there is no death. Man is subject to death of the physical body and God gets to decide who goes home and who stays. When God causes the physical death of his people, their mortal probation has ended. They come home! Earth wasn't our first home! What God doesn't like is when men decide to send people home prematurely that is why the command, "Thou shalt not kill". Those persons are separated from God for their choice. There is always consequences to choices. Whether those consequences are good or whether they are bad.
ifeelfine, my apologies. working from my phone w/o my Bible. I thought v19 was the one about despising what God said thru His prophets (like Moses) but skipped that one + backed up another verse. I try not to disabey either command. So what about v20? How does disregarding what God said thru Moses in favor of evolution square with 5:20?
ifeelfine, I am not afraid of evolution in fact I believe there is much evidence to support intervertebrae evolution I do not believe personally that man evolved from an ape and so on and I believe that there is sufficient valid scientific evidence to support this and for whatever reason those in the evolution camp are not willing and fighting tooth and nail to keep this information from being presented, taught, or debated in the classroom, I on the other hand have no problem with their view being presented, taught, and debated in the classroom, so you tell me who is afraid?
Where to begin? God did not write the Bible? then why trust any of it if it's a man-made document. take it or leave it, but you can't pick + choose.
"And that is exactly what the Thess. passage is saying. Verse 19 says "Do not put out the Spirit's fire." Trust God, trust his creation - and His creation says that evolution is true." "
First, in what version are you reading 5:19? or is that your interpretation? go back to the Grk; I was accurate. 2nd, I trust God lots more than this creation corrupted by sin. Still, the evidence we have does not say evolution is true, but in fact the opposite: there's no sensible explanation for the increase in genetic information, or the irreducible complexity of complex mechanisms + organs, except for the actions of an intelligent Creator.
believer: What is it about evolution that scares you so much? BTW: God doesn't make mistakes - obviously evolution is exactly what He wanted to happen. Your logic is not God's logic.
mathetes: God was certainly there! Amen for that! But He didn't write the Bible, man did and as we all know, man is imperfect. And that is exactly what the Thess. passage is saying. Verse 19 says "Do not put out the Spirit's fire." Trust God, trust his creation - and His creation says that evolution is true.
Ifeelfine, i'm going to give you a pass on your "keep their head in the sand" remark. Obviously, you can read people's hearts + motivations in a way I cannot.
I don't believe God lies either; that's precisely why I gave up my belief in theistic evolution = it contradicts the Word of God. Evolution (plain or theistic) says sun existed before the earth, life began in the seas, whales + dolphins came after land mammals. All these deny the truth of Genesis 1. I came to realize God's Word and evolution cannot be reconciled, so I chose to believe God since He was there. that is exactly what 1 Thess 5:21 says to do. Taken in its context, we should not despise what God said thru Moses (v. 19), and we should steer clear of evolution which denies what God has said (v. 21).
The major goal of secular humanism is to create a worldview that is totally void of God or the need for God. Those in the religious community who buy in to views such as theistic evolution inadvertently assist them in this goal by giving them the ability to say to the world that even the religious community believe the "scientific facts" of evolution and at the same time they will do everything possible to prevent any other views regardless of how factual those views may be to either be presented, taught, or debated for fear it might damage the credibility of their view. Case in point on the two recent blogs on evolution anyone who has presented any type of facts that have disagreed with those of the evolution camp has been told their facts are a hoax and sometimes they have been told this in a very rude and disrespectful manner. To those in the evolution camp I would ask why are you so defensive, why all the anger, and why all the disrespect and rudeness. If evolution is as scientifically accurate as you say why the fear since fear is what is generating the above, why the fear?
ifeelfine, death and destruction are never good things, when God brings death and destruction it is a consequence or punishment for sin. God never sees death and destruction as good but as a result of sin. What thiestic evolution teaches is that God messed up with His first shot at creation and He started over needless to say I know the view is a little more complicated than that but that is thiestic evolution in a nutshell.
