ACLU sues over Evolution in Textbooks.

[GasX]

Are people so ignorant to believe that evolution is not a fact?

I have said it before, I will say it again:

EVOLUTION IS AN INDISPUTABLE FACT

The mechanisms by which it occurs, the timeframes under which changes take place, and the origin of life itself are where the theories come into play...

Stick that in your ignorant ass pipe and smoke it.

 

[dexvx]

Umm.. correct me if I'm wrong, but high school textbooks say Gravity is a law, but some university ones say its a theory. Something like The Unification theory that all force is derived from one source? Of course that gets heavily disputed.

Are people so ignorant to believe that evolution is not a fact?

Because its not. Even though there is substantial evidence in favor of it, it still hasnt been made the "law of evolution." There is even evidence that it the process of evolution exists, but its still a theory.

I think you people dont understand that other people have different "logic sets." Religion requires faith, and for them, that faith circumvents all logic and reason until it is blatantly proven false, simple example being that the earth is more than 6000 years old (religious folks counter that saying 1 god year = 1 billion regular years) or that there were such things as neaderthals and dinosaurs. Some people just merely have more faith than others.

But the biggest dismayal in the theory of evolution/the big bang (which I think is interrelated) is: where did it come from? Come to think of it, I cannot imagine god sitting there for an eternity and than all of a sudden, he felt like making the universe.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Mwilding
Are people so ignorant to believe that evolution is not a fact?

I have said it before, I will say it again:

EVOLUTION IS AN INDISPUTABLE FACT

The mechanisms by which it occurs, the timeframes under which changes take place, and the origin of life itself are where the theories come into play...

Stick that in your ignorant ass pipe and smoke it.

Unfortunately, the only one with crack in their pipe is you.

Evolution is NOT "indisputable fact," it is a scientific theory. I know of no credible scientists who will refer to evolution as "fact."

And just because you say it is fact does not make it so, sorry to say. Shall I merely argue that evolution occurred but with God's Hand and call it fact?

Moonbeam, your postulate that all wars are based on religion is very interesting, but unfortunately off topic for this thread.

 

[fatbaby]

i'm having trouble here because i'm an ignorant fool, creationists, please answer this question: how is evolution not believable?

We have various theories on evolution (theory of use/disuse, reproductive isolation etc) that make sense (to us at least), evidence in animals, and can slowly picture us evolving from a monkey to a human.

What do you have that can support creationism? Other than the Bible, is there any physical evidence?

Finches are a prime example of evolution. As finches flew to the geographically different islands of the galapagos, they adapted (evolved). Those that flew into the jungle like areas slowly developed short beaks that enabled them to get insects easier. Those that flew to the shore like areas developed longer beaks to catch fish easier. Over time, they (long beak vs. short beak) would not mate with each other because they wouldn't recognize each other (reproductive isolation), thus, forming a new species.


edit: who creates God? I can imagine God wanting to start a big bang, but who created him? and who created his creator? etc...ahh i'm confused

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: fatbaby


What do you have that can support creationism? Other than the Bible, is there any physical evidence?

a book is only physical evidence for the book's existence.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

If they have warning stickers about evolution on textbooks, they should have warning stickers on all bibles being sold saying everything in the book is a theory and NOT fact.

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: PSYWVicUnfortunately, the only one with crack in their pipe is you.

Evolution is NOT "indisputable fact," it is a scientific theory. I know of no credible scientists who will refer to evolution as "fact."

And just because you say it is fact does not make it so, sorry to say. Shall I merely argue that evolution occurred but with God's Hand and call it fact?

.

I will defer to the late great Stephen Jay Gould to address this comment

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact" - part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science - that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

Want to read more on this?

 

[AaronP]

our education teaches so much BS anyways. I remember being taught that spraying aerisol cans in teh air WOULD cause the ice caps to melt and we would all die.

 

[Moonbeam]

Vic quote:

Moonbeam, your postulate that all wars are based on religion is very interesting, but unfortunately off topic for this thread.

----------------------------

Hey wait a minute here, Vic, I didn't say that all wars are based on religion. Let me say it again:

"Considering the number of people in the would who die every year from religious fanaticism, the certainty that they and only they have the truth, We the People of the World unite and demand that religion stop being taught as fact. It requires but the most rudimentary intellect to realize that thousands of different claims of factuality cannot all be right. Only one could be. Given that these thousands are constantly multiplying into thousands more and have been for centuries, it requires but meager additional intellect to discern that the notion of even one being correct is rubbish. Owing, therefore, to the elegant simplicity of this declaration and the concomitant violence associated with the promulgation of absurdities as fact, We the People of the World declare that hence forth all theoretical and speculative attempt to explain the ultimate nature of reality, be they scientific or religious, will under penalty of death, cease to be taught as Truth and proceed in explanation only as theoretical notions to be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

You were the one that retorted that I should study religion, which prompted me to call you violent, by the way, since that was supposed to make me feel stupid when in fact you have no idea whether or not I might just happen to be one of the foremost living authorities on the subject, but never mind that. You added the, I thought, silly and unsupported notion that without religion people would kill themselves over something else. Well they would, but the point is in what numbers. If religions, from the moment children learn about them, were required to state that they were but one of a number of different ideas, none of which could ever truthfully claim to be absolute, regarding the meaning of life, and that all claims of exclusivity were counter to common sense, maybe the death toll from religiously inspired fanaticism would decrease. I was talking about what should go on labels. You introduced the notion that religion isn't the cause of war. Now that I've shown that it can be, suddenly I'm off topic. But it's OK. I'm just trying to do a reality check here.

