Evolution:4-10-04 Evolution theory is rooted in the religion of atheism

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Australopithecus died for you.
------------------------------------
And as fate would have it, apparently in Georga:

Homo georgicus

This species was named in 2002 to contain fossils found in Dmanisi, Georgia, which seem intermediate between H. habilis and H. erectus. The fossils are about 1.8 million years old, consisting of three partial skulls and three lower jaws. The brain sizes of the skulls vary from 600 to 680 cc. The height, as estimated from a foot bone, would have been about 1.5 m (4'11"). A partial skeleton was also discovered in 2001 but no details are available on it yet. (Vekua et al. 2002, Gabunia et al. 2002) The cranial demensions resemble those of modern day American Georgians, Homo imbicilicus.

Is that Nebraska Man's cousin?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Australopithecus died for you.
------------------------------------
And as fate would have it, apparently in Georga:

Homo georgicus

This species was named in 2002 to contain fossils found in Dmanisi, Georgia, which seem intermediate between H. habilis and H. erectus. The fossils are about 1.8 million years old, consisting of three partial skulls and three lower jaws. The brain sizes of the skulls vary from 600 to 680 cc. The height, as estimated from a foot bone, would have been about 1.5 m (4'11"). A partial skeleton was also discovered in 2001 but no details are available on it yet. (Vekua et al. 2002, Gabunia et al. 2002) The cranial demensions resemble those of modern day American Georgians, Homo imbicilicus.

ROFLMAO and it's going to take some time to stop laughing, great one Moonie

 

[kage69]

Would it be too much to ask to teach both, as theories, and let the children decide? Isn't that what learning is about?

The State of Georgia thinks it is too much to ask. They know even little kids these days won't buy the story they prefer.


"All the species of animals came from single respective pairs that Noah put on his Ark? What-ever."

(I was lucky enough to be present when my diehard-Methodist mother tried to get my (then 7 years old) little brother to believe this. Priceless I tell you! She was let down that he didn't ... swallow it, hook, line, and reel. He's a hell of a kid, stood up to my mom a full 3 years earlier than I was able to.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: kage69

Would it be too much to ask to teach both, as theories, and let the children decide? Isn't that what learning is about?

The State of Georgia thinks it is too much to ask. They know even little kids these days won't buy the story they prefer.


"All the species of animals came from single respective pairs that Noah put on his Ark? What-ever."

(I was lucky enough to be present when my diehard-Methodist mother tried to get my (then 7 years old) little brother to believe this. Priceless I tell you! She was let down that he didn't ... swallow it, hook, line, and reel. He's a hell of a kid, stood up to my mom a full 3 years earlier than I was able to.

I hope you encourage the same incredulity when he's told about evolution, else you're worse than she is.

 

[kage69]

And as fate would have it, apparently in Georga:

Homo georgicus

This species was named in 2002 to contain fossils found in Dmanisi, Georgia, which seem intermediate between H. habilis and H. erectus. The fossils are about 1.8 million years old, consisting of three partial skulls and three lower jaws. The brain sizes of the skulls vary from 600 to 680 cc. The height, as estimated from a foot bone, would have been about 1.5 m (4'11"). A partial skeleton was also discovered in 2001 but no details are available on it yet. (Vekua et al. 2002, Gabunia et al. 2002) The cranial demensions resemble those of modern day American Georgians, Homo imbicilicus.

Heh, good one. A study partner of mine back in Phys. Anthro. came up with something similar back in the day, but it wasn't half as funny.

 

[kage69]

I hope you encourage the same incredulity when he's told about evolution, else you're worse than she is.

No encouragement was given, or was necessary, as he did that all on his own I'm happy to say. My mother is just as confused as you are HoP, and I'll thank you to leave her out of any more of your posts.

It speaks volumes on the matter that the evolutionist-side encourages more study, and a healthy skepticism of sources and opinions, whereas the creationist side takes their conclusion, works backwards from there, and does everything it can (hey, like passing laws concerning school curriculum!) to eradicate opposing views or concepts.

I once had a professor tell me that even though he was an ardent Catholic, he fully believed the smartest thing a supporter of any religion could do to support it "in the field," would be to keep their mouth closed. HoP, thank you, you've made me see the wisdom of his statement.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: kage69

i dont have an argument. please do explain. im really fascinated how some people seem to believe that single celled organisms + lots of time = evolution into a sentinent life form. im also really fascinated that some people seem to believe that mankind has evolved from primates [which evolved from single celled organisms]

I shouldn't have to explain anything, it's right there in front of you, but due to your comprehension difficulties, I shall indulge you. Your 'argument' is that creationism and the theory of evolution are on some kind of equal playing field as far as supporting evidence is concerned. You are comparing a simple story to mountains of documented and verifiable research and saying they are equal in merit. This ignorance is the hallmark of religious sheep like yourself. You know absolutely nothing about evolution, but that doesn't stop you from trying to bash it as it runs contrary to your religious agenda. Do you really think anyone is going to take you seriously?
I find it amusing, nay, hilarious, that you can be that incredulous over key points in evolution, but yet seem to happily swallow the whoppers your religion tries to sell people.