I don't know believer, ask AO or Jerry1 / Jerry2 / First / Bob (which other names am I missing star) - both of them believe pretty strongly in the facts of evolution and both have said kind things to me - are either of you laughing at me behind my back?
As for death and destruction, you need to make up your mind, I thought when God did it, it wasn't death and destruction because, well, He's God and He can do anything He wants. And actually, the facts of biology, cosmology, geology, physics, chemistry suggest that if we didn't originate this way then God set out to deceive us on purpose and I highly doubt that.
ifeelfine, if you told a group of evolutionists you believe in theistic evolution they will laugh you right out of the room unless their polite about it and wait to you leave the room and they should, theistic evolution is a joke it was and still is an attempt for some in the in the religious community to accommodate those in the scientific community who promote evolution. For theistic evolution to be true God would have to be a liar because if theistic evolution is true by time mankind has been created there has been death and destruction and yet after God has created mankind He the scriptures record these words: Genesis 1:31" God saw all that He had made, and it was very good." Last time I checked death and destruction are not very good things, but rather they are the result of sin coming into the world.
mathetes: Have you been reading both sides of the debate? If you have, then rebuke our fellow Christians who are more interested in disparaging AO and keeping their heads in the sand than in following Thess. 5:21.
And there is one other logical reason they don't want to debate him as well - maybe they know they are wrong and that the facts of evolution hold true. You know, millions of Christians hold to theistic evolution (myself being one because the evidence is overwhelming and I like to think that God isn't lying to us)
Thanks Quecat. Enjoy your holiday. You too agentorange.
I'll take my cue from Quecat and take my leave as well. Lots to do before I can enjoy the weekend.
I pray you all have a great weekend. As you enjoy it, remember to pray for those who put their lives on the line so we can enjoy these freedoms.
AO, I watched the first one (remember, I work for a living). So what am I supposed to do now? Cringe in fear? "Omigosh, there's numbers at the bottom with lots of zeros! I recant; Darwin was right!" Don't feel like doing that, sorry. How did they establish those dates? Please don't say radiocarbon dating; I don't have time to go into all the problems with that.
Then there's the problem with taking a skull fragment or a few bones and building a whole head or person out of it. Leaves lots of room for artistic imagination, doesn't it? Finally, who said that they are not human anyway? Your skeleton is not the same as your ancestors in the Middle Ages; I'm guessing you're taller. That's called variation with species, not evolution. The videos show fragments of remains of humans who died and were buried fast enough to create fossils (since the bones were preserved, they were not exposed to the atmosphere for long periods of time while waiting to be covered by layers of dust). Because they have long jaws and heavy brow ridges, we're supposed to assume they aren't human? My co-worker in the next building over has similar features, but he's fully human.
Sorry if the videos did not inspire the reaction you expected. I will still take the word/Word of the One who made it all and then gave us an Eyewitness account.
AO
You're like one of those annoying little yipping dogs who think they're 10 times bigger than they actually are.
" i dare you - i dare you - i dare you (or words to that effect)"
Man, grow up.
I've got things to do... it's the weekend and I've got better places to be
c ya
you can go ahead now and disparage me in my absence.
Cheers, Star - have a good one.
mathetes, fine, go ahead and take a crack at those vids I put up, cheers.
"you must mistake me for someone who cares enough to bother to engage this ignorant portion of the debate.'
Yup, I mistook you for a person who doen't actually rebut to one who at least fails in their attempt. Well, it's better to at least try, no.
' again, I'm thoroughly unimpressed by anything that you could possibly muster."
And yet we've yet to hear your 2 cents on those vids I put up, more like you're too cowardly to address those which I have put up. Here's another shot, wig out.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
AO, for some time I've watched you drop all the usual arguments like you're some kind of biologist. You may be exactly that, but most biologists with whom I've had discussions are a lot more intellectually rigorous and a lot less arrogant. Your posts often contain personal put downs and sarcasm for those who disagree with you, both evidence of weak argumentation.