 

[Moonbeam]

Boy oh boy AaronP. Teachers are the craziest monkeys. What a load they dropped on you there. All of us wouldn't die, just billions of us.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Boy oh boy AaronP. Teachers are the craziest monkeys. What a load they dropped on you there. All of us wouldn't die, just billions of us.

Why have billions when you could have... a million?

 

[HiveMaster]

I would think its not a bad idea to atleast teach the difference between theory and fact...

If the religious nutz knew the difference between theory and fact their main argument against evolution would be gone.

At one time, there was only a "theory" of gravity, but that did not stop things from falling towards the center of the earth.

You cannot take the religious pacifier from the mouths of the little lambs in the flock. They will cry until they get that pacifier back...which is what we are seeing now with stickers and talk of "theories" when anyone with two brain cells and an open mind understands that creating the world in 7 days is about as real as any of the other goofy creation theories out there.

Oh by the way, religious nutz: are we gonna teach the Jewish Creation, the Hindu Creation, the Buddha Creation, the Hopi Indian Creation, the Inuit Creation theories along with the xtian theory? THEY ALL HOLD THE SAME AMOUNT OF WEIGHT!!!!!!!!!

Edit for anger.

 

[ElFenix]

my biology teacher in HS called evolution "change over time" because evoluton didn't jive with her bible-thumping world-view.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
my biology teacher in HS called evolution "change over time" because evoluton didn't jive with her bible-thumping world-view.

Did that have any point? Evolution is a name, she just called it something else.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Link


I agree with the ACLU here. There are very few laws in science and its mostly theories, yet the disclaimer doesnt explain that all theories arent fact, it singles out evolution?

If the concerned parents wanted to put a bigger disclaimer defining in detail what a theory is and saying that ALL theories aren't fact, then that'd be much more reasonable.

Though, "higher intelligence" should not be taught in public schools.

Both evolution and creationism are nothing more than theory and can't be proven or disproven. If you teach one, teach the other along side it and teach both as theory and let each student decide what they want to believe.

nik

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: diskop

Originally posted by: dparker

Originally posted by: diskop

"It singles out evolution from all the scientific theories out there," Selman said. "Why single out evolution? It has to be coming from a religious basis, and that violates the separation of church and state."

I don't see how that is

What do you mean? Why?

I mean, how is that a violation of church and state? By teaching evolution I mean.

Evolution cannot be proven or disproven. There is a lot of so-called evidence for evolution, but then again, there's a lot of so-called evidence for creationism as well. Since both cannot be proven or disproven, they're both accepted by faith.

nik

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: ElFenix
my biology teacher in HS called evolution "change over time" because evoluton didn't jive with her bible-thumping world-view.

Did that have any point? Evolution is a name, she just called it something else.

apparently it assuaged her guilt at teaching evolution in a suburban texas high school.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
then again, there's a lot of so-called evidence for creationism as well.

nik

name some.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

So which of the thousands of creationist stories should be taught alongside evolution?

 

[MJ99]

Although I think the stickers are going too far most of you are missing the point. The stickers are merly pointing out that evolution is a theory and not fact. The statment is the truth weather you believe in evolution or creation.

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: ffmcobaltEvolution cannot be proven or disproven. There is a lot of so-called evidence for evolution, but then again, there's a lot of so-called evidence for creationism as well. Since both cannot be proven or disproven, they're both accepted by faith.

nik

Nik,

I refer you to my post above.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
then again, there's a lot of so-called evidence for creationism as well.

nik

name some.

Make me, Mr. Bad Attitude.

nik

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
then again, there's a lot of so-called evidence for creationism as well.

nik

name some.

Make me, Mr. Bad Attitude.

nik

Seriously, ffmcobalt, name some. I'm not trying to get smart, I don't think he was either.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: PSYWVicUnfortunately, the only one with crack in their pipe is you.

Evolution is NOT "indisputable fact," it is a scientific theory. I know of no credible scientists who will refer to evolution as "fact."

And just because you say it is fact does not make it so, sorry to say. Shall I merely argue that evolution occurred but with God's Hand and call it fact?

.

I will defer to the late great Stephen Jay Gould to address this comment

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact" - part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science - that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

Want to read more on this?

There is a just a little bit of difference between Gould's words there and your words of "INDISPUTABLE FACT," don't you think?

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: ELP

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
then again, there's a lot of so-called evidence for creationism as well.

nik

name some.

Make me, Mr. Bad Attitude.

nik

Seriously, ffmcobalt, name some. I'm not trying to get smart, I don't think he was either.

I did a search and it seems there IS lots of proof for creationism
all the proof you'll ever need.