Creationist shenanigans part 439

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

No. That is NOT what I believe. What I DO believe is that whatever changes have happened in terms of RNA and DNA were not random, but intelligently created that way. I guess thats the difference between creationists and evolutionists, on top of origin.

The conundrum lies in that neither side can prove its point. And I concede to that. There is pleny of evidence, although none so conclusive as to make it fact, on both sides. One side says "Look! This virus has mutated and is genetically different than what it was before based on its environment! It evolved!", while the other side says "Look! Because the old virus was no longer effective, a new virus was created!" How do you prove it wasnt? Again it comes back to proof of origin. In this case, evolutionists cannot prove it evolved and was not created.

You said earlier even if evolution was completely proven false, it does not validate creationism. The reverse is true also. Even if creationism is proven false, it does not validate evolution in it's loosest terms.

Just because I believe that organisms all the way up to mankind adapts to its environment doesnt mean I dont believe it doesnt happen by design. In the same way you cannot prove that theory false, I cannot prove it true. Who knows what we will learn in 100 or even 1000 years right? We've learned alot in the last millinium. It doesnt mean we know even close to the total truth.

In the meantime, we disagree. Thats fine. I totally understand the logic and the thinking behind evolution. I just happen to think its wrong. In the same way I understand the logic and the thinking behind those who think the Federal government should provide job guarantees, insurance, blah blah blah, I just happen to think that idea is wrong.

The fact that some evolutionists do NOT explain origin of life is disturbing to me. I really dont understand why a scientific community cannot explain it. Most evolutionists, like you Im sure, think the idea of intelligent design to be a cop out or a crutch or whatever you think. To me, it all boils down to a technical long winded answer : I Dont Know. THAT is just as laughable.

Without attacking you, I am interested in knowing what you believe the origin is. Of course this topic is a whole thread in and of itself, but Im just curious.

Evolution has a plausible causal mechanism for the changes in life that we see. We can replicate these changes in a lab. Saying that a new virus was created has no causal mechanism that is testable other then saying it was poofed into being. Using that logic you can explain away anything in the world. (lightning isn't due to a difference of electrical potential between the clouds and the earth, zeus is throwing then from the sky... and you can't prove that he isn't)

That's the fundamental rub, and that's why ID isn't science. Evolution might not have been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt (although it's pretty close to it), but ID by its very nature can never be proven. Because of the fact it cannot be tested or proven I do not think that any reasonable person can believe it to be true, because if you were to believe things based on such grounds and apply it to other things it would lead to some truly insane assumptions.

In addition, you are right that scientists (not evolutionists) do not know the origin of life. I think when you say that they answer your question with "I don't know", that's only half the story. The real answer is "I don't know, but we're going to try and find out". Creationism/ID just state that they know, and they do so without proof. That's a world of difference.

I really have no idea how life began. I guess I would buy into the whole primordeal soup theory, but I wouldn't do so strongly because there isn't really that much evidence for it. I don't feel like its currently possible to have a really definitive opinion on it. I would have to say that I do not believe that any outside intelligent force had anything at all to do with it though, due to an insurmountable first cause probability problem.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
The conundrum lies in that neither side can prove its point.

Which is why intelligent design is not science. There is no way to test it. You can test and observe random genetic mutation. Just irradiate a plate of bacteria with UV light or pour an antibiotic onto a cell culture and look at what happens.

And as for DNA being intelligently designed, that's preposterous. If cells were intelligently designed, they would be much simpler in function. There are a ridiculous amount of steps that go into linking just one amino acid to another (from encoding mRNA to the catalyzed reaction in the ribosome). All these chemical reactions could have been greatly simplified, but nature doesn't work that way. DNA mutations are beneficial when it gives an organism an advantage of the competition, but that advantage can only come through what nature is providing. And so, you get these large, complex systems that are pretty efficient. Natural selection weeds out the less efficient traits in biochemical systems.

And explain this: there are plenty of genetic mutations that are harmful, how does a harmful genetic mutation (when all other traits are equal or better than the remaining population) fit in this "intelligently designed" genetic mutations?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: punchkin
Someone here is trapped in their faith.

Incidentally, not one article by an Intelligent Design proponent or creationist has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, as far as I know. This despite the fact that there are religious scientists, some of them even belonging to the National Academy of Sciences.

Not sure what you mean by "trapped in their faith"...or if it was even directed at me. No idea what that means.

Anyway. If you care to take the time, This site has a ton of info. Science based.

ID isnt just about religion.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Anyway. If you care to take the time, This site has a ton of info. Science based.

ID isnt just about religion.

I just read it. I didn't find "ton of info." In fact, I found nothing but speculation and lame prattling about "information theory." No facts. No evidence of repeatable experiments with repeatable, conclusive results. Nothing useful for proving anything. :roll:

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: punchkin
Someone here is trapped in their faith.

Incidentally, not one article by an Intelligent Design proponent or creationist has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, as far as I know. This despite the fact that there are religious scientists, some of them even belonging to the National Academy of Sciences.

Not sure what you mean by "trapped in their faith"...or if it was even directed at me. No idea what that means.

Anyway. If you care to take the time, This site has a ton of info. Science based.

ID isnt just about religion.

I meant that you are trapped in your faith. You deny that science can prove anything in your desperate attempt to justify your belief system, but without any real basis.

The website is a proponent of sham science.