"Either you are genuinely close minded (oh no!) or you can't muster an intellectual response." A false dichotomy, to be sure. I can think of several other reasons someone would stop arguing with you. Perhaps they realized they cannot do the work of the Spirit in removing the veil from your eyes. Perhaps they decided to heed the Master's words in Matt 7:6. (You'll probably think they are afraid of being torn by you. I seriously doubt it.) Either way, your false dichotomy is revealed for what it is. When you're ready for a calm discussion with no insinuations or name-calling, let me know. I probably won't answer right away; I have to work for a living. But I will get back to you.
song2vs4, it's not communism it is secular humanism in the driver's seat in a majority of schools, colleges, and universities throughout our land. To protect their point of view and grip on the intellectual state of our nation they will do anything in their power to keep any views that are not in line with their view from either being presented, taught, or debated in the classroom, the only possible exception is if that view is presented in a very demeaning way or is being totally discounted by the presentor. Why, because subjects like evolution are one of the major building blocks of secular humanism, if this block is removed the building will very likely come tumbling down, if that happens secular humanists will be almost forced to consider the possibility that a power greater than themselves exists and His name is God and His Son is Jesus Christ and He came to take away the sins of the world so that anyone who would put their faith and trust in Him and the work He accomplished on the cross, they would be saved for there is no other name by which a person might be saved.
You have my response from the other page.
Curious how you can't keep people'e identities straight.
In a very short space you've accused me of saying "'it's only a theory', 'where are the missing links', quoting biblical verses as if they were science ...and lastly censorship."
I have done none of these things.
* I've never said - 'its only a theory" - you must mistake me for someone who cares enough to bother to engage this ignorant portion of the debate.
* I've never asked for "missing links" - again, I'm thoroughly unimpressed by anything that you could possibly muster.
* I do quote bible verses but I have never represented them as being "scientific". To believe so is utter foolishness - theology and what man define as science are two entirely different things. You, my friend, have an annoying habit of jumping to conclusions and painting with an overly broad brush anything that is outside your realm of understanding.
* I've not accused anyone of censorship except those childish pranksters that delete posts just because they disagree with the opinions offered.
It is patently bad strategy on your part to assume that all of your opponents share the same set of views - and frankly, it's just plain sloppy.
Buck up dude!
agentorange
Did you read my 1:52pm post addressed to you before it got deleted?
"AO sure works hard to keep saying all that with a straight face.'
You sure don't work to hard to rebut the opposition. So far I've heard from you, 'it's only a theory', 'where are the missing links', quoting biblical verses as if they were science (now I am laughing) and lastly censorship. No, really, go ahead try to explain those vids I've previewed numerous times. Star gave her a go (and for that I respect you for that Star). You Quecat on the other hand however don't even want to try, you wont bother. Either you are genuinely close minded (oh no!) or you can't muster an intellectual response. What say you?
agentorange
Re:No one is perfect, but you could at least ATTEMPT to learn on the subject before you critique it.
I can say the same about you in regard to the creation models that are out there. There are problems with some of them but they have better explanations for observed facts than the evolutionary models.
Re: Can I throw this one back at ya, has god explained the origins for ERV’s Chromosome 2 fusions to you yet? Surely a good person like you with all your praying should have warranted a response by now, no?
Good, I am not. No, God hasn't answered yet. I was suppose to fast and pray but I got rebellious about it and didn't do it. That is why there is no answer. One can't be disobedient to God and still expect to get anything from Him.
Man! - AO sure works hard to keep saying all that with a straight face.
Nevertheless - can you not see the difference between someone peevishly deleting everyone's comments - versus someone making an innocuous smart-alecky comment?
“Did you get a Mother's Day gift for an ape in your town?”
No, my mother wasn’t’ an ape, she was human.
