# Unbelievable, is our president that dumb



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Apparently moving forward in time is not the only option when it comes to education:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/e3658032-03bb-11d...000e2511c8.html

Separation of church and state? Hmmmm.....

I dont know why I continue to be perturbed by this president, I've known from the start that he's a retard when it comes to things of science and nature. I just hope he sees that many states aren't going for this. God help the states that support this (no pun intended! )


----------



## hyphen (Apr 4, 2004)

what a moron.


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

Its not like Church and State are seperate anyways. So he does have a point.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

His only point is the one at the top of his dunce cap.

A science class should never be teaching these NON-scientific alternatives. Philosophy and religion classes are fine for these concepts and the discussion would actually be interesting and useful.


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

acestro said:


> His only point is the one at the top of his dunce cap.
> 
> A science class should never be teaching these NON-scientific alternatives. Philosophy and religion classes are fine for these concepts and the discussion would actually be interesting and useful.
> [snapback]1143502[/snapback]​


And this shouldnt happen either










but it does anyways. Hand on bible. Obviously there is no seperation of Church and State. So why bother trying to fight it now?


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

The reason to fight it now is to keep our kids from being the STUPIDEST on the planet.

It takes me long enough to cover evolution as it is in the college courses I've taught. And then I turn around and teach higher level stuff that expects evolution to have been taught in previous courses, and there's loads of students that haven't been taught it!

U.S. education is barely standing on shaking weak legs as it is.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

> Mr Bush's comments threaten to place him outside the mainstream of scientific opinion and align him more closely with social conservatives and with "creationists" who challenge Darwinism on religious grounds.


This hasn't already happened?

And it's not surprising given the character of Bush. The man uses "faith" over logic to run the country, so why should this be any different?


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

As far as Bush being outside of the mainstream of scientific opinion....

I dont even think he's heard of that "stream"









by the way, congrats on that pic in TFH Twitch.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

I believe everyone has heard the creation story. God made it all or someshit, there is nothing to discuss. Those who never visit a church or never read the bible, quran, has heard that story or "theory".

Alternative viewpoints should at least generate a thought instead of religious debate. Jesus man, keep creationism and other religious doctrine in philosophy category.


----------



## eL ChiNo LoCo (Apr 16, 2004)

Basically hes trying to say, for all those who believe God is creator of mankind, read this, and for all those who think we came from monkeys, read this. Im christian and well obviously I believe God created everything. Please no arguements, people have their reasons to believe in God, and others have reasons to believe in theorys.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

eL ChiNo LoCo said:


> Basically hes trying to say, for all those who believe God is creator of mankind, read this, and for all those who think we came from monkeys, read this. Im christian and well obviously I believe God created everything. Please no arguements, people have their reasons to believe in God, and others have reasons to believe in theorys.
> [snapback]1143614[/snapback]​


And that's fine - but science and the creation theory are two different things.
People should be able to think whatever they want, but as soon as science, its future, credibility and effectiveness are not safeguarded, the world's most advanced country slides down towards a theocracy (you know, Iran style: religion dictating what people should learn, think and know).

I'm glad these kinds of absurd and self-destructive ideas (science classes that should teach the creation theory) are as good as absent where I live


----------



## Alexraptor (Jan 30, 2003)

But there is acutally no proof that evolution did happen for certain


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Markosaur said:


> But there is acutally no proof that evolution did happen for certain
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, we can't witness evolution as it happens, but there's plenty of evidence that strongly supports the theory (comparison of lizard/bird skeletons and the Hoatzin bird, the finches of the Galapagos, and not to forget DNA research: must be all a fabrication then).
Can't say that about the creation theory: evidence that strongly supports it is non-existent.


----------



## greebo (Aug 19, 2003)




----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Markosaur said:


> But there is acutally no proof that evolution did happen for certain
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ironic that you are a science _fiction _fan.


----------



## johndeere (Jul 21, 2004)

acestro said:


> Markosaur said:
> 
> 
> > But there is acutally no proof that evolution did happen for certain
> ...


I love reading science fiction myself actually more fantasy type like dragonlanve and wheel of time stuff. But I don't beleive that we came from monkeys.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

one thing to support creation:look around you...do you really think this is all an accident?


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

diddye said:


> one thing to support creation:look around you...do you really think this is all an accident?
> [snapback]1144935[/snapback]​


Evolution does not imply or state that things are an accident and that we just randomly ended up in our current shape along with the rest of the world


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2005)

Great, a thing which has not yet evolved making laws about evolution.