Intelligent Design is a new name and face of the creationist movement.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

No. That is NOT what I believe. What I DO believe is that whatever changes have happened in terms of RNA and DNA were not random, but intelligently created that way. I guess thats the difference between creationists and evolutionists, on top of origin.

The conundrum lies in that neither side can prove its point. And I concede to that. There is pleny of evidence, although none so conclusive as to make it fact, on both sides. One side says "Look! This virus has mutated and is genetically different than what it was before based on its environment! It evolved!", while the other side says "Look! Because the old virus was no longer effective, a new virus was created!" How do you prove it wasnt? Again it comes back to proof of origin. In this case, evolutionists cannot prove it evolved and was not created.

You said earlier even if evolution was completely proven false, it does not validate creationism. The reverse is true also. Even if creationism is proven false, it does not validate evolution in it's loosest terms.

Just because I believe that organisms all the way up to mankind adapts to its environment doesnt mean I dont believe it doesnt happen by design. In the same way you cannot prove that theory false, I cannot prove it true. Who knows what we will learn in 100 or even 1000 years right? We've learned alot in the last millinium. It doesnt mean we know even close to the total truth.

In the meantime, we disagree. Thats fine. I totally understand the logic and the thinking behind evolution. I just happen to think its wrong. In the same way I understand the logic and the thinking behind those who think the Federal government should provide job guarantees, insurance, blah blah blah, I just happen to think that idea is wrong.

The fact that some evolutionists do NOT explain origin of life is disturbing to me. I really dont understand why a scientific community cannot explain it. Most evolutionists, like you Im sure, think the idea of intelligent design to be a cop out or a crutch or whatever you think. To me, it all boils down to a technical long winded answer : I Dont Know. THAT is just as laughable.

Without attacking you, I am interested in knowing what you believe the origin is. Of course this topic is a whole thread in and of itself, but Im just curious.

Evolution has a plausible causal mechanism for the changes in life that we see. We can replicate these changes in a lab. Saying that a new virus was created has no causal mechanism that is testable other then saying it was poofed into being. Using that logic you can explain away anything in the world. (lightning isn't due to a difference of electrical potential between the clouds and the earth, zeus is throwing then from the sky... and you can't prove that he isn't)

That's the fundamental rub, and that's why ID isn't science. Evolution might not have been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt (although it's pretty close to it), but ID by its very nature can never be proven. Because of the fact it cannot be tested or proven I do not think that any reasonable person can believe it to be true, because if you were to believe things based on such grounds and apply it to other things it would lead to some truly insane assumptions.

In addition, you are right that scientists (not evolutionists) do not know the origin of life. I think when you say that they answer your question with "I don't know", that's only half the story. The real answer is "I don't know, but we're going to try and find out". Creationism/ID just state that they know, and they do so without proof. That's a world of difference.

I really have no idea how life began. I guess I would buy into the whole primordeal soup theory, but I wouldn't do so strongly because there isn't really that much evidence for it. I don't feel like its currently possible to have a really definitive opinion on it. I would have to say that I do not believe that any outside intelligent force had anything at all to do with it though, due to an insurmountable first cause probability problem.

Fair enough. Although the correlation between human life and lightning is a stretch, I understand the analogy. Again, we'll have to agree to differ in opinion. No problem with that.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: blackangst1
The conundrum lies in that neither side can prove its point.

Which is why intelligent design is not science. There is no way to test it. You can test and observe random genetic mutation. Just irradiate a plate of bacteria with UV light or pour an antibiotic onto a cell culture and look at what happens.

And as for DNA being intelligently designed, that's preposterous. If cells were intelligently designed, they would be much simpler in function. There are a ridiculous amount of steps that go into linking just one amino acid to another (from encoding mRNA to the catalyzed reaction in the ribosome). All these chemical reactions could have been greatly simplified, but nature doesn't work that way. DNA mutations are beneficial when it gives an organism an advantage of the competition, but that advantage can only come through what nature is providing. And so, you get these large, complex systems that are pretty efficient. Natural selection weeds out the less efficient traits in biochemical systems.

And explain this: there are plenty of genetic mutations that are harmful, how does a harmful genetic mutation (when all other traits are equal or better than the remaining population) fit in this "intelligently designed" genetic mutations?

I dont quite understand what you mean by if cells were intelligently designed it would be much simpler. IMHO, and in my POV, the opposite is true. *shrug* That addresses the simple by design idea.

AFA mutations go...I'll address it in a man-intervention way. In cases where man HAS intervened, well, thats why. AFA "naturally" occuring anomolies, we simply dont have a scientific answer. My complete opinion would be based on what I personally know to be true via my faith, so Im not going to get into it here. There's a time and a place to discuss faith, and a P&N message board isnt it. Call it a cop out, call it whatever you want, but Im not going to intentionally put my faith on trial with a group of people who dont know why I believe what I do, how I came to my conclusions, etc. That would take a book none of you would like to read.

Admittadly the thoeries of ID and evolution are complex. But what I *do* know if one of them IS right. I used to fully believe evolution was correct. There are people who have had the opposite experience. But, through many years of learning what I can, I believe ID is the only explanation for life. Evolutionists have many unanswered questions to which the response is as eskimo's response is "I don't know, but we're going to try and find out" which I think is very good response. On the ID side, for unanswered I dont think it's as simple as eskimo said of that they know, and they do so without proof. Its not that simple on either side. I think another difference between the two camps is that ID people recognize mankind in and of itself really doesnt know that much about the world around us (which we dont-as a whole), which makes the idea of ID much more plausible. The idea that mankind, even today, is some near his pinnacle of understanding is very naive. given what we DONT know. And to dismiss ID completely is IMO very egotistcal and naive.

