The Florida Senate Judiciary Committee voted 7-3 this week to submit the Evolution Academic Freedom Act, which would guarantee the freedom of teachers and students in Florida public schools who challenge theories of Darwinism, for debate in the Senate.
Today's Christian News Online - The Christian Post
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (JN 8:32)
CP HOME
> Education > Creation/evolution
Florida Submits 'Evolution Academic Freedom Act' to Senate
By
Aaron Leichman
Christian Post Reporter
Thu, Apr. 10 2008 05:43 PM EDT
[-] Text [+]
Comments
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.
Seeing as Woot's post was wongly censored, I am taknig it upon myself to repost what they cited.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist
agentorange
Re:No it’s not star, I drew a correlation that perhaps, just maybe, possibly, you were the one flagging him and got him ejected as a result of you have flagged Howard (by your own admission), myself, and others earlier along with calling CP to have certain accounts expunged.
I have never flagged Howard. When he went by the name Dwen, I flagged once a comment he made to Slacker. I admited I flagged him and I apologized to Dwen later. He thanked me for apologizing.
I have flagged you several times, usually after your repeated ungodly attacks against me and my God. I flagged you once for your use of profanity. I get tired of it, you know.
Once CP identifies someone who is abusing the system like first/danny2/danny did on that Sunday in march 08, they went and deleted all his comments he had made on CP. That was their decision, not mine. They did it to him when he went by the name Dwen. Again that was their decision not mine.
If CP just loved me so much and highly regarded my opinion so much, then when I get flagged for saying stuff that is true and/or biblical they would restore my flagged messages. They don't. My stuff is less offensive in my opinion than anything you atheists/agnostics say.
Believe me CP does not love me and highly respect my opinion like you are suggesting. They respectfully listen to what I say, they investigate, and they make their own decisions.
Your defense of your arguments are getting to be a joke.
CP makes their own decision about who gets expunged. I don't make those decisions. Get real. Like I said, I don't own CP nor do I run it.
“This is a contradiction agentorange.”
No it’s not star, I drew a correlation that perhaps, just maybe, possibly, you were the one flagging him and got him ejected as a result of you have flagged Howard (by your own admission), myself, and others earlier along with calling CP to have certain accounts expunged.
“You need to get the facts before you make the accusations that you make. Wrong information, lack of information will lead someone to the wrong conclusion. You do that quite often.”
Facts summary: Star flags people? Check. Star in the past admitted to contacting CP to have certain accounts removed? Check. So, where are the missing facts that I need to understand you’re not flagging others and getting them booted?
“Did I flag your first entry? Yes, I did because of the remark you made of my Lord and Savior. I am sick of it.”
Did you flag my entry, now there I a rhetorical question. Well of course, I knew you did. It’s quite apparent. And why did you exactly? CP didn’t find it offensive, so perhaps you over reached just a tad? If you’d noticed I wasn’t offending your god, I was commenting on how I don’t need to call him a zombie or infer to continually saying Christians are magic lovers like Danny was doing and thus I am not acting in a profane manner. I am using his horrid acts to show that I don't need to disrepect you in such a manner, and yet still flagged.
“You do that quite often. Evolution is based on wrong assumptions and a lack of information. Evolution is nothing but a fairy tale full of magic.”
Wrong assumptions, lack of information like? Call it magic star, it doesn’t offend me, but we know the same can’t be said if Danny, or anyone for that matter says it of your beliefs now don’t we.
agentorange
>>>>....my past accounts were also targeted, ....<<<<
Lots of people have had to deal with this. One good example of someone's who was, who NEVER uses any type of questionable language, insulting speech, etc. was 'wilderness'. CP has very high standards, which have become even more rigorous recently (in great part thanks to first/danny.....), which is one of the things you have to deal with when you're on a Christian site vs. a non-Christian site. I, for one, think it's worth it.
agentorange
agentorange said : "contacting CP and having Howards account banned which she's also done in the past.
Then agentorange said: "I am not accusing you of flagging Howards posts or getting him removed"
This is a contradiction agentorange.
If someone goes nuts and abuses the system, which first/danny2/danny did back in March 08, then CP will remove that person. Even if I didn't complain on that Sunday when he was doing it along with at least three other people who complained via email, CP would have removed him anyway because they would have seen all the comments flagged. They know who flaggs what. What they don't know is 'why'.
You need to get the facts before you make the accusations that you make. Wrong information, lack of information will lead someone to the wrong conclusion. You do that quite often. Evolution is based on wrong assumptions and a lack of information. Evolution is nothing but a fairy tale full of magic.
Agentorange said "‘Magic’ is a profane word now?"
You know what I am talking about. I have had many dialogs with you. You have used profanity.
You are a L I A R to say that you haven't.
agentorange said :I choose not to offend you by saying Christ was a ‘stinking zombie corpse’ "
There was no need for you to even bring this up. Do I find it offensive? You bet I did. Was this a way for you to express your opinion of my Savior and the Savior of all mankind, Jesus Christ by concealing it in an example thinking that you could get away with it? I was offended by you even bringing it up. It is probably how you think anyway, isn't it agentorange?
Did I flag your first entry? Yes, I did because of the remark you made of my Lord and Savior. I am sick of it.
One day God bring you into account for all you have said and done.
I cannot understand why CP even restored your flagged message. But, they make the decisions, not me, even though you claim that I control them in that.