--Dan


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

elTwitcho said:


> diddye said:
> 
> 
> > one thing to support creation:look around you...do you really think this is all an accident?
> ...


Just look at the overall idea of what I said. Dont read too literally into it or try to always refute everything I say. I just dont think a soup of amino acids can evolve from nothing to life as we know it.

Back to the subject yet again, i dont think anything is wrong with giving this as an alternative:
"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,"


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

diddye said:


> one thing to support creation:look around you...do you really think this is all an accident?
> [snapback]1144935[/snapback]​


It's so sad seeing people hide behind rhetoric like this. Whether or not things are accidents or not is not at question. Teaching SCIENCE is. Alternatives are fine, if they're SCIENTIFIC. If they're NOT scientific, then they should be taught in a different class or medium. Why is this so hard for people to understand


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

johndeere said:


> acestro said:
> 
> 
> > Markosaur said:
> ...


Very perceptive..... we came from apes


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

diddye said:


> Back to the subject yet again, i dont think anything is wrong with giving this as an alternative:
> "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,"
> [snapback]1145077[/snapback]​


How does one teach the creation when people can't prove it took place? Its based on faith not science.

There's a big f*cking difference.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

User said:


> diddye said:
> 
> 
> > Back to the subject yet again, i dont think anything is wrong with giving this as an alternative:
> ...


Diddye will find a deceptive way to defend this but it is really not defendable. Science is based on evidence, not faith. Creationism and this intelligent design crap (creationism with a poorly crafted mask) do not operate in ANY way that can be construed as scientific. So they cannot be taught in a science class. Evolution has tons of evidence that is conveniently ignored by the ignorant.


----------



## johndeere (Jul 21, 2004)

acestro said:


> johndeere said:
> 
> 
> > acestro said:
> ...


If you beleive in that that is fine, i'll never try and change your mind or try and make you look foolish for thinking that way like you are trying to do to me.
Apes, monkeys a little pool of water if you beleive thats where you came from it's ok, it's your right to. Free will choose whatever side you want and I'll do the same. Most of our science teachers in jr, high and high school when teaching us evolution told us that just cause they had to teach us about it did not mean that they beleived in it or it was true. Small town though so most people here are religious.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

If someone believes the creation story or theory, One must also believe the whole bible or quran, ect. I have the read the bible to understand how many tick. People who believe the creation, do you believe every event from sodom and gomorrha, global flood, all the way to the revived Roman Empire and the world leader in the "last days"? If you do not, you're a hypocrite.

If the creation story was used in the class room it would lead to other debates revolved around the creation and other doctrine.


----------



## Alexraptor (Jan 30, 2003)

Actually thers also more logic behind Creation.

for example the big bang, a massive explosion caused by a few molecules. now tell me, how would organic life come out of inorganic matter?









it just cant happen. and a explosion of a few molecules woud most likley just combust and not create new matter.

After all one of the laws of physics state that one cannot destroy matter, nor create matter, scientifically if this were to be done the entire universe would collapse. what we think we destroy even if we split it in a nuclear reactor or blow it to liquid its still there, even if we blow it to subatomic particles the subatoms are there and cannot be destroyed or created


----------



## greebo (Aug 19, 2003)

Religion has no place in the education system, apart from in History of course.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Markosaur said:


> Actually thers also more logic behind Creation.
> 
> for example the big bang, a massive explosion caused by a few molecules. now tell me, how would organic life come out of inorganic matter?
> 
> ...


Emmm... you only brought up what's _not_ logical behind evolution/Big Bang, not what _is_ logical about Creation - you use reverse logic.

So can you tell us what exactly is so logical about (story of) Creation







And what parts can be explained with scientific reasoning (like how does a rib morph into a human, for example, or how does a female become pregnant without being impregnated)?


----------



## indecisive (Apr 1, 2004)

Markosaur said:


> Actually thers also more logic behind Creation.
> 
> for example the big bang, a massive explosion caused by a few molecules. now tell me, how would organic life come out of inorganic matter?
> 
> ...


you think that's hard to believe, how about some guy named "god" decides to reach into some mud and makes a person out of it, then takes his rib out and amkes him a wife.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

acestro said:


> diddye said:
> 
> 
> > one thing to support creation:look around you...do you really think this is all an accident?
> ...