But we all have our opinions and think anyone who doesnt believe as we do is wrong. Right?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Anyway. If you care to take the time, This site has a ton of info. Science based.

ID isnt just about religion.

I just read it. I didn't find "ton of info." In fact, I found nothing but speculation and lame prattling about "information theory." No facts. No evidence of repeatable experiments with repeatable, conclusive results. Nothing useful for proving anything. :roll:

And you looked at all the links on the right, as well as the rest of the site? I doubt it. It was about as useful to you as your links were to me I guess. All I find in the evolution links are

*thought to be
*If true
*may cause a reevaluation of the species
*tentatively assigned to Homo erectus
*appear in many ways to be
*indicates that Homo ergaster should not be considered a separate species from Homo erectus
*this taxon was later named as a species
*claimed to be
*and is claimed by its finders
*These claims are being treated with caution
*probably belonging to a child
*The authors have claimed...However, other other experts have challenged this
* it seems
* Expect this controversial claim to receive skeptical scrutiny from anthropologists.
*suggests that the forelimb and hindlimb proportions of africanus were more ape-like than in the earlier A. afarensis.
* which may have implications
*and supporting (but certainly not proving) claims that they were a different species
* It is not yet clear what species they belong to
*although the discoverers have named them
*The makers are unknown, but may be early Homo
*Recent studies claim
*far more recent than previously thought
*They seem to be
*may have survived longer than previously thought
*are claimed as evidence
*Recent research suggests

which really doesnt conclude anything.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: punchkin
Someone here is trapped in their faith.

Incidentally, not one article by an Intelligent Design proponent or creationist has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, as far as I know. This despite the fact that there are religious scientists, some of them even belonging to the National Academy of Sciences.

Not sure what you mean by "trapped in their faith"...or if it was even directed at me. No idea what that means.

Anyway. If you care to take the time, This site has a ton of info. Science based.

ID isnt just about religion.

I meant that you are trapped in your faith. You deny that science can prove anything in your desperate attempt to justify your belief system, but without any real basis.

The website is a proponent of sham science.

Intelligent Design is a new name and face of the creationist movement.

Really? Im trapped? When did I deny science? You obviously havent read anything Ive posted. I clearly acknowledged and agree with science. Just not all of it. Do you believe everything that comes out of the science world? Really?

Proponent of sham science ROFL I love it!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

The OP was talking about a school board - not the public school system broadly - thus my questioning. Are you suggesting that the actions of a single school board constitutes a "state action"?

Yes. The board is a legal creature of the legislative process and has legal authority over the curriculum of schools in their district. By definition, that includes them as part of "the state."

Why are you trying to make excuses for them using their authority to impose their religious bullshit on the curriculum of a secular educational system? :roll:

I am not making excuses(and you'd know that if you could read). Once again(for the people like harvey that are s l o w . I don't want them to do it, but the OP is incorrect in his argument against it and could be considered a facist for suggesting that people who believe in creationism shouldn't be on school boards.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Link.

People who oppose the teaching of evolution in science classes are ignorant, scientifically illiterate, & disrespectful of the Establishment Clause. Unfortunately, they also sit on school boards, probably mostly where education is most needed. Fortunately, they are not intelligent. Expect to see this email in the court record when the ACLU sues Taylor County for pushing the breathtaking inanity.

The establishment clause has nothing to do with this subject.

Plus IMO, they have just as much right to sit on school boards as those who wish to cram their global warming religion down our kids throats or even those who seek to push their "tolerance" religion(read: tolerance as long as it fits their views)

So I guess as much as I dislike those who wish to ban evolution theory discussion in school and/or push the creationism theory - they have just as much right to sit on the school board as the other people who have agendas.

I wholly disagree. Public school systems are an extension of the government. Therefore the public school system is under the same prohibitions as the government with respect to aligning with religion. Schools CANNOT in any way support anything religious in nature. Period.

That is incorrect. There is not freedom FROM religion, rather freedom OF religion. You people who wish to take anything religious out of the public sphere need to learn about why the establishment clause was written. It wasn't to exclude religion from the gov't or public sphere. Sheesh.

 

[purplehippo]

Believing in evolution, like believing in creation, requires acceptance of a certain presuppositional dogma and requires placing one?s faith in a story about the unrepeatable past. An atheist is not neutral when arguing against the existence of God, nor is a Christian when arguing for the existence of God. Each must presuppose a belief about God before establishing the logic that allows arguments ?for? or ?against? Him.

Also, the term ?religion? must be defined clearly. While beliefs and worship practices, procedures, and conduct are involved in religion, any belief system that purports to be a total explanation of reality is more-or-less religion. Thus, insofar as it is an attempt to explain why the world is the way it is, held to with ardor and faith, Darwinian evolution can thus be considered religion.

No scientist alive today was present when life appeared on this planet. In fact, there has never been a truly scientific study of the origin of life on earth?nor can there ever be any operational scientific study of the first life on the earth given present technology. We do, however, have the written account of the Creator Himself, who does not and cannot lie. Genesis 1-2 provides an accurate eyewitness account of the beginning of all things, according to God. In fact, the Bible is by far the most accurate historical record known to man.