“I don't flag too often”
If by too often you mean not always, then yes, but I find censorship generally a one-way street here. Others and I have changed our logins countless times when not being outright censored, can you say the same for you?
‘But there is a limit to my tolerance.”
So as soon as ‘magic’ is used, then it’s all over it seems. Well, how else is one to define ‘how god did it’ but by essentially invoking supernatural magic? Time to call a spade a spade folks. If it’s short on descriptive explanation and offers nothing on details on ‘how’ it was accomplished and the only recourse is to refer to scripture in which ‘god spoketh’ and the universe, galaxies, stars, and planets
I am not accusing you of flagging Howards posts or getting him removed, but I know you’ve done it in the past, so I draw the correlation there.
“Last night someone went crazy and flagged Howard's posts on many different articles”
Exactly what I mean, mostly a one-way street, but perhaps it’s revenge for something Howard flagged right?
“Sometimes you use profane words.”
‘Magic’ is a profane word now? I think others here can attest to my language usage and it’s not been anywhere near hate speech., especially not the type Danny and the aliases he’s had have used. Let’s be brutally honest star, I choose not to offend you by saying Christ was a ‘stinking zombie corpse’ and other ridicule as I know this is disrespectful, and still I am flagged…WHY?
Ok star, I don’t understand you. You’re a walking contradiction. I posted this earlier and you (or apparently you) flagged it….WHY? What is hate full about it at all? And STILL it’s flagged…WHY?
“I don't flag too often”
If by too often you mean not always, then yes, but I find censorship generally a one-way street here. I and others have changed our logins countless times when not being outright censored, can you say the same for you?
‘But there is a limit to my tolerance.”
So as soon as ‘magic’ is used, then it’s all over it seems. Well, how else is one to define ‘how god did it’ but by essentially invoking supernatural magic? I am not accusing you of flagging Howards posts or getting him removed, but I know you’ve done it in the past, so I draw the correlation there.
“Last night someone went crazy and flagged Howard's posts on many different articles”
Exactly what I mean, mostly a one-way street, but perhaps it’s revenege for something Howard flagged right?
“Sometimes you use profane words.”
‘Magic’ is a profane word now? I think others here can attest to my language usage and it’s not been anywhere near hate speech., especially not the type Danny and the aliases he’s had have used. Let’s be brutally honest star, I choose not to offend you by saying Christ was a ‘stinking zombie corpse’ and other ridicule as I know this is disrespectful despite how I disagree with it.
It's not reasonable to expect a non-Christian to respect Christian ideas.
agentorange
Re:contacting CP and having Howards account banned which she's also done in the past.
This is foolish. I don't own or run CP. They make their own decisions on who they bar and for what reason(s).
agentorange
Re:It's not hard seeing Star falgg such comments as she's done in the past, or contacting CP and having Howards account banned which she's also done in the past. But I wont presume anything, I'l let her speak for herself here.
I don't flag too often. I am usually fairly tolerant of your antiChristain ramps that you, and Howard/Dwen/asdfg/oldguy/first/danny2/danny/BobC and who knows what else he goes by posts on a regular basis. But there is a limit to my tolerance.
I did not report Howard to CP. I reported first/danny2/danny via telephone when he went on his flagging rampage back in March. Others reported him via email.
Last night someone went crazy and flagged Howard's posts on many different articles. It was not me. I was laying down because I was tired and didn't feel well when all that was happening.
CP has new rules they go by now regarding flags. If you flag yourself, then your flag will be removed fairly quickly. If someone else flags you, then CP will review that flag to see if it was in any way offensive. If not, then CP will restore the flagged message.
If you use any kind of profane word in your post, then when you hit the submit button, the s/w will scan it and rufuse to post what you wrote and will give you a message that if it happens again you will be barred from the CP community. So Mr. Agentorange, clean up your vocabulary. Sometimes you use profane words.
Now I will admit agentorange you have toned down your attacks on anti-evolutionists and the Christian God but you do relaspe into it some. You can discuss your ideas without such attacks. You are quite capable of writing about your opinion without all your defamatory remarks about Christians and their God.
Seedplanter,
If howard was who others think he was, then by comparison of the postings on this topic, it wasn’t quite the same. Alas I can’t hold hands and hope he plays nice, and yet others have no qualms in openly censoring anything offending. Particularly the use of the word ‘magic’ which is nothing short of ridicule, but one must see it from his perspective in which there is no other symbolic way of inferring how ‘god did it’ but to refer to it as magic. So, if it’s simply a play on words, then perhaps those that censor him shouldn’t censor, but instead rebuke his statements how its’ not magic, or supernatural but something else. The guy is essentially calling it what it is and he’s censored for it. To me, that is not ethical either. Time to call a spade and spade.
Agent, you are too modest. If I remember correct you actually admonished the guy to be a bit more cordial in his discussion, recognizing that Christian bashing gets no accommodations, not only on the boards, but also in deconverting people over to atheism.
GeorgeX,
Get used to it around here. I can understand flagging hate speech, but around here it seems more often outright censorship occurs even on otherwise not overly hostile posts. It's not hard seeing Star falgg such comments as she's done in the past, or contacting CP and having Howards account banned which she's also done in the past. But I wont presume anything, I'l let her speak for herself here. To me, Howard didn't have to refer to it as 'magic' to get the point across, and yet it strikes a strong enough nerve to want to flag and ban outright. Regardless of Howard and if he is who some suspect him to be, my past accounts were also targeted, flagged, and eventaully banned and my level of cordial dialog isn't even comparable to his and yet it occurs, so it's not soley the comment, but the message is what burns.