‘After all if it wasn't for her and her husband you wouldn't be here according to evolution.’
Actually no, today’s apes are not our direct ancestors or descendants, so evolutionary wise, we own nothing to them.
They (today’s apes) are effectively our evolutionary cousins (not brothers or sisters or parents), as in we and them share a common paternal ancestor many millions ago. As opposed to your wrong view in which you think they are our direct ancestors. Don’t worry Star, I’ll let you think you know anything of biology and evolution only to come back and correct the errors. No one is perfect, but you could at least ATTEMPT to learn on the subject before you critique it. Can I throw this one back at ya, has god explained the origins for ERV’s Chromosome 2 fusions to you yet? Surely a good person like you with all your praying should have warranted a response by now, no?
quecat: It's funny you should mention childish behavior when the next post is star . . . acting childish.
agentorange
Did you get a Mother's Day gift for an ape in your town? After all if it wasn't for her and her husband you wouldn't be here according to evolution. How about a Father's Day gift for her husband? maybe you can adopt them. Get them a social security card and take them as dependents on your tax return.
I don't know who is doing all the flagging across these boards, but it will be taken care of.
The matter has been reported to CP.
These boards do not exist as a vehicle for your own childish pranks.
If you can't handle someone's opinion or the fact that they even have a right to their own opinion - please leave so that the rest of us can have a mature discussion.
kboswell
“Sorry, I still don't buy it. The videos showed very noticable physical changes to what you say are humans.”
Don’t buy what exactly? The first species shown are not humans (homo sapiens) and only the very last few from the 2nd video are the same species as us (homo sapiens), the rest are something else.
“If we were to continually jump off of our rooftops beginning with this generation and continuing for the next 500 generations, would we eventually develop wings?”
No. Jumping, or continually lifting weights for example doesn’t result in the next generation as a result being born with muscles or jumping further, traits are not built up in this manner. Traits are built up according
“I know that is hypothetical, but what would trigger physical evolvement?”
Environmental pressures can cause physical changes. New physical development, limbs, hair or hair color or thickness is determined from genes and the occurrence of these such genes depend on how beneficial such a trait is to its host. IE, in areas where thick fur is beneficial, this trait would naturally aid in the reproduction of a species and over time through differential reproduction you have populations in which the only survivors are those who have this key trait.
“Also, why don't other species evolve to become technologically capable as we did?”
Some animals can make use of crude tools, but nowhere near what we can accomplish. The key trait in determining how technologically capable a species is or can be, is determined by the brain/sensory nervous system. We are rare in terms of our overall brain size to body size ratio.
“In other words, why haven't monkeys now figured out how to read and write or plow fields and farm.’
To be sure, other apes (Chimps, Bonobo’s and Gorillas , not monkeys mind you, apes) are not as smart as us, but they do have the capability to do some astounding things. Look for the National Geographic and Nova vids on Chimp intelligence, plenty to show they are not that dumb at all.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTgeLEWr614
Jerry2 - you are going to perish (go to hell) if you don't repent.
song2vs4
Schools should be a place where different ideas should be discussed. But, if the teacher is biased towards evolution I don't think the teacher can guide the student in other ideas of origins where a student can make think critically about it and then decide for him/herself as to which theory best fits the data. Thus, I think all theories about origins and development of life should not be included in any elementarty or secondary school. It is not necessary to learn biology.
Why do you keep flagging me jerry2? I have kind of got to liking you. I don't agree with your ideas but for some reason I still kind of like you. And agentorange too.
Hey Jerry2 - I even got my masters degree from Fla Institute of Tech in Melbourne. Do you live near Melbourne. I grew up in Miami and Ft. Lauderdale. I even have relatives in Miami. hope to go see them this year sometime. How about you Jerry2?
Hey Jerry2 - where in Fla do you live? I grew up in south Fla. That hick pattiepie aka star2 lives in texas about 8 miles east of the Johnson Space Center. You know I actually worked for a NASA contractor at the JSC.