There is far more evidence today of a young earth (10,000 or so years) and the flood described in the Bible than there is of the "big bang theory". The Biblical Flood explains the sedementary and fossil records that have been researched thus far. Recent advances in genetics prove that evolution of animal and man is impossible hence a dog will always be a dog and not a bird.

The recent efforts of Intelligent Design and it's intended implementation really do little more than confuse children. It offers a partial truth that there is another explanation other than evolution and leaves the student wondering who the Creator really is. The constitutional design of Separation of Church and State has been so poluted by litigation and the initial intent of the constitutional meaning that we may never have a congruent idea of what our founding fathers intended when it was written. In the end our children suffer and are confused by what evolution teaches.

When you look at our world and the universe, study the laws that science is based on, look at the historical facts that are proven time and time again in the Bible, it's difficult to come to any other conclusion. And when we face our Maker in the end we literally will be "without excuse" just by what is seen.

Christians have a difficult time convincing atheists that there was one virgin birth yet atheists want us to believe there were millions of them through the big bang. Angry debates outside a level playing field does nothing for either case. But I for one will choose to believe in creation and a loving God whom gives us the ability to come to Him in the end.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Link.

People who oppose the teaching of evolution in science classes are ignorant, scientifically illiterate, & disrespectful of the Establishment Clause. Unfortunately, they also sit on school boards, probably mostly where education is most needed. Fortunately, they are not intelligent. Expect to see this email in the court record when the ACLU sues Taylor County for pushing the breathtaking inanity.

The establishment clause has nothing to do with this subject.

Plus IMO, they have just as much right to sit on school boards as those who wish to cram their global warming religion down our kids throats or even those who seek to push their "tolerance" religion(read: tolerance as long as it fits their views)

So I guess as much as I dislike those who wish to ban evolution theory discussion in school and/or push the creationism theory - they have just as much right to sit on the school board as the other people who have agendas.

I wholly disagree. Public school systems are an extension of the government. Therefore the public school system is under the same prohibitions as the government with respect to aligning with religion. Schools CANNOT in any way support anything religious in nature. Period.

That is incorrect. There is not freedom FROM religion, rather freedom OF religion. You people who wish to take anything religious out of the public sphere need to learn about why the establishment clause was written. It wasn't to exclude religion from the gov't or public sphere. Sheesh.

:thumbsup:

Reminds me of another bastardized phrase: Money is the root of all evil. Uh, no. The phrase correctly is money is the root of all KINDS of evil.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Really? Im trapped? When did I deny science? You obviously havent read anything Ive posted. I clearly acknowledged and agree with science. Just not all of it. Do you believe everything that comes out of the science world? Really?

Proponent of sham science ROFL I love it!

Intelligent Design is sham science. The National Academy of Science feels the same way. Roll on the floor all you like-- it doesn't somehow make your arguments valid.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876#toc

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: purplehippo
Believing in evolution, like believing in creation, requires acceptance of a certain presuppositional dogma and requires placing one?s faith in a story about the unrepeatable past. An atheist is not neutral when arguing against the existence of God, nor is a Christian when arguing for the existence of God. Each must presuppose a belief about God before establishing the logic that allows arguments ?for? or ?against? Him.

Also, the term ?religion? must be defined clearly. While beliefs and worship practices, procedures, and conduct are involved in religion, any belief system that purports to be a total explanation of reality is more-or-less religion. Thus, insofar as it is an attempt to explain why the world is the way it is, held to with ardor and faith, Darwinian evolution can thus be considered religion.

No scientist alive today was present when life appeared on this planet. In fact, there has never been a truly scientific study of the origin of life on earth?nor can there ever be any operational scientific study of the first life on the earth given present technology. We do, however, have the written account of the Creator Himself, who does not and cannot lie. Genesis 1-2 provides an accurate eyewitness account of the beginning of all things, according to God. In fact, the Bible is by far the most accurate historical record known to man.

There is far more evidence today of a young earth (10,000 or so years) and the flood described in the Bible than there is of the "big bang theory". The Biblical Flood explains the sedementary and fossil records that have been researched thus far. Recent advances in genetics prove that evolution of animal and man is impossible hence a dog will always be a dog and not a bird.

The recent efforts of Intelligent Design and it's intended implementation really do little more than confuse children. It offers a partial truth that there is another explanation other than evolution and leaves the student wondering who the Creator really is. The constitutional design of Separation of Church and State has been so poluted by litigation and the initial intent of the constitutional meaning that we may never have a congruent idea of what our founding fathers intended when it was written. In the end our children suffer and are confused by what evolution teaches.

When you look at our world and the universe, study the laws that science is based on, look at the historical facts that are proven time and time again in the Bible, it's difficult to come to any other conclusion. And when we face our Maker in the end we literally will be "without excuse" just by what is seen.

Christians have a difficult time convincing atheists that there was one virgin birth yet atheists want us to believe there were millions of them through the big bang. Angry debates outside a level playing field does nothing for either case. But I for one will choose to believe in creation and a loving God whom gives us the ability to come to Him in the end.

Yes, yes. You believe in God and cannot believe in science that contradicts this. Next...