Seedplanter: I don't know for sure, but I have a feeling that Howard is not Bob, Danny, or whoever. I have a feeling that Howard is Howard. Danny / Bob couldn't contain his anger. Howard is just clearly disdainful of Christians - he doesn't exhibit the anger the other guy did.
George, I think this Howard guy is the same one who likes to rant here on CP under numerous aliases. He at one time went through every single article and flagged everyone. It was truly a sight to see. If this was the same guy, he made a few enemies to say the least. I did not get the chance to read his posts, but I know this guy likes to use the term magic flippantly in reference to Christianity.
The Geological Society of London is the oldest national learned society for the Earth sciences in the world, and embodies the collective knowledge of nearly 10,000 Earth scientists worldwide. On their behalf it wishes, during the United Nations International Year of Planet Earth, to place on record the following facts as being long established beyond doubt.
Planet Earth, along with the other planets in the Solar System, was formed approximately 4560 million years ago.
Life has existed on Earth for thousands of millions of years. It has evolved into its current form by a combination of genetic variation and natural selection - and is likely to go on doing so for as long as it continues to exist.
Close study of the structure and organisation of living animals and plants clearly indicates their common ancestry, and the succession of forms through the fossil record, as well as the genetic record contained in every living organism, provides powerful evidence of the reality of evolution.
I was just reading the conversation here. I was wondering why does Howard keep saying "Flagged as inappropriate"?
I believe that no one who believes in the Bible has any sense or wisdom compared with me, in accounting for the Creation of the world and all the creatures in it. (All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith. By The Rev. F.O. Mokris, B.A., 1877)
“The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens” (Pr 3:19).
“By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth” (Ps 33:6).
“…When will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see?” (Ps 94:8, 9).
::begin quote::
Also, it doesn’t state only a single man and a single woman led to all of today’s humans as the oldest mtDNA (female lineage) dates further back then the Y Chromosome DNA (male lineage). ::end quote::
Yes you are correct on this point, I misspoke, my error. I should have said it dates back to 1 male. Although as far as I understand mitochondrial dna points to 1 female as our initial ancestor, but I could be mistaken on that point, it has been some time since I have studied.
“As far as Adam and Eve, the Human Genome project ….”
Actually it was the Geographic Project, but I get you, as the genome project was important in its own right. Also, we know previous H.Sapiens lived prior to the oldest dates we get from genetic studies like from the genographic project, so we know other Sapiens were around, but their lineage didn’t directly lead to ours. The oldest dated H.Sapien fossils are nearly 200,000 years old, while the oldest genetic dates for mtDNA are around 160,000 and less for Y chromosome.
Also, it doesn’t state only a single man and a single woman led to all of today’s humans as the oldest mtDNA (female lineage) dates further back then the Y Chromosome DNA (male lineage). So the oldest records for both the female and male side don’t match in their relative dates, IE they weren’t around at the same time. Now you might think this is weird, but when you consider why this is the case it becomes clearer.
Read something like ‘journey of man’ or ‘Deep Ancestry’., both discuss the details and why the dates differ. I will explain it if you like, but it might take a while.
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/
Better yet, the very same techniques used to get these dates by the genographic project were also used in researching a partiucular history of the bible, namely Aaron and his priestly decedants.
http://www.cambridgedna.com/y-chromosomal-aaron-and-the-cohen-model-haplotype.php
Howard,
That's really the question, what is it? and if God exists how did he do it?. I do not believe it's really a situation where we have a dilemma between "Either it's a magic trick, or it's not".
It's possible there is a third alternative that is yet to be discovered.
If we take the presupposition that there is no God, we still have to backtrack to the first "something" and wonder where that "something" that begat and resulted in everything else came from. Did it come from nothing? Assuming our current scientific theories are correct, where did the substance to create the big bang come from? We don't know for certain, we can theorize, but if it came from a substance, where did that substance come from and so forth. Causes have Causes.
Theists backtrack as far as they can go and say everything came from "God". The skeptic may ask, so who begat God? by the very definition of God he exists outside the plane of "time" and therefore had no beginning. Therefore, at least in the viewpoint of many theists like myself, it solves the problems induced by the endless backtracking of causes we see in atheism.
Both arguments have their problems and advantages. For me, the theism of Christianity makes the most sense. At some point I believe, there was an un-caused cause, I believe this to be God. It might not be the most logical solution for you, and that's fine.
For me I believe simplyfing it with the term "magic" seems to mis-represent the vast philosophical problem existence itself poses, and if we were to use the presented definition (coming from nothing), both atheism and theism would struggle not to posit some form a "magic".
As far as Adam and Eve, the Human Genome project did conclude that all of Humanity came from one male and one female. Whether or not these people were what we would traditionally called "Adam" and "Eve" is certainly up for debate.
DannyPoo,
Huh? Howard is saying that overall creationists (today at least, and no I don't mean all creationist, but generally only YEC's) don’t prefer to read into the science and the details provided therein and the evidence and rather refer to archaic quotes (see Wildeness1). Sorry, but ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen 1:1). doesn’t exactly explain a whole lot in terms of details on how and what processes were involved. it tells us 'who' but not 'how' and that is why when asked 'how god did it, or what processes were used' it's hard to say much else than magic. However science shows us the 'how' and so they are complimentary.