Thanks much Star - guess that kind of confirms that you-know-who is lurking here abouts.
He's the only one that consistently flags you for pointing out who he really is. LOL
I noticed that no one commented on my comments. Are schools places of learning or indoctrination. Are schools places for people to ask questions and explore, or just places for brainwashing? Anyone???? I didn't think so. Everything is great as long as the only people expressing ideas are the ones you agree with. That sounds suspiciously like communism. Really, you illiberals are pathetic.
QueCat - I asked if you were the one who flagged my posts. If so, then it is OK. If not, then maybe it was God aka Vaho, Jerry2, et al.
Jerry2 - I think you need to get a job during the six months you don't work. It sure would help you with your self-esteem, plus give you more money in your pocket. And, it would give you less time on CP. That might help you with your anger issues. Christians are not going to give in to your points of view. It seems like all we do is cause you heart-burn. God loves you Jerry2.
shoot! star
i missed what you said before the "scientific censors" deleted your post.
Can you repost?
these guys really are a pain.
God loves you anyway Jerry.
Quecat - did you me? If you did, it is OK. If not, then maybe it was God/Jerry2/Jerry1/ Howard/ and all his aliases.
I've reported it, Star - it's only a matter of time.
This kind of behavior sure does get old.
Sure do wish there was a minimum age to be able to post to these boards.
The level of maturity being displayed by some folks who wish to do nothing but annoy other posters, is quite lacking.
God - please come up with a different name. How about Jerry3? I really like the names oldguy and Howard. Each seem to be quite fitting for you.
God - I thought you didn't believe in 'God'?
To those who think they can post to the board using obscene language and usernames, so long as it's rendered in a language other than English - please take your trash elsewhere.
You're not the only users here who understand Deutsch.
Sorry, I still don't buy it. The videos showed very noticable physical changes to what you say are humans. If we were to continually jump off of our rooftops beginning with this generation and continuing for the next 500 generations, would we eventually develop wings? I know that is hypothetical, but what would trigger physical evolvement? According to evolutionists, something did. Also, why don't other species evolve to become technologically capable as we did? In other words, why haven't monkeys now figured out how to read and write or plow fields and farm. Or, in your opinion, do you think they eventually will?
So have we "finished " evolving yet?
No, we are as a species are continually changing (like all species do), not necessarily on the outsides, but mostly on the insides with respect to new unique gene mutations which affect a hosts ability to contract a given virus. For instance, a simple gene mutation known as CCR-5 is responsible for the 9% of Scandinavians which are immune to a strain of HIV. This single mutations makes it impossible for one strain of HIV from bonding with the T-cell and b/c it can’t bond, it can’t infect the cell and replicate so these people are immune to this strain of HIV. There is no ‘finish line’ as it were in regards to species evolving, if they stop changing and their environment changes, well then they are doomed now aren’t they?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/4/l_104_06.html
Another example is how Sickle Cell anemia aids in warding off contacting Malaria, and this disease (Sickle Cell) is unique to Africans as they came from an area, which is mostly hit hard by Malaria normally. Another example is lactose tolerance and how only those people today which ancestors used cattle or goats have this gene mutation, which allows for digestion of dairy products.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance
“What are we gonna look like next?”
Define the time span first, but again most of the changes won’t be obvious on the outside, but will be on the inside in allelic frequency differences and unique mutations. I think with ongoing globalization and how people are migrating faster than ever, we will first lose the unique ethnic isolated groups we’ve come to know, we over time will be a shading mixture and hair wise and features.
‘We have to adapt to pollution and global warming don't we???’
Ummm, I don’t really see how we can personally evolve quick enough to deal with rising sea levels or more extreme weather conditions, most of us will simply relocate to make living possible. I am not sure about adapting to pollution, it would seem that as pollution levels come down in the coming end of the centaury or earlier we will have lost any biological reasons for our bodies to change towards such adaptations. But if pollution increases, then biologically there will be some changes so long as differential reproduction continues.