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: purplehippo
Believing in evolution, like believing in creation, requires acceptance of a certain presuppositional dogma and requires placing one?s faith in a story about the unrepeatable past. An atheist is not neutral when arguing against the existence of God, nor is a Christian when arguing for the existence of God. Each must presuppose a belief about God before establishing the logic that allows arguments ?for? or ?against? Him.

Also, the term ?religion? must be defined clearly. While beliefs and worship practices, procedures, and conduct are involved in religion, any belief system that purports to be a total explanation of reality is more-or-less religion. Thus, insofar as it is an attempt to explain why the world is the way it is, held to with ardor and faith, Darwinian evolution can thus be considered religion.

No scientist alive today was present when life appeared on this planet. In fact, there has never been a truly scientific study of the origin of life on earth?nor can there ever be any operational scientific study of the first life on the earth given present technology. We do, however, have the written account of the Creator Himself, who does not and cannot lie. Genesis 1-2 provides an accurate eyewitness account of the beginning of all things, according to God. In fact, the Bible is by far the most accurate historical record known to man.

There is far more evidence today of a young earth (10,000 or so years) and the flood described in the Bible than there is of the "big bang theory". The Biblical Flood explains the sedementary and fossil records that have been researched thus far. Recent advances in genetics prove that evolution of animal and man is impossible hence a dog will always be a dog and not a bird.

The recent efforts of Intelligent Design and it's intended implementation really do little more than confuse children. It offers a partial truth that there is another explanation other than evolution and leaves the student wondering who the Creator really is. The constitutional design of Separation of Church and State has been so poluted by litigation and the initial intent of the constitutional meaning that we may never have a congruent idea of what our founding fathers intended when it was written. In the end our children suffer and are confused by what evolution teaches.

When you look at our world and the universe, study the laws that science is based on, look at the historical facts that are proven time and time again in the Bible, it's difficult to come to any other conclusion. And when we face our Maker in the end we literally will be "without excuse" just by what is seen.

Christians have a difficult time convincing atheists that there was one virgin birth yet atheists want us to believe there were millions of them through the big bang. Angry debates outside a level playing field does nothing for either case. But I for one will choose to believe in creation and a loving God whom gives us the ability to come to Him in the end.

Yes, yes. You believe in God and cannot believe in science that contradicts this. Next...

Yes, yes. You believe in man and cannot believe anything other than what you can see. WTG addressing the points.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

That is incorrect. There is not freedom FROM religion, rather freedom OF religion.

No, you are the one who is incorrect. Freedom OF religion includes the right NOT to believe in any religion or deity. It also includes the right to being free NOT to have government shoving someone else's ooga booga Kool Aid down our throats or the throats of our kids.

You people who wish to take anything religious out of the public sphere need to learn about why the establishment clause was written. It wasn't to exclude religion from the gov't or public sphere. Sheesh.

Another child left behind. :roll: Go home and practice reading. This thread is about a Florida school board barring teaching the only currently scientifically accepted explanation for the origins of biological diversity that doesn't fail the criteria of a valid theory.

This thread is about that school board abusing their authority to impose their religious bullshit on the science curriculum of a secular educational system.

January 13, 2008
Taylor County, Florida School Board Creationist Mark Southerland Speaks!

As mentioned on January 10, the school board of Taylor County, Florida passed a resolution opposing new science education standards that include the explicit teaching of evolutionary biology.

These people are welcome to wallow in their own ignorance, they have the right to infect their kids with it, and you have the right to wallow with them. Their rights stop when they want to impose their mystery oil on other people's kids through the public education system.

 

[event8horizon]

im coming in alittle late but ive taken an evolution class in college and my teacher would always say evolution is a fact. the mechanism behind it is the theory. anyway, i look at it even from a bigger picture. try reading a steven hawkings book. just a simple one explaining how he sees the universe. to me, the whole damn universe is in a constant state of evolution. does anyone here believe they are made of star dust??? i do. look at it from the big bang forward. mostly hydrogen was created then stars. from the fusion in stars coming all periodical table atoms of today. think big!!

 

[purplehippo]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: purplehippo
Believing in evolution, like believing in creation, requires acceptance of a certain presuppositional dogma and requires placing one?s faith in a story about the unrepeatable past. An atheist is not neutral when arguing against the existence of God, nor is a Christian when arguing for the existence of God. Each must presuppose a belief about God before establishing the logic that allows arguments ?for? or ?against? Him.

Also, the term ?religion? must be defined clearly. While beliefs and worship practices, procedures, and conduct are involved in religion, any belief system that purports to be a total explanation of reality is more-or-less religion. Thus, insofar as it is an attempt to explain why the world is the way it is, held to with ardor and faith, Darwinian evolution can thus be considered religion.

No scientist alive today was present when life appeared on this planet. In fact, there has never been a truly scientific study of the origin of life on earth?nor can there ever be any operational scientific study of the first life on the earth given present technology. We do, however, have the written account of the Creator Himself, who does not and cannot lie. Genesis 1-2 provides an accurate eyewitness account of the beginning of all things, according to God. In fact, the Bible is by far the most accurate historical record known to man.

There is far more evidence today of a young earth (10,000 or so years) and the flood described in the Bible than there is of the "big bang theory". The Biblical Flood explains the sedementary and fossil records that have been researched thus far. Recent advances in genetics prove that evolution of animal and man is impossible hence a dog will always be a dog and not a bird.