And in sake of saying they don’t know, either b/c genuinely no one knows, yet; or b/c they (creationists) dont or won’t research and read on the evidence and instead they opt for ‘god did it’ which is essentially a non answer as in the end it doesn't explain the 'how', but only the 'who'. When asked ‘how god did it’ they will always invoke magic and this is what Howard is referring to, and therefore it’s not a strawman point as his statement is accurate. When in doubt, creationists appeal to ‘god did it’, which is like it’s the result of magic/supernatural and not the natural.
Creationists like Newton, like those today inject God only when they’re on the border of ignorance.
“I've seen far too many Christians respond in such a way such as for example "sure God used magic".”
Well Dannypoo, you have to ask yourself, how else could it be explained, but by essentially supernatural magic? The bible doesn’t explain the detailed processes, mechanisms at all, it opts for ‘made it – God’ essentially. When I ask you ‘how’ it was done by God, and none of the processes are defined, that by defacto leaves the door open to magic.
A strawman statement would be like comparing Evolution to Abiogenesis and then continually addressing Abiogenesis and avoiding talking about evolution so as to escape having to answer the tough questions.
Howard,
The reason why it is a strawman argument is because you view something coming out of nothing as magic. Although it might be from your perspective, it is not by necessity "magic". Your reasoning for saying it is magic is because it comes out of "nothing".
If this is the criteria for declaring what is magic and what is not. Then quantum physics is full of "magic".
"spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition. Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing."
Davies, P., God and the New Physics (Simon & Schuster, 1983), p. 215.
Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario should not be taken too seriously. However, his point is noted that things seem to appear out of "nothing" in quantum physics.
"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." Hebrews 11:3
::begin quote::
If you still want to believe in magic, I suggest you hide your God of the gaps just before the Big Bang about 14 billion years ago.
::end quote::
This is a strawman statement, he is essentially making the claim that a believer in God is believing in "magic" without substantiating the claim. Christian's don't necessarily make the claim that un-natural means to create the earth and/or universe, therefore the idea of God using "magic" is a strawman argument. It's an attempt to set up their version of your perspective in such a way that it's easy to tear down or refute.
It's always important that Christians use critical thinking skills whenever they argue against somebody. It will reveal statements like this as illogical.
I am sure the person who wrote the statement didn't intend it that way and is probably a very kind person with good intentions, it is probably his/her honest perspective of our argument. But we must be careful not to step into their perspective and then try to defend it. Instead always outline your own argument and defend that, not someone elses perspective of your argument. I've seen far too many Christians respond in such a way such as for example "sure God used magic". In this way they have stepped into defending the indefensible.
This is just a tip to those who are Christians like myself, here.
I believe that the common saying that one "cannot draw blood out of a stone" is the reverse of truth, and that not only bones, sinews, and life can be produced from them, but also, mind, reason, and the voice of conscience, which though would-be philosophers and atheists brave out in daylight, they are so horribly afraid of in the dark. (All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith. By The Rev. F.O. Mokris, B.A., 1877)
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen 1:1).
“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge” (Ps 19:1, 2).
“…When will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see?” (Ps 94:8, 9).
And I got the thumbs down because.....? Which part of the geology did you not agree with ?
Slacker,
Like I've said before and I'll say it again, you're young, you have potential to still LEARN something, so quit being a slacker, read up (hit the books, they wont bite) and you'll find evolution doesn't rule out god. Go pick up a book by PH.D Ken Miller, 'Finding Darwin's God', it's an easy read, not overly technical and addresses general common questions theists have on 'how to reconcile evolution and religion'. The two aren't not diametrically opposing, nor are they mutually exclusive.
Here's the reference to the HIV immunity, http://microbiology.suite101.com/article.cfm/hiv_protection
Now consider what happens in the comming decades if we can reproduce this type of genetic mutation so all further generations have the ability to avoid this strain of HIV, this would no doubt save millions of lives and billions of dollars. All in part, at least even to the slightest degree to evolutionary biology.
Slacker
“The question is do you have any evidence that the earth is 4 billion years old”
Here are just few dating methods which all collectively point the same age for Earth of 4.5 billion years, I am sure it’s just a coincidence.
argon-argon dating, iodine-xenon dating, lead-lead dating, potassium-argon dating, radiocarbon dating, rubidium-strontium dating, uranium-lead dating, uranium-thorium dating, uranium-uranium dating.
Now of course, Star will try to come out and say ‘radiometric dating is flawed’ however she’ll cheery pick examples of where the wrong methods were used to date recent material and thus resorted to inaccurate dates. She’ll complain how ‘potassium-argon dating can’t date recent lava flows’ and for good reason, as it’s a very slowly decaying isotope, has a much longer ½ life than say C-14 dating and therefore it can’t accurately measure the ratio of parent to daughter elements in a recent solidification.
Radiometric dating aside, we also know the Universes age based on using light speed as a predictable constant (and many other methods, red shifting for instance) which all correlate to an a Universe around 13.7 billion years old. Again, I’m sure it’s all just a coincidence.