Organized religion sells vanity and ignorance, and you're buying wholesale.

actually, my standpoint on evolution and creationism is that they are both baseless, but I also argue that evolution is the bigger piece of sh|t theorey. im not trying to argue for some religious agenda, like you seem to love to think, im just saying that trying to use evolution to explain how we got to where we are is the biggest load of sh|t [right next to the big bang theorey] that ive ever heard! you denounce someones belief in a higher power, and the belief that this higher power created everything in existence based on what? you have no concrete argument to prove the existence [or lack thereof] of any sort of god. if anything, i think that you're buying into the weaker of the 2 beliefs. its far easier to swallow some crap theorey if you have some sort of 'proof' rather than project any ammount of faith in something unknown.

on a side note, do you know who you, and the rest of your buddies here, sound like? you guys sound like the catholic church during the days of old. the church and you guys love to use the argument that you have documented proof and that anyone that doesnt believe [or support your theorey] is an idiot [or a heretic]. the only difference is that the catholic church burned people at the stake, you guys just wish you could get away with it.

"Facts are meaningless, they can be used to prove anything." - Homer Simpson

 

[kage69]

actually, my standpoint on evolution and creationism is that they are both baseless, but I also argue that evolution is the bigger piece of sh|t theorey. im not trying to argue for some religious agenda, like you seem to love to think, im just saying that trying to use evolution to explain how we got to where we are is the biggest load of sh|t [right next to the big bang theorey] that ive ever heard! you denounce someones belief in a higher power, and the belief that this higher power created everything in existence based on what? you have no concrete argument to prove the existence [or lack thereof] of any sort of god. if anything, i think that you're buying into the weaker of the 2 beliefs. its far easier to swallow some crap theorey if you have some sort of 'proof' rather than project any ammount of faith in something unknown.

Evolution is far, far from baseless. You may choose to think otherwise, but that only illustrates your bias. Careful, your meager understanding of evolution is showing again! Problem is, if you are arguing in favor of creationism, which you certainly seem to be doing, you are in fact pursuing a religious agenda. You couldn't have creationism without the bible now could you?
I'm not the one citing fiction as some grand explanation. I'm not attempting to argue the existance of a supreme being. If you feel the need to classify my beliefs, fine: in regards to the christian god, I would be an atheist, but if we're talking omnipotent, omniscent beings in general you can classify me as an agnostic. Feel better? Think what you want, going by your previous statements I feel just great that I'm doing opposite of what seems right to you.

on a side note, do you know who you, and the rest of your buddies here, sound like? you guys sound like the catholic church during the days of old. the church and you guys love to use the argument that you have documented proof and that anyone that doesnt believe [or support your theorey] is an idiot [or a heretic]. the only difference is that the catholic church burned people at the stake, you guys just wish you could get away with it.

I see European History isn't a strength of yours either. Do you hear us condemning any of you? No. Do you hear any of us wishing bodily harm upon you? No. That's the job of religious zealots. Free-thinkers don't persecute, but that doesn't mean we can't call bullsh!t where we see it. We may draw attention to your views, and press you to defend your position, but trust me (and I think I can speak for the rest of these guys as well) we won't lose any sleep over knowing you believe in what you do. Ignorance is bliss, and we're all glad you're so happy. Really.

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all of the other possible gods you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts

 

[iBold]

Yay for living in the second worst state! lol

-------------------------
Web Host Reviews
iPowerWeb Review : StartLogic Review : LunarPages Review
PHP Website Scripts

 

[Sahakiel]

Proposal :

Evolutionists prefer anarchy whereas Creationists favor order.


Reason :

Those who believe evolution to be valid tend to believe at one point or another that exercising free will is better than being oppressed. The idea is that because nature uses natural selection to weed out weakness, one's personal survival is dependent on one's personal strengths and others' weaknesses. Therefore, society tends towards anarchy as the common masses prepare to secure their individual futures. However, with anarchy, humanity proceeds towards degenerate chaos or relatively greater strength as weaker traits are killed off and stronger traits are bred true.

Those who believe Creation to be valid are implying that humans are weak. Humans require a higher being to shape and secure their futures. As a society, humanity should be wary of radical changes because humans have no capacity for determining which change is better. They must await the decision from the higher being before accepting a new technology. The side effect is that humanity stagnates and remains weak because it does not arm itself with tools necessary to strengthen themselves. Yet, over time, it is hoped that humanity will be guided towards the correct paths by said higher being even if it may take a thousand years per innovation. The goal is to adopt better means of extracting resources for survival while avoiding messy conflicts.