Well if thats true, i guess subjects such as philosophy, religious classes, certain mathmatics, shouldn't be taught either. Hell, the big bang is just an idea....back 5 years ago, they were rethinking if it was even possible. Also, they taught live was impossible w/o oxygen until a couple years ago. Btw, there is a lot of evidence supporting creation, AND there is NO evidence that says creation is not true.


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

i look at it like this..

IF creationism is the begning then your telling me that human babies came from ???? and these infants where able to learn how to eat and survive??? and where protected from other animals by??? and this only happened once a long long time ago in a land far far away where everything was perfect and happy and right? since then nothing has been created things have only evolved????

personally i feel that people with these firm belifes are simple minded and unabel to comprehend the actual truth so they accept the easy one for all thing that are difficult to answer or is unknown and that is religon..

o yeah and the world is flat, we never went to the moon and the shuttle launch last week was just a big magic trick..


----------



## dan-uk (Oct 31, 2004)

Listen to the president stumble on this question :laugh:


----------



## DiPpY eGgS (Mar 6, 2005)

There are many, many invisible forces, and things all around us. Some are: radio waves, Micro waves, oxygen, atmosphere for that matter, magnetic force, electricity, gravity.. etc, etc..

To say there is no god is "faith" as well. You have "faith" that no such thing exists. -You are entitled to that decision. But you can't get around the fact that, faith that there is no god is certainly "a faith."

How come evolutionists act like Dracula recoiling from his reflection in a mirror, when they hear any theory that differs from theirs? It has not been proven, so why the anger, or fear? I don't believe that evolution answers many questions that I have about it, yet I let them be, and I even listen to what they have to say. I am not threatened in the least by their theories, and believe that science is cool









In reality, we have no absolute proven fact of where we came from. We were born, kicked and screamed for food from our mothers, and here we are. We don't know where we came from, and for what purpose, and we don't know where we are going. It is that simple. We rely on "faith" in what we believe.

I choose to believe wholeheartedly in the Bible. People ridicule me left and right about that, but I won't be budged. Go ahead and fire away at me, I am used to it, and it is my blessing to be cursed for it. I will not be harmed by your words, nor do I fear you. I have been blessed MANY times over as a result in my descision to follow Jesus Christ, and I won't stop for you, either. In fact, I invite all who are searching to join me in worship of my King!









Evolution has not been proven, so why slam the door on alternative theories? Are Christians threatening to, or trying to shut down scientists labratories? Not at all. Actually, as a Christian myself, want scientists to continue their research. Go ahead! study! I won't stop you. Please do. My question is this: Why do evolutionists declare Christians to be stupid? LOL

Faith hope love


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

I support presenting all points of view.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

btw macro evolution and micro evolution are two different things. Think/learn about it before slamming religion. Also, name one thing that refutes creation.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

diddye said:


> acestro said:
> 
> 
> > diddye said:
> ...


You guys are missing the point. The point is education and what science is. So many of the arguments for this that have been listed in this thread are flawed, I cant even address all of them. I said things should be taught in a different class than a science class and now I'm saying that other classes shouldn't be taught? Um, no.

There's no evidence against creationism? Well, that depends on how creationism is defined. If it happened 4000 years ago, there's simple chemistry and geology to disprove that. I'm not going down this extreeeeemely tired road, I can give you tons of readings, just look up a lot of Steven Jay Gould's stuff.

Big bang is a bad example because it is not a theory based on a whole lot of concrete evidence. The big bang is also taking us away from the topic at hand (no surprise in that trick).

Explain the the life without oxygen information, I cant wait to tear into that one.







If you mean anaerobic organisms.... well, duh.



> Why do evolutionists declare Christians to be stupid? LOL


I think you misunderstand Dippy. I believe in God and I believe in evolution and I dont declare Christians to be stupid. This is the danger of this situation, it polarized science against religion. That isn't the point! Also, evolution does not have to be proven. You guys all need to read the works of people like Henig to get an idea of how science works.

And there's no 'dracula recoil' dippy, it's just a sad feeling that our kids are going to be disallowed the knowledge of the work and progress that science has completed.

To sum things up, it isn't a question of whether some form of creationism is true or not. It also isn't a question of religion. There is NO SCIENCE behind creationism.

I honestly do think, however, that those that discount the evidence of evolution are doing so because they have a previous belief system that (in their mind) doesn't allow for it in their minds.