“What possible help could proving evolution have on society, none”
Yep, I guess the understanding of evolution has nothing to do with how we create drugs against HIV or the Flu, create genetically modified crops so they are more pest and weather resistant which means greater food supplies so people don’t go hungary, or how to address bugs which have become resistant to certain pesticides. Nope evolution has nothing to do with any of those things. Gee, did you know around 9% of Europeans are IMUNE to HIV bonding simply b/c of a single genetic mutation? Perhaps this can be reproduced world wide and it will in turn save many, many millions? Naaa, evolutionary theory couldn’t help there.
“So explain to me how your God of evolution is going to bring me hope in the future, it isn't and you don't have an argument to say it will”
Um….Evolutionary theory isn’t a god, it’s a science discipline and like all sciences it increases the knowledge for humanity to make our society better overall.
The question is do you have any evidence that the earth is 4 billion years old,
The Earths internal temperature( and the other terestrial planets)
The solar systems cratering rate
The myriad of ancient enviroments we find in the rocks
Changes in th Earths magnectic polarity
The vast record of orogenic events we find in the rocks (such as the one at the base of grand canyon).
The record contained in rocks which must have been buried at great depths and are now at the surface.
Now in and of themselves one of these does not alone show the Earth is 4billion years old ( the correct figure by the way is 4.6 Ga) put them together though and it soon becomes apparent the Earth is very very old.
Steve
"By the way Slacker, can you list some of the ideas scientists have suggested for how the first living cells developed almost 4 billion years ago?
Or are you an uneducated person who knows nothing about science? Perhaps that's why you threaten people and call them "imbeciles". It's because you don't have anything intelligent to say."
The question is do you have any evidence that the earth is 4 billion years old, it isn't a matter of whether i am educated in science it is the blatent name calling and slurs that you have been using in this post against people that differ from your point of view. That is why i said what i said, you haven't changed a bit since you used the name Bob, or danny or whatever else you have used in the past. You need to learn how to treat people with respect rather then outright contempt. What possible help could proving evolution have on society, none whatsoever, if those same scienctist put as much effort into saving life rather then destroying it, then i would possibly care more about evolution, but as I see it evolution isn't going to cure the worlds problems, it isn't going to reduce the price of gas, it isn't going to reduce the chance of me loosing my Job, it isn't going to help put food on the table, so I ask again what is the point of evolution other then to destroy a persons hope because as you have said in previous posts
"The god invention is boring. I wish the world would throw it out. God means "I'm too bloody lazy to figure something out." That's all God is good for, making scientific progress come to a complete stop. The sooner this curse on the human race (God) is permanently thrown in the garbage where it belongs, the better."
So explain to me how your God of evolution is going to bring me hope in the future, it isn't and you don't have an argument to say it will... Good luck your you dillution...
as ive said.. so i guess sooner or later conservative teachers will want to tackle astronomy classes, maybe rewrite a few roman history classes, and oh! you know what.. let's just exchange all high school english poetry with epistles.. infact, lets just lay insult to all of the doctorates of education all over this country's universities and let them know that their discoveries and studies mean religious-based bills will soon take over one day.
Howard
You don't have the slightest clue on how anything got started.
howard,
“I'm too bloody lazy to figure something out."
Well, I have to disagree with you there. Even Newton and Einstein plugged god into the gaps when even they couldn’t figure something out. Einstein got lost as he concluded ‘god doesn’t play dice’ and this lead him to doubt Quantum Theory and how it works, but we know he was wrong in that regard. Newton explained a lot to do with general gravity, but even his knowledge couldn’t explain certain aspects with cosmology and in sake of saying ‘I don’t know, yet’ he opted for ‘god did it’ (paraphrased of course). - http://research.amnh.org/~tyson/PerimeterOfIgnorance.php
It’s sort of a habit with us humans and comes out when hitting an intellectual wall. In the end, ‘god made it that way’ is a copout, it explains nothing, answers nothing and is essentially a dead end intellectual shrug of the shoulders as well. No equation has ever been solved by injecting ‘god did this and that, and that over there’ so it’s not genuinely wise to opt for it.
If there be a god, I doubt it would be something even he’d consider noble on our part, it would like forsaking our intellect on face value. Invoking god as opposed to saying ‘I don’t know’ is sort of a get out of jail free card’, but in our society we’ve already realized that such cards return nothing of value and so they are overwhelmingly avoided.
When you try to answer everything with a single thing (like god) you end up really explaining nothing and this is why only certain science theories are applicable to certain realms of knowledge. This is something people, like Star, don’t realize and consider it to be a weakness, when it’s actually a strength.
Tardigrades, and others are examples why concepts like Panspermia is seen as plausible. Such a hardy creature can thrive in temperature ranges that would kill most life, and research has shown that (like some insects and microbes) even when totally frozen and then unthawed they can live on. =) This is why some consider Panspermia, or life from elsewhere as something of a possibility alongside Abiogenesis, however such a concept like Panspermia likely won’t get much traction from Ben Stein and others for they ignore, or are ignorant of such examples as Tardigrades. FYI, Tardigrades'genome is currently being mapped and they're cute too!
Wilderness1,
Why quote something from 1877? It makes absolutely no sense, as knowledge has progressed in many arenas (and evolution) and therefore all you're doing is bringing up baseless quotes. Quote something from the 21st century and is more relevant to the evidence and you might have something. Furthermore, you’re not quoting Darwin directly, but rather a Reverend who wrote on him…mkay. Why don’t you quote Darwin directly instead of quoting someone else? Alas, I won’t presume you know nothing of biology or evolution but you sure are giving that impression with the rhetorical bible quotes.