‘Why don't you draw us a picture of what we might look like next, or just post it on youtube,since it seems to be your favorite source of information.”
Those vids I put up aren't 'drawings', they are the real things, fossils. It’s pretty hard to know what’s next, evolutionary changes aren’t very easy to predict as to what is coming up on the long term. Short term we can deduce what would occur based on environmental factors, but again these small term changes are generally not the things we see over a single generation for a species, they are cumulative and successive.
Excuse me, I said "adapt", I meant evolve.
agentorangex
So have we "finished " evolving yet? What are we gonna look like next? We have to adapt to pollution and global warming don't we??? Why don't you draw us a picture of what we might look like next, or just post it on youtube,since it seems to be your favorite source of information.
This entire article seems a little fishy to me. I bet they didn't ask if the high school biology teachers if they believe in a 6000 year old Earth and one of the two literal Biblical creation stories - if they had, it wouldn't have been as high as 16%. My biology teacher mentioned creationism (not literal 6 day - 6000 year old earth creation) in school as well but taught evolutionary biology. One doesn't negate the other - you can believe that God created everything but used evolution to carry out His plan.
ML,
Yup, more of those ‘imaginary’ missing links that creationists say don’t exist…..yup, what are these then?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/transitional-fo.html
Look Ma, der dem fossils dem scientists been yakking about!
This arguement is getting old. The real issue is schools are suppose to be places for people to learn. That means asking questions. What has happened reminds me of books I've read about communism. There is no room for questions and exploration in schools anymore, instead they are just places for illiberals to force their beliefs on others. No actual learning takes place. Students have even said they agree with their teachers only out of fear of receiving a failing grade. That's insane.
It's unfair to give the pseudoscience of Intelligent Design equal footing with the pseudoscience of molecules to man evolution. What were they thinking?
Vaho,
You might want to try a site that supports your views.
Vaho - God loves you anyway.
HERE WE GO AGAIN!!! Vaho, why is it that you in the evolution camp are so afraid to allow views that have legitimate scientific evidence but that do not support and may even refute evolution to be taught or debated in the classroom. There are many credible scientists and reasearchers who support both intelligent design and special creation can they prove either beyond a shadow of a doubt no, nor can evolutionists prove their point beyond a shadow of a doubt so why not let both sides be taught and debated in the classroom.
Only 16 % ? Heck, half of America believes in creation.
16 % is too low. My aunt taught biology in high school for many years. Her public high school had no problem her teaching both evolution and creation, and just let the kids make up their own minds. If the mathematical laws of probablity favor creation, why not teach both? Also, why not teach and EXPOSE the fairy tales and "art creation" imaginary faith "links" that the evolutionary textbooks paste in their printings, which are nothing but artist interpretations without any factual evidence ? You can find great documentation and scholarly research by scientists who hold to both science and creation on the web. Truth denied remains truth !
Vaho, you are nothing but the a rerun of Jerry2. Please come up with some original ideas.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/05/from-rna-to-hum.html
Ya, you might like, ya know, actually learn something....
The article states: "...Louisiana, Missouri, Alabama, and Michigan have been prompted to pass a series of “Academic Freedom” bills."
Last Tuesday's Washington Post editorial, "Creationism's Latest Mutation - Red-herring arguments about 'academic freedom' can't be allowed to undermine the teaching of evolution" ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/19/AR2008051902616.html?wpisrc=newsletter ) explains what a hoax and a fraud these “Academic Freedom” bills are.
Providing aid and comfort to the pseudoscience of intelligent design creationism, the bills were prompted by the Discovery Institute of Seattle, source of the infamous "Wedge Document" ( http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html ) which explains how the Discovery Institute seeks to "overthrow...materialism and its cultural legacies" such as evolution, biology, physics and all of science.
Glad my kids are being taught science within the British education system .