The recent efforts of Intelligent Design and it's intended implementation really do little more than confuse children. It offers a partial truth that there is another explanation other than evolution and leaves the student wondering who the Creator really is. The constitutional design of Separation of Church and State has been so poluted by litigation and the initial intent of the constitutional meaning that we may never have a congruent idea of what our founding fathers intended when it was written. In the end our children suffer and are confused by what evolution teaches.

When you look at our world and the universe, study the laws that science is based on, look at the historical facts that are proven time and time again in the Bible, it's difficult to come to any other conclusion. And when we face our Maker in the end we literally will be "without excuse" just by what is seen.

Christians have a difficult time convincing atheists that there was one virgin birth yet atheists want us to believe there were millions of them through the big bang. Angry debates outside a level playing field does nothing for either case. But I for one will choose to believe in creation and a loving God whom gives us the ability to come to Him in the end.

Yes, yes. You believe in God and cannot believe in science that contradicts this. Next...

Actually - I believe science points to the truth of creation. If you take science and put it with the historical facts we can see - it makes a lot of sense. Many scientists have already come to that conclusion and intended to disprove creation only to find that they coexist.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: purplehippo

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: purplehippo
Believing in evolution, like believing in creation, requires acceptance of a certain presuppositional dogma and requires placing one?s faith in a story about the unrepeatable past. An atheist is not neutral when arguing against the existence of God, nor is a Christian when arguing for the existence of God. Each must presuppose a belief about God before establishing the logic that allows arguments ?for? or ?against? Him.

Also, the term ?religion? must be defined clearly. While beliefs and worship practices, procedures, and conduct are involved in religion, any belief system that purports to be a total explanation of reality is more-or-less religion. Thus, insofar as it is an attempt to explain why the world is the way it is, held to with ardor and faith, Darwinian evolution can thus be considered religion.

No scientist alive today was present when life appeared on this planet. In fact, there has never been a truly scientific study of the origin of life on earth?nor can there ever be any operational scientific study of the first life on the earth given present technology. We do, however, have the written account of the Creator Himself, who does not and cannot lie. Genesis 1-2 provides an accurate eyewitness account of the beginning of all things, according to God. In fact, the Bible is by far the most accurate historical record known to man.

There is far more evidence today of a young earth (10,000 or so years) and the flood described in the Bible than there is of the "big bang theory". The Biblical Flood explains the sedementary and fossil records that have been researched thus far. Recent advances in genetics prove that evolution of animal and man is impossible hence a dog will always be a dog and not a bird.

The recent efforts of Intelligent Design and it's intended implementation really do little more than confuse children. It offers a partial truth that there is another explanation other than evolution and leaves the student wondering who the Creator really is. The constitutional design of Separation of Church and State has been so poluted by litigation and the initial intent of the constitutional meaning that we may never have a congruent idea of what our founding fathers intended when it was written. In the end our children suffer and are confused by what evolution teaches.

When you look at our world and the universe, study the laws that science is based on, look at the historical facts that are proven time and time again in the Bible, it's difficult to come to any other conclusion. And when we face our Maker in the end we literally will be "without excuse" just by what is seen.

Christians have a difficult time convincing atheists that there was one virgin birth yet atheists want us to believe there were millions of them through the big bang. Angry debates outside a level playing field does nothing for either case. But I for one will choose to believe in creation and a loving God whom gives us the ability to come to Him in the end.

Yes, yes. You believe in God and cannot believe in science that contradicts this. Next...

Actually - I believe science points to the truth of creation. If you take science and put it with the historical facts we can see - it makes a lot of sense. Many scientists have already come to that conclusion and intended to disprove creation only to find that they coexist.

Scientists who actually practice real science do not believe that the Bible is the most accurate historical record, as you do, or that there is evidence of a "young earth", as you do, etc. etc. etc. In fact the National Academy of Sciences disagrees with you.

Hokum parading as science is nothing new. It's just extraordinarily organized today. But it is still not recognized by the scientific establishment, and it never will be because that would be impossible.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: purplehippo
Believing in evolution, like believing in creation, requires acceptance of a certain presuppositional dogma and requires placing one?s faith in a story about the unrepeatable past. An atheist is not neutral when arguing against the existence of God, nor is a Christian when arguing for the existence of God. Each must presuppose a belief about God before establishing the logic that allows arguments ?for? or ?against? Him.

Also, the term ?religion? must be defined clearly. While beliefs and worship practices, procedures, and conduct are involved in religion, any belief system that purports to be a total explanation of reality is more-or-less religion. Thus, insofar as it is an attempt to explain why the world is the way it is, held to with ardor and faith, Darwinian evolution can thus be considered religion.

No scientist alive today was present when life appeared on this planet. In fact, there has never been a truly scientific study of the origin of life on earth?nor can there ever be any operational scientific study of the first life on the earth given present technology. We do, however, have the written account of the Creator Himself, who does not and cannot lie. Genesis 1-2 provides an accurate eyewitness account of the beginning of all things, according to God. In fact, the Bible is by far the most accurate historical record known to man.

There is far more evidence today of a young earth (10,000 or so years) and the flood described in the Bible than there is of the "big bang theory". The Biblical Flood explains the sedementary and fossil records that have been researched thus far. Recent advances in genetics prove that evolution of animal and man is impossible hence a dog will always be a dog and not a bird.