Howard,
Let’s be clear here, the early atmosphere is nothing that would have supported life as we know it, only microbial life would have survived, at least until around 800 million YO. The temperature wasn’t also ideal for todays type of life, however bacterium and other micro organisms (extremeophiles) are hardy and can darn will survive/thrive anywhere on our planet. If you want an idea of how hardy such things are, google ‘water bears’. Talk about prolific survivors. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrada
I must agree though, the ‘god of the gaps’ is not only scientifically dissatisfying, but also theologically. Over time the arena to which ‘god made it that way’ have been reduced, and this gives the impression to some, that god is nowhere to be found. This is why I suggest theists not to inject 'god made it that way' so readily to curent unknowns, as its been shown time and again science to strip away unknowns and ultimately this leaves a smaller gap to hide in. Essentially it's self deafeating as in the end you'll have god occupying the smalles (if any holes) and this leads to the conclussion of 'what is there left for god to do?'.
The real solution is that ultimately, if there be a god, a first cause, he/she/it is ultimately responsible for all things in this universe, directly or indirectly or not. That’s not saying he’s poofing things left and right, rather I am saying all things which we acknowledge, material universe and all, stem from his will and therefore in a sense god is nowhere and everywhere. The fundamental laws and constraints which govern how matter operates is such a force/god and thus, evolution or any other processes yet unknown are ultimately via his nature.
Jesusis1,
Think of it this way, the more often a given theory can be repeatedly tested and correctly answer falsifiable predictions, it only reaffirms the theory; refer to all those listed predictions I gave earlier, and this is by no means an all inclusive list, but it provides a framework to see how its passed tests time and again. It’s like continually retesting the mechanics of gravity or atomic matter or cell theory. A theory in this sense becomes stronger and truer in a sense over time as new evidence is gathered and it supports the theory further. With the new evidence from DNA, evolutionary theory could have been turned on its head, or found to be so utterly wrong that it would crumble from all the new evidence. But this didn’t happen, instead the evidence from DNA research only further highlights the processes and fills in previous voids of ignorance.
This doesn’t mean that the absolute knowledge regarding this theory, or the details within it are absolutely known now, but when all evidence collectively points towards a given model time and again, then one could say the theory is quite accurate, even if not absolute right now.
Star,
“Don't you think it is pretty foolish to talk about how life changed over time when you don't even know if it started out the way you think it might have?”
How exactly is it foolish, or better yet illogical? You want ‘it all at once’, but this isn’t how science works, science knowledge is cumulative. IE, knowledge begets more knowledge. It’s not like religion where it’s ‘revealed’ and assumed all epistemological ‘truth’ spot on, this is why you and others find it hard to accept. Rather, evidence is gathered, tests are done and further predictions are made. Just b/c we don’t know how life started here doesn’t mean we can’t observe and study how it’s changed overtime now and in the past. We know life began here somehow as we are here talking about it. What you propose is an ‘all or nothing’ type of dichotomy, which a logical fallacy. I am afraid this is why you can’t accept any sort of science, as for you if it doesn’t explain everything all at once; it’s somehow useless in your eyes.
Jesusis1,
“If evolution is just a theory then how do you believe in it without faith?”
Let me start by saying yes, ‘evolution is a science theory/model’ but it’s also a fact, and I explain why the semantics and understanding ‘theory’ is often confusing for laymans and this is particularly why it’s somewhat doubted. ‘Theory’ in the context of science, isn’t the same as how we use ‘theory’ in layman speak and for this reason both have different, but important meanings.
In Science, a ‘theory’ doesn’t mean a hunch, a guess, rather it’s more akin to a model which can collectively explain all evidence that it pertains to. This is why gravity is also equally ‘just a theory’, but as you can see such an approach is wrong. A theory/model is important b/c it allows us as scientists to apply falsifiable predictions which therefore further our understanding of what we are observing and thus increases knowledge via deduction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
“Evolution offers nothing in the way of the point of origin.”
Here you’re correct, evolutionary theory doesn’t or can’t explain ‘origins’ as that isn’t what it as a theory is functionally useful for. Just like gravitational theory can’t explain why we’re here, its usefulness allows for us to make predictions and increase knowledge which in turn led to understanding to allow for flight travel. Evolutionary theory only pertains to explanations of the processes and mechanisms of life changing over time, it doesn’t seek to explain the origins of life, nor does it address origins of matter or the universe. This is how science theories work, they are specific to a given arena of knowledge and border on others, but in no way are they an all encompassing to all possible avenues of knowledge. Collectively all the science theories can cross reference each other for greater accuracy and can be used to allow us to better understand our universe and all things in it. Imagine a pie chart, each slice segmented with a given science theory, no single theory attempts or can explain everything, but collectively they do, this is how ‘theories’ more or less work in applicable knowledge.
I believe that the tail of the giraffe has grown by degrees into a "fly-flapper" (!), although I cannot explain how the species did without it in previous countless ages before it grew to its present length, when, no doubt, there were just as many flies in those hot countries, if not more, than there are now.
Source: All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith. By The Rev. F.O. Mokris, B.A., 1877
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen 1:1).
“O Lord our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens” (Ps 8:1).