Conclusion :

STFU

 

[Genesys]

Taken from Implications of Evolution by G.A. Kerkut:

There are seven basic assumptions that are often not mentioned during discussions of evolution. Many evolutionists ignore the first six assumptions and only consider the seventh. The assumptions are as follows:

1) non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred.
2) spontaneous generation occurred only once
3) viruses, bacteria, plants, and animals are all related
4) protozoa gave rise to metazoa
5) various invertabrate phyla are interrelated
6) invertabrates gave rise to vertabrates
7) within vertabrates, the fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to reptiles, the reptiles to birds and mammals.

_________________________________________________________end plagerism_________________________________________________________

we also know that in evolution, you either use what you have or lose it, correct? So, therefore, why are the various species of animals still around? If man evolved from primate, why has the primate not died off? Something obviously wasnt working for it, so it evolved into a higher lifeform, yet primates are still around. For that matter, why are single celled organisms still around?

Not only that, but to listen to evolution theorey, one also is to believe that evolution is random [eg, not every lifeform evolves at the same time, lifeforms only evolve when evolution is necesitated] So, how can random changes in a lower lifeform give rise to the complexity of that which it evolves to?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: kage69

I hope you encourage the same incredulity when he's told about evolution, else you're worse than she is.

It speaks volumes on the matter that the evolutionist-side encourages more study, and a healthy skepticism of sources and opinions, whereas the creationist side takes their conclusion, works backwards from there, and does everything it can (hey, like passing laws concerning school curriculum!) to eradicate opposing views or concepts.

All I'm asking for anybody to do is look realistically at the "evidence". It's astoundingly ironic that you're faulting me for not being a skeptic, when you're believing a theory that begins with something suddenly forming from nothing.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: kage69
Btw, great link Orsorum. Give it a read HoP, I'd be interested in hearing you attempt to debunk some of it's 'fairytale' qualities. :beer:

Now who's the apologetic?

Link Explains the, intentional, confusion.

Do things organize themselves? No. They disorganize themselves. Order cannot rise from chaos.

Of course it does. It happens all the time.

 

[maluckey]

Hmmmmnn........The Roman Catholic Church (the largest group of Christians in the world), teaches that Evolution is not inconsistent with Gods Creation of the Universe. The current Pope states that he sees no issues contradicting the Bible as far as "Big Bang" is concerned. Be this as it may, it doesn't affect the facts as known thus far from scientific observation. They are dependent (edit: NOT dependant) on religious interpretation.

There are literally hundreds of Creation stories out there, each with it's own claim of accuracy. We cannot accept that every variant is correct. To choose one, from a religious text at that, is not the way public funds should be spent. Either teach ALL Creation stories as a way to open closed minds, or NONE. Science is science, and requires no faith to make it work. Religion requires you to be faithful. They are not the same, nor should you atempt to vilify one or the other based on whether one contradicts the other.

Religion should not be selectively taught in public funded schools. I think that many agree with this statement.

 

[kage69]

All I'm asking for anybody to do is look realistically at the "evidence". It's astoundingly ironic that you're faulting me for not being a skeptic, when you're believing a theory that begins with something suddenly forming from nothing.

I'd like, just once, to see some "realistic" evidence of creationism. I don't have any faith in your stories, so what can you provide?

 

[kage69]

Religion should not be selectively taught in public funded schools. I think that many agree with this statement.

Exactly. Creationism has about as much business being taught in biology class as astrology does in an astronomy class. If parents feel the need to indoctrinate their children as such, fine, that's their right as parents, but it ought to be done in a private school, NOT a state-funded public school.

 

[chess9]

Kage69:

You have shown the patience of Job. Someone needs to pin a medal on you.

Here's what I propose be done. All of the creationists should read two books on evolution and then, and only then, report back for discussion. Those books should be one of the books mentioned in the posts above, except the creationist nonsense written, probably, by some guy with a phony PhD from a phony university or from a bible institute.

Once they have bothered to read basic evolutionary materials, then we can resume this discussion. Otherwise, we are just pissing in the wind.

-Robert

 

[chess9]

Moonie:

LOL!

That's Pulitzer stuff. You really gotta' find a way to can that lightning before it all escapes.

-Robert

 

[Czar]

another thread which is related
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=38&threadid=1241617

 

[chess9]

We have these discussions every few months. Every time the creationists waddle in with their pronouncements but NO FACTS. I've yet to see one creationist post a scientific theory of creation. I still want to know how creation can be falsified.

Essentially, they've made themselves stupid on purpose. They refuse enlightment because they are dead certain it will destroy their delicate faith. If my faith were so perishable I'd reinvest in better stock!

-Robert

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: chess9
Moonie:

LOL!