The recent efforts of Intelligent Design and it's intended implementation really do little more than confuse children. It offers a partial truth that there is another explanation other than evolution and leaves the student wondering who the Creator really is. The constitutional design of Separation of Church and State has been so poluted by litigation and the initial intent of the constitutional meaning that we may never have a congruent idea of what our founding fathers intended when it was written. In the end our children suffer and are confused by what evolution teaches.

When you look at our world and the universe, study the laws that science is based on, look at the historical facts that are proven time and time again in the Bible, it's difficult to come to any other conclusion. And when we face our Maker in the end we literally will be "without excuse" just by what is seen.

Christians have a difficult time convincing atheists that there was one virgin birth yet atheists want us to believe there were millions of them through the big bang. Angry debates outside a level playing field does nothing for either case. But I for one will choose to believe in creation and a loving God whom gives us the ability to come to Him in the end.

Damn it I had a nice post with links and everything that just got eaten.
Long story short:
Your definition of religion is incorrect.
Your statement about evolution being religion is incorrect.
Your statement of the flood accurately explaining the sedimentary and fossil record is spectacularly incorrect.
Your statement that advances in genetics have proven evolution impossible is incorrect.
Your statement that the bible is the most accurate historical document known to man is incorrect.
Your idea of the big bang and virgin births is incorrect.

I had links for every one of those, but I just can't bring myself to do it again considering the probability of you listening is about zero. Nobody who is capable of rationally examining this issue would have written the post you did. Needless to say, anyone else who would even think about believing what is in that post can very quickly google almost any of the topics in it and find dozens of websites that will blow his assertions out of the water.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Link.

People who oppose the teaching of evolution in science classes are ignorant, scientifically illiterate, & disrespectful of the Establishment Clause. Unfortunately, they also sit on school boards, probably mostly where education is most needed. Fortunately, they are not intelligent. Expect to see this email in the court record when the ACLU sues Taylor County for pushing the breathtaking inanity.

The establishment clause has nothing to do with this subject.

Plus IMO, they have just as much right to sit on school boards as those who wish to cram their global warming religion down our kids throats or even those who seek to push their "tolerance" religion(read: tolerance as long as it fits their views)

So I guess as much as I dislike those who wish to ban evolution theory discussion in school and/or push the creationism theory - they have just as much right to sit on the school board as the other people who have agendas.

I wholly disagree. Public school systems are an extension of the government. Therefore the public school system is under the same prohibitions as the government with respect to aligning with religion. Schools CANNOT in any way support anything religious in nature. Period.

That is incorrect. There is not freedom FROM religion, rather freedom OF religion. You people who wish to take anything religious out of the public sphere need to learn about why the establishment clause was written. It wasn't to exclude religion from the gov't or public sphere. Sheesh.

I've spent years studying it so I think I have a fairly good grasp on it, and I never claimed it was freedom FROM religion. What I said is that as an extension of the government a school teaching creationism is ENDORSING religion, ie supporting it. That the government can not do...at least in theory.

I am 100% for allowing kids to pray in school, as long as no time is taken from anyone else, no pressures are applied, and no administration/teachers are involved. I'm all for allowing kids to bring and/or utilize their religious texts and artifacts. I have no problem with complete individual religious freedom. I will not allow government endorsement of religion, will not allow social discord caused by religious zealots, will not allow my tax dollars to support religious programs, or anything else which is absolutely and clearly in violation of the establishment cause AND the intentions of our founding fathers.

This is why, as a teacher, I will refuse to lead the modified pledge with 'god' in it. That is why, as a teacher, I will refuse to teach anything in class which paints either a positive or negative view of religion beyond the core facts. As an agent of the government I must absolutely keep my own personal beliefs and my job separate.

 

[purplehippo]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: purplehippo

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: purplehippo
Believing in evolution, like believing in creation, requires acceptance of a certain presuppositional dogma and requires placing one?s faith in a story about the unrepeatable past. An atheist is not neutral when arguing against the existence of God, nor is a Christian when arguing for the existence of God. Each must presuppose a belief about God before establishing the logic that allows arguments ?for? or ?against? Him.

Also, the term ?religion? must be defined clearly. While beliefs and worship practices, procedures, and conduct are involved in religion, any belief system that purports to be a total explanation of reality is more-or-less religion. Thus, insofar as it is an attempt to explain why the world is the way it is, held to with ardor and faith, Darwinian evolution can thus be considered religion.

No scientist alive today was present when life appeared on this planet. In fact, there has never been a truly scientific study of the origin of life on earth?nor can there ever be any operational scientific study of the first life on the earth given present technology. We do, however, have the written account of the Creator Himself, who does not and cannot lie. Genesis 1-2 provides an accurate eyewitness account of the beginning of all things, according to God. In fact, the Bible is by far the most accurate historical record known to man.

There is far more evidence today of a young earth (10,000 or so years) and the flood described in the Bible than there is of the "big bang theory". The Biblical Flood explains the sedementary and fossil records that have been researched thus far. Recent advances in genetics prove that evolution of animal and man is impossible hence a dog will always be a dog and not a bird.

The recent efforts of Intelligent Design and it's intended implementation really do little more than confuse children. It offers a partial truth that there is another explanation other than evolution and leaves the student wondering who the Creator really is. The constitutional design of Separation of Church and State has been so poluted by litigation and the initial intent of the constitutional meaning that we may never have a congruent idea of what our founding fathers intended when it was written. In the end our children suffer and are confused by what evolution teaches.