“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God…” (Ps 14:1).
star: AgentOrange has pointed this out countless times and I'm beginning to wonder if you're purposefully being obtuse. You know they are two different branches of science - they are closely related but still different.
And besides that, its not an assumption, its a hypotheses, one that is being tested. If it is false, then it won't be trotted out. It's possible that all we'll ever have is hypotheses as to how life started.
Howard
Don't you think it is pretty foolish to talk about how life changed over time when you don't even know if it started out the way you think it might have?
To say it started out in an infant state, a single cell organism, is merely an assumption for which there is no evidence.
Jesusis1 - clearly you haven't been paying attention at all. You're using a colloquial definition of theory. In science a theory is paramount. Tell me, do you think gravity is a faith?
Wilderness1, what are you talking about? evolutionary theory is a disipline in science and as such it relies on observations, testable falsifiable predictions and facts, it doesn't require faith to accept and understand the processes, methods and principles of how it all works.
Unfortunately, there are those who walk in the Darwin faith. May such be rescued from that false faith, and embrace the words of Jesus, “Have faith in God” (Mk 11:22).
Emmaus: You've made some pretty wild statements. You've suggested - though not directly said, that you cannot be a Christian if you believe the facts of evolution. Total horse-you-know-what. Nothing about evolution dispells God in our minds.
Let me ask you, where does it say we are to take the Bible literally? I'll give you a hint, it doesn't. Do you follow Mark 16:17-18 (handle snakes and drink poison)? The Bible is not to be taken literally - saying that the Bible has to be taken literally is actually proof against it.
I've posed a few other questions that you've ignored. What falsifiable statements does ID make?
"Creation science" is a complete misnomer. You're not going where the evidence leads you, you have a preconcieved notion that the earth is 6,000 years old and you are trying to make the evidence fit that model when overwhelmingly it doesn't.
Evolution is not religion - that's about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Religion is religion and science is science. You wouldn't say gravity is a religion, would you? Answer that question.
At least at the end you were starting to be a little honest and say you really don't know.
I'm sorry if I come across as a little abrasive but trust me - these silly "evolution is false" stuff drives away a lot more people from the fold then it brings in.
I believe that man, and all the animals, birds, fishes, reptiles, and insects in the world have descended from one single original, and not any of these from ancestors of their own kinds ; that the gnat and the elephant, the cat and the mouse, the bat and the butterfly, the whale and the ant, the toad and the swallow, the hare and the tortoise, the crocodile and the lamb, the humming-bird and the snake, the mole and the monkey, and then the man, are all one species and only one.
Source: All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith. By The Rev. F.O. Mokris, B.A., 1877
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen 1:1). “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Ps 14:1).
Emmaus: "Creation science"
You can't say "Creation science" for the same reason you can't say "Resurrection science". Both Creation and the Resurrection are religious beliefs. You are mixing up religion with science. That's wrong and it's dishonest.
I BELIEVE that we are the people, and that wisdom shall die with us.
I believe, I am ready to believe, anything- like the Infidel of old provided only it is not in the Bible.
I believe that my theory of natural selection is right, and that every one who does not hold it is in the wrong, although the difficulties "are so grave, that to this day I can never reflect on them without being- staggered." (Darwin.}
Source: All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith. By The Rev. F.O. Mokris, B.A., 1877
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen 1:1). “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Ps 14:1).
"It has been the evolutionists who have thrown a tenper tantrum and demanded that their theory, and their theory alone be taught in schools. "
Fine, what's the alternative well tested theory in oppositiion that collectively explains all the evidence equally or better than the evolutionary theory/model? ID? hope you say that, b/c even one of the founders says it's not ready for schools (watch those youtube vids you'll see) heck, you can google it, 'phillip johnston ID isn't ready'
I just wanted to let you know that I a done talking about this. Its pointless, for at the core of it, the reasons I detailed in my last post. Creation science isn't even allowed on the ballfield, much less allowed to play the game. When your side decides to allow that, then, maybe it might be worth my time. But until then, its a complete waste of it. I don't particularly care for fascists and totalitarians, and thats what this reeks of.
There is a mountain of very good evidence out there against macroevolution. I'd highly encourage you to look into it, and at least try to have an open mind about it.
I wish you all the best, x. I will pray that God softens your heat to make it willing hear His voice, and to bring you into a saving relationship with Him.
"BTW, do you serioudly think that they are teaching kids the theory to that level of detail?"
no, but I wouldn't mind if they did. they teach it at the college level, so certainly it's understandable by highschool AP students and perhaps others if it's slightly dumbed down, or if they have some basics in biology. to understand the details in this instance of human chromosome 2 fusion doesn't even require a great understanding of genetics. Here is a college slideshow with .pdf to boot which is dumbed down for any laymans. it's all out there, you just have to look.
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/c.fus.les.html
www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/c.fus.les3.pdf
No - they are saying "here's a theory that explans the origins of man. It says that things change over time, like a lion into a house cat or a chimp into a man."
Evolution doesn't suggest a lion turn into a cat or a chimp to a man, rather they both (boh cat and lion and chimps and man share a recent common ancestory. we didn't come from chimps and vice versa, it suggests we share common ancestry with chimps and therefore indirectly all living things on this planet. it suggests all living things are interelated.
"They are not teaching kids about chromosomal fusion."
could you imagine if they did? no offense, but people of your persuasition would likely freak.
As one wise president once said "there you go again."