That's Pulitzer stuff. You really gotta' find a way to can that lightning before it all escapes.

-Robert

This part is absolutly true. I read the Scientific American at the Docs office that day and looked it up on the web:

Homo georgicus

This species was named in 2002 to contain fossils found in Dmanisi, Georgia, which seem intermediate between H. habilis and H. erectus. The fossils are about 1.8 million years old, consisting of three partial skulls and three lower jaws. The brain sizes of the skulls vary from 600 to 680 cc. The height, as estimated from a foot bone, would have been about 1.5 m (4'11"). A partial skeleton was also discovered in 2001 but no details are available on it yet. (Vekua et al. 2002, Gabunia et al. 2002)

This part I added:

The cranial demensions resemble those of modern day American Georgians, Homo imbicilicus.

Hardly Pulitzer, I think.

And all this talk about the absurdity of spontaneous creation is making me nervous and shaking my faith. I'm beginning to ask myself how did God evolve if something can't come from nothing. If it's so damn impossible for life to appear, how did He get here.

 

[Moonbeam]

The Republic of Georga, by the way.

 

[kage69]

You have shown the patience of Job. Someone needs to pin a medal on you.

Here's what I propose be done. All of the creationists should read two books on evolution and then, and only then, report back for discussion. Those books should be one of the books mentioned in the posts above, except the creationist nonsense written, probably, by some guy with a phony PhD from a phony university or from a bible institute.

Once they have bothered to read basic evolutionary materials, then we can resume this discussion. Otherwise, we are just pissing in the wind.

Why thank you. I think you're right Rob, although hoping that these guys will take the time to pursue some rudimentary knowledge on that which they disagree with is borderline wishful-thinking. Selective skeptics are like that.

Essentially, they've made themselves stupid on purpose. They refuse enlightment because they are dead certain it will destroy their delicate faith. If my faith were so perishable I'd reinvest in better stock!

I consider this and moon's 'whispering circle' allusion to be the most poignant statements in the thread so far. Good on ya guys. :beer:

 

[preCRT]

What are the other 5 States that have banned "Evolution" in Teaching?

Found four of the five:
Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, and West Virginia

 

[DealMonkey]

I actually received a form response back from Kathy Cox. OMG, how exciting!!

FROM: kathycox@doe.k12.ga.us

Thank you for your feedback regarding the proposed Georgia Performance
Standards. If you have not already done so, please take the time to read
the actual document, which is in draft form and available for public comment and review, on our website at http://www.gadoe.org. During this time of public input, we are using the feedback of our teachers, students, parents, and members of the public to help us make final revisions to the proposed curriculum, which will be up for approval by the State Board of Education in May.

So, apparently, it was all a big misunderstanding. If you go to the link she offers, there is an explanation of what's really going on here . . .

Atlanta 1/28/04 - At a new conference that took place at 3:00 PM on Thursday, January 29th, Georgia?s State Superintendent of Schools Kathy Cox addressed the misconceptions about the draft of our state?s new Georgia Performance Standards Biology Curriculum.

The Georgia Department of Education (DOE) has received many inquiries concerning some of the terminology used in our proposed biology curriculum under the new Georgia Performance Standards.

Superintendent Cox said, ?We want to invite the public to read the actual document, which is in draft form and available for public comment and review, on our website at www.gadoe.org. During this time of public input, we are using the feedback of our teachers, students, parents, and members of the public to help us make final revisions to the proposed curriculum, which will be up for approval by the State Board of Education in May. If the public wishes that changes be made, we will do so.?

Examples of Evolutionary Concepts in the Proposed Biology Curriculum

Those who read the draft of the science curriculum will find that the concepts of Darwinism, adaptation, natural selection, mutation, and speciation are actually interwoven throughout the standards at each grade level. Students will learn of the succession through history of scientific models of change, such as those of Lamarck, Malthus, Wallace, Buffon, and Darwin.

They will become scientifically literate by learning the process of scientific inquiry and seeing the way science changes as a result of new discoveries and theories.

They will become familiar with the development of living organisms and their changes over time, including inherited characteristics that lead to survival of organisms and their successive generations.

And they will be prepared for college by having been exposed in detail to the models that the scientific community currently embraces.

Why, then, is the word itself not used in the draft of the curriculum, when the concepts are there? The unfortunate truth is that "evolution" has become a controversial buzzword that could prevent some from reading the proposed biology curriculum comprehensive document with multiple scientific models woven throughout. We don't want the public or our students to get stuck on a word when the curriculum actually includes the most widely accepted theories for biology. Ironically, people have become upset about the exclusion of the word again, without having read the document.

It sounds like Kathy is just trying to "trick" the bible thumpers into thinking the schools aren't teaching evolution, when in reality they very much are. Interesting. Do you think the fervently religious will fall for it?