Having other things to think about is great. But if you're in a science class, you should be learning science. I once was a religion major in college so I'm not going to fall for all of these tricks, I actually find philosophy and religion fascinating and do see beauty and religion in biology. But you cant incorporate it when you are doing the science itself.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

diddye said:


> btw macro evolution and micro evolution are two different things. Think/learn about it before slamming religion. Also, name one thing that refutes creation.
> [snapback]1145672[/snapback]​


Hmmmm... Do you understand micro and macroevolution? I think I've thought and learned a little bit about it. Also, have I slammed religion? Look closely and note that I'm not falling for this trickery. I am a staunch supporter of religion.

Define your idea of creation in detail, otherwise you are simply trying to set another trap here. If creation includes sparking the beginning of evolution 5 billion years ago, I probably wouldn't bite. If it is contradicting with the strong evidence out there, um... yeah, I'll probably bite.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

By the way, just a poll. How many people here think the Earth is flat? Just a show of hands.....

whenever the slow want to catch up to the 21st... I mean 20th... oh, damn, wait.... the 19th century, I'll be waiting. Evolution does not disprove religion in my book, there is no conflict. For those that have conflict, I'm sorry to be judging your beliefs but there is a lot of fascinating information out there that's really worth looking into.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

diddye said:


> btw macro evolution and micro evolution are two different things. Think/learn about it before slamming religion. *Also, name one thing that refutes creation.*
> [snapback]1145672[/snapback]​


Evidence of evolution refutes the creation and years since the creation refutes the creation story or theory. I hope you're not the type of person that says humans lived among the dinosaurs and or dinosaurs simply never lived. There are some evolution clues encoded within your body. There are clues and evidence in nature to suggest there wasn't a creation. There's clues buried underground still being unearthed.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

User said:


> diddye said:
> 
> 
> > btw macro evolution and micro evolution are two different things. Think/learn about it before slamming religion. *Also, name one thing that refutes creation.*
> ...


The problem is people dont change beliefs easily. If we took those that opposed evolution in this thread at the beginning, odds are they wont believe it (no matter HOW much evidence you throw their way) when it's all said and done. And unless someone gets a lobotomy, all those that believe evolution wont change either.

There are great texts that pick this apart. It's important because there are many persuasive, clever, and tricky creationists that pick at evolutionary theory in ways that give the illusion that it is flawed and those that want to believe creationism (in a Biblical context) will cling to things like that for dear life. It doesn't change the facts, and there are great responses by those that have an amazing amount of patience with these people.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

I've discussed this issue so much, I can't number it. I also recall a conversation on Adam and Eve and few years ago. I said, Adam and Eve wouldn't have had belly buttons, and Adam wouldn't have had nipples. That sparked an interesting debate. BTW, old myth, *women do not have an extra rib*. Lets clear that up for those who may read this thread and don't know.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

I believe in Creationism, but not in a literal sense. However I feel that it should be presented as an alternative so students can see all sides of the equation.


----------



## C.D. (Jan 31, 2005)

why wouldn't adam have nipples?

and maybe they didn't have belly buttons but their children did. if the theory or creation is true, then go could have made the people any way he wanted.

one question i have about evolution is. i understand how an animal can adjust and acclimate to like different climates and maybe grow some sort of limb or extremety (sp) to help i climb or swim or something over a long period of time. BUT, how does an animal evolve to have camouflage. like the bugs that look like leaves. they can't just need camo so they change to look like a leaf can they?


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

C.D. said:


> why wouldn't adam have nipples?
> 
> and maybe they didn't have belly buttons but their children did. if the theory or creation is true, then go could have made the people any way he wanted.
> 
> ...


why are fluke and flounder colored to match teh bottom of the ocean where they generally live?

why are reef fish brighly colored to blend in with the reef?

why are zebra colored so tehy are hard to pick out in a herd?

there are a million quesions like that..

whay are most animals equiped for some type of camoflague but people are equipt with only intelligence to adapt to surroundings and create our own camoflauge??


----------



## C.D. (Jan 31, 2005)

that is my point. if scientists say that most animals and especially insects are incapable of actually thinking and problem solving, then what force can make them blend in, or be camoflauged.
would anyone care to actually answer my question?


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

C.D. said:


> that is my point. if scientists say that most animals and especially insects are incapable of actually thinking and problem solving, then what force can make them blend in, or be camoflauged.
> would anyone care to actually answer my question?
> [snapback]1145850[/snapback]​


just because you can answer it doesnt mean its "god"..