You can't control or dictate the debate - and it is most certainly not decided yet. Your comments are just another clear indicator of the arrogance of your side of this debate.
There are litterally hundreds of questions that go directly to the core of the theory. The proverbial case has most decidedly not been clsed yet.
You also realize that no one is saying that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools. Even at the most extreme (thus far) folks from my side of the argument at worst have argued that other theories should also be presented. It has been the evolutionists who have thrown a tenper tantrum and demanded that their theory, and their theory alone be taught in schools.
Emmaus, there are questions about the small details within the theory, but not the theory itself. questions like Gradualism or Punctuad Equilibreium and which is best that describes the evidence? or questions regarding how evolution plays out in development (Evo-Devo), certain aspects in genetics, but there is no geniune doubt the veracity or validity of the theory itself.
Put this into perspective, one of the leading proponets behind Intellegent Design, openly admits it can't yet be taught in schools as its not ready, it's not tested enough and certainly doesn't compare with how evolution explains all the evidence. and if you've not heard of Ken Miller, then you're missing out. - http://youtube.com/watch?v=h0nHB_ZVXHQ
http://youtube.com/watch?v=T9ZUFsLLHSs
BTW, do you serioudly think that they are teaching kids the theory to that level of detail?
No - they are saying "here's a theory that explans the origins of man. It says that things change over time, like a lion into a house cat or a chimp into a man." They are not teaching kids about chromosomal fusion.
Look, there is no attmpt on my part to be decietful. I think that your taking one point in which I have little knowledge in, and trying to convince me that somehow this proves that kids shouldn't be allowed to question things is just foolish. You've proved exactly nothing, except that I am lacking. BTW, I think at upon closer inspection, you'll find that this bill is more geared toward allowing folks to question, not giving them a pass. As far as I'm concerned, teach evolution in the schools. Just allow questions about the theory to be discussed. Thats exactly what this bill is about.
way to dodge my questsion, do you suppot the 'creator created the chromosomes that way' hypothesis as science or not?
"There very well could be a legitimate, explainable cause out there (that frankly, I just don't care enough to go out and find) "
And yet you so easily opt for AIG in sake of actual reserach....ok, at least you're honest there. you know what the natural explantion is, it's called a chromosome fusion (mutation). we've seen them in labs, we know they occur as naturally as huricanes and thus it's entirely illogical to inject a god/designer to attempt to explain it. it's like injecting a god to explain why and how a huricane forms.
"It's about kids not having to worry about flunking a class because they disagree with something."
Right, it allows them to reject the science and not have to worry about failing. Don't worry about failing biology kiddos, just say it's not fair for you to and we'll let you pass. how retarded. this is right up there with the 'let the kids decide' with regards to what they should be taught.
I wasn't talking about abiogenesis. Howard was saying that we are all crazy because we believe in a 6,000 year old universe, and look here - using that as a starting point, the US would only be 24 feet wide. I was responding to that comment, not making a point about abiogenesis. I was responding by saying that, by the same logic, those who believe in abiogenesis are equally as insane.
"Blah, blah, blah - strawman! "
it's the truth, it's not my fault you're not applying evolution as it's actually attempts to describe. evolution was never suggested to explain life forming from organic molecules. It's mostly relevant to explaining how life diversifies and how it chagnes over time.
"So are you saying you support the idea of teaching in public schools that a supernatural event, by creation of 'you know who' is science and thus can be taught as such?"
You think that because you can make a single point about something (which I personally know very little about) that this justified the complete shut down academic freedom? There very well could be a legitimate, explainable cause out there (that frankly, I just don't care enough to go out and find) for this phenomenon. I weep for my country if this is the point to which we have come.
This whole bill is based around students and teachers having the freedom to disagree, that's it. It's not about abiogenesis, evolution, chromosomal changes, or anything else. It's about kids not having to worry about flunking a class because they disagree with something. If whatever the subject matter is is an uncontravertable fact, then it is incumbant upon the teacher to do just that - to teach and help the kids to understand where they might be wrong. But, in the end, science does not trump the constitution, and the first amendment guarantees kids the right to freedom to exercise their religious beliefs. Period.
Emmaus,
So are you saying you support the idea of teaching in public schools that a supernatural event, by creation of 'you know who' is science and thus can be taught as such?
If it's not falsifiable, it certainly isn't science and 'god made it that way' isn't falsifiable. the only reply AIG had was 'the creator created that way'. totally unfalsifiable.
"to support virtually anything if read in a certian way"
Right, and that is why people don't read the Bible that way, like making a passage a metaphor when it isn't one. There are ways to read the Bible, such as context, that determine how to understand what something says.
"Evolutionary biology explains only the processes and methods on how life diversifies..."
Blah, blah, blah - strawman! Howard was talking about the mathematics of the size of the universe, and my comment was in response to that post. Once again. I'm saying that no matter what you argue, I can give you evidence to the contrary, which in reality, just brings back my earlier post about having retreaded this same stupid argument so many times before. Frankly, I'm tired of it, and its pointless.
agentorangex: Deflect, deflect, deflect - a lack of evidence is not evidence. You're deflecting. If you want to discuss the infallibility of the word, and its inpriration, bring it. You'll lose.
"Where does the Bible say that we should read Genesis as metaphor? "
Well, I think earl Churchc father St. Augustine had some meaningfull words regarding 'how to read' it, as one could, in such a large bo