When you look at our world and the universe, study the laws that science is based on, look at the historical facts that are proven time and time again in the Bible, it's difficult to come to any other conclusion. And when we face our Maker in the end we literally will be "without excuse" just by what is seen.

Christians have a difficult time convincing atheists that there was one virgin birth yet atheists want us to believe there were millions of them through the big bang. Angry debates outside a level playing field does nothing for either case. But I for one will choose to believe in creation and a loving God whom gives us the ability to come to Him in the end.

Yes, yes. You believe in God and cannot believe in science that contradicts this. Next...

Actually - I believe science points to the truth of creation. If you take science and put it with the historical facts we can see - it makes a lot of sense. Many scientists have already come to that conclusion and intended to disprove creation only to find that they coexist.

Scientists who actually practice real science do not believe that the Bible is the most accurate historical record, as you do, or that there is evidence of a "young earth", as you do, etc. etc. etc. In fact the National Academy of Sciences disagrees with you.

Hokum parading as science is nothing new. It's just extraordinarily organized today. But it is still not recognized by the scientific establishment, and it never will be because that would be impossible.

You are incorrect in your assessment of the scientific community. There is a huge split (greater than you would admit) as to the origins of life. More and more scientists are coming over to the veiw of creation. But you can choose to not believe it and that is OK with me. I tend to lead with the facts I know and can understand and although I am not a scientist - I do my best to find the truth. To dismiss creation just because you can't bring yourself to believe there is something greater than you is simple ignorance. True scientific analysis wieghs all the evidence. You are still looking 1950's scientific evidence. Recent advances in research come to some really compelling evidence. You can label that anyway you want. It's only words to me.

 

[purplehippo]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: purplehippo
Believing in evolution, like believing in creation, requires acceptance of a certain presuppositional dogma and requires placing one?s faith in a story about the unrepeatable past. An atheist is not neutral when arguing against the existence of God, nor is a Christian when arguing for the existence of God. Each must presuppose a belief about God before establishing the logic that allows arguments ?for? or ?against? Him.

Also, the term ?religion? must be defined clearly. While beliefs and worship practices, procedures, and conduct are involved in religion, any belief system that purports to be a total explanation of reality is more-or-less religion. Thus, insofar as it is an attempt to explain why the world is the way it is, held to with ardor and faith, Darwinian evolution can thus be considered religion.

No scientist alive today was present when life appeared on this planet. In fact, there has never been a truly scientific study of the origin of life on earth?nor can there ever be any operational scientific study of the first life on the earth given present technology. We do, however, have the written account of the Creator Himself, who does not and cannot lie. Genesis 1-2 provides an accurate eyewitness account of the beginning of all things, according to God. In fact, the Bible is by far the most accurate historical record known to man.

There is far more evidence today of a young earth (10,000 or so years) and the flood described in the Bible than there is of the "big bang theory". The Biblical Flood explains the sedementary and fossil records that have been researched thus far. Recent advances in genetics prove that evolution of animal and man is impossible hence a dog will always be a dog and not a bird.

The recent efforts of Intelligent Design and it's intended implementation really do little more than confuse children. It offers a partial truth that there is another explanation other than evolution and leaves the student wondering who the Creator really is. The constitutional design of Separation of Church and State has been so poluted by litigation and the initial intent of the constitutional meaning that we may never have a congruent idea of what our founding fathers intended when it was written. In the end our children suffer and are confused by what evolution teaches.

When you look at our world and the universe, study the laws that science is based on, look at the historical facts that are proven time and time again in the Bible, it's difficult to come to any other conclusion. And when we face our Maker in the end we literally will be "without excuse" just by what is seen.

Christians have a difficult time convincing atheists that there was one virgin birth yet atheists want us to believe there were millions of them through the big bang. Angry debates outside a level playing field does nothing for either case. But I for one will choose to believe in creation and a loving God whom gives us the ability to come to Him in the end.

Damn it I had a nice post with links and everything that just got eaten.
Long story short:
Your definition of religion is incorrect.
Your statement about evolution being religion is incorrect.
Your statement of the flood accurately explaining the sedimentary and fossil record is spectacularly incorrect.
Your statement that advances in genetics have proven evolution impossible is incorrect.
Your statement that the bible is the most accurate historical document known to man is incorrect.
Your idea of the big bang and virgin births is incorrect.

I had links for every one of those, but I just can't bring myself to do it again considering the probability of you listening is about zero. Nobody who is capable of rationally examining this issue would have written the post you did. Needless to say, anyone else who would even think about believing what is in that post can very quickly google almost any of the topics in it and find dozens of websites that will blow his assertions out of the water.

As well as dozens of websites to refute your claims. I am content to let the scientific community come to the logical conclusion in the end.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: purplehippo

As well as dozens of websites to refute your claims. I am content to let the scientific community come to the logical conclusion in the end.

There are not dozens of reputable websites to refute my claims. In fact, there aren't any. Most of the things you said sound like you got them from that answers in genesis website which is a laughingstock and an embarassment to anyone who actually considers themselves interested in science. If you believe any of the things you mentioned to be true, please present peer reviewed articles that support your position. I can supply thousands to support mine.

EDIT: fixed quotes.