----------



## C.D. (Jan 31, 2005)

i didn't mean to sound like god did it. i was just wondering if anyone knew how all of that happened.

but if no one can explain it and science can't explain it. what else could it be?


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

C.D. said:


> i didn't mean to sound like god did it. i was just wondering if anyone knew how all of that happened.
> 
> but if no one can explain it and science can't explain it. what else could it be?
> [snapback]1145872[/snapback]​


BOO YAA bitchs:

how animals camo with enviroment

There are two ways in which animals produce different colors.

Biochromes, which are microscopic, natural pigments in an animal's body, produce colors chemically. Their chemical makeup is such that they absorb some colors of light and reflect others. The apparent color of a pigment is a combination of all the visible wavelengths of light that are reflected by that pigment.

Animals may also produce colors via microscopic physical structures. Essentially, these structures act like prisms, refracting and scattering visible light so that a certain combination of colors are reflected. Polar bears, for example, actually have black skin but appear white because they have translucent hairs. When light shines on the hairs, each hair bends it a little bit. This bounces the light around so that some of it makes it to the surface of the skin and the rest of it is deflected back out, producing white coloration. In some animals, the two types of coloration are combined. For example, reptiles, amphibians and fish with green coloration typically have a layer of skin with yellow pigment and a layer of skin that scatters light to reflect a blue color. Combined, these layers of skin produce green. To learn more about coloration and light, check out How Light Works.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

C.D. said:


> why wouldn't adam have nipples?
> 
> and maybe they didn't have belly buttons but their children did. if the theory or creation is true, then go could have made the people any way he wanted.
> 
> ...


Research batesian mimicry and müllerian mimicry. Humans have used camouflage to hunt in the past and still do today. Males have nipples because each fetus starts off without a gender, its a developmental clock. Every male has nipples, but they're useless when hormones are released. Since Adam wasn't born from the womb but created, he wouldn't have nipples.


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

after reading that about reflecting surrounding light that makes sense in some cases. if you have ever caught a tropical fish it doesnt have the same colors when you pul it out of the water or if its dead in a cooler as it did when it was in it natural enviroment..


----------



## scrubbs (Aug 9, 2003)

here is my view, although i was never taught evolution or creationism in high school or university. Yes, they should all be taught. BUT, i think evolution should be taught in a science based class, and evolution in another class, like religion or something. There are many subjects that are not based on "concrete scientific evidence" including literature classes. The fact is, there is scientific evidence to support evolution, but there isnt any scientific evidence to support creationism or ID(unless someone can show me some peer reviewed article shwoing there is). There is nothing wrong teaching alternatives, but classes have their material.

I am a very science based person(engineering degree), and i think science(emphasizing the major fields like bio physics and chem) should be protected and kept as a fact based area. When i was in high school, my teachers never said, "this is what i think will happen when we mix these chemicals." They based their view on the research on what was done before.

As to what i think happened. I think it was an amazing series of events that brought us here. With all the planets in the universe, we are here. As far as we know, there are no other planets that have life at all. We have a planet that is mostly water, and low and behold water is a necessity for us. we are mostly water. I think it is just that earth was the ideal planet for life and this it formed here. Every other planet has other conditions that would kill us and every other living thing on earth.


----------



## scrubbs (Aug 9, 2003)

edit, double post.


----------



## cadeucsb (Nov 4, 2004)

I believe that teaching multiple theories is just fine... however you absolutely cannot place creationism and evolution as equally viable solutions... Where as evolution has science to back up several of its claims (given not completely), creationism is backed by nothing more than man made docturine and faith... there is not even an ounce of proof towards creationism except faith... simply the religious persons core not wanting to believe that life might actually be a random set of events that you have responsibility for... you have to rely on someone else to take responsibilty for your life and everything around you.

Live however you want to live, it doesnt make any difference to me... but dont try to teach my child that creationism is anywhere NEAR as viable of an option as evolution.


----------



## DiPpY eGgS (Mar 6, 2005)

ok, just a quick reply Acestro.. Not arguing just asking









How does the theory of creationism mean there is no science behind it??

If planets, solar systems, galaxies, DNA and life were created by God, wouldn't that make Him the best dern scientist that could ever be?

Like I said before, I'm FOR science.. Are people like me against science in your mind because we see the glory of God in what we see as creation?

Also there are many scientists that are creationists, they just don't get any press


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

i dont think bush's intent was to replace evolution or have it as another major subject...i think it was an alternative ie"btw, this is another idea people have about life...". People are taking everything too seriously especially since it another way to jump to conclusions and attack bush.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Yes he supports an alternative view based on religious doctrine, not fact, proof, or evidence. I'm for creationism chat in philosophy class but not science class. Creationism isn't science, its based on religious doctine that has no facts or evidence to support it. Its a no evidence theory. Let parents teach creationism to their child. Its not a school nor a government job.


----------



## cadeucsb (Nov 4, 2004)

diddye said:


> i dont think bush's intent was to replace evolution or have it as another major subject...i think it was an alternative ie"btw, this is another idea people have about life...". People are taking everything too seriously especially since it another way to jump to conclusions and attack bush.
> [snapback]1146065[/snapback]​


not necessarily, once u introduce religion in one form another to a govt based program to something as fundamental as education... where does it end? it opens a lot of doors. If your going to teach something based on religion i want everyone to be taught about my monkey god thor that made people out of snails 9 trillion years ago... when its not based on science, where do you draw the line?


----------



## DiPpY eGgS (Mar 6, 2005)

""Animals may also produce colors via microscopic physical structures. Essentially, these structures act like prisms, refracting and scattering visible light so that a certain combination of colors are reflected. Polar bears, for example, actually have black skin but appear white because they have translucent hairs. When light shines on the hairs, each hair bends it a little bit. This bounces the light around so that some of it makes it to the surface of the skin and the rest of it is deflected back out, producing white coloration. In some animals, the two types of coloration are combined. For example, reptiles, amphibians and fish with green coloration typically have a layer of skin with yellow pigment and a layer of skin that scatters light to reflect a blue color. Combined, these layers of skin produce green. To learn more about coloration and light, check out How Light Works.""

OK Nismo, bear with me, I'm merely having a conversation with ya..

So, (I'm trying to rationalize) just because we can figure out some things about how some things work, does that count out creation? Not in my mind. 
That is like if a scientist cloned an animal, or even a human, does that mean he "created" the animal or human? Absolutely not. He did not create any of the ingredients that he used in his experiments. He merely put what was already there in proper order that was there to begin with.. 
Figuring out what is already here, and how it works seems to have an effect on some humans ego's not unlike blowing up a balloon. They get inflated. Brother, not talking about you, but isn't it true that there would be nothing to study of we never existed in the first place? 
What I am saying is that we have to look at ALL theories, because none are solid fact. But we must deflate our ego's in order to have a clear mind about it all. We created a bunch of things here on this earth.. But we did not create anything apart from what has been given to us here on earth. Lets keep our ego's down here, and look at all points.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

acestro said:


> Apparently moving forward in time is not the only option when it comes to education:
> 
> http://news.ft.com/cms/s/e3658032-03bb-11d...000e2511c8.html
> 
> ...


BTW, alternative*s*? - Plural, Bush only mentioned ID.









Maybe schools should start to teach aliens created life on this planet, with no proof what so ever to back that sh*t up. Again where does it end? Faith before logic has always ruined ideas.


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

DiPpY eGgS said:


> OK Nismo, bear with me, I'm merely having a conversation with ya..
> 
> So, (I'm trying to rationalize) just because we can figure out some things about how some things work, does that count out creation? Not in my mind.
> That is like if a scientist cloned an animal, or even a human, does that mean he "created" the animal or human? Absolutely not. He did not create any of the ingredients that he used in his experiments. He merely put what was already there in proper order that was there to begin with..
> ...


i see what your saying, just because we understand how it works doesnt mean we can explain how it got that way.. how ever we can to an extent explain through natural selection, basically trial and error.. also things started out as single cells and through what ever forces of nature they mutated or evolved to eventually become what they are now.. something as simple as a creature with a birth defect that breds with another creature could very easily lead to the natural evolution of that species or creation of a new speices with out the force of the unknown being involved..

its all very interesting but honestly with dna technology and all of the other technology that we have eventually all of these mysteries could be unfolded, of course many of the clues of all of our origins are burried under billions of years of the plants gowth and evolution.. the planet its self is an example of creation growth and evolution.. the way the planet was formed the necessary elements for life formed together at the right distance from the sun during the right time of the suns life cycle are all ingredients that are part of our existance.. teh more we learn abotu other planets and eventually other systems the more we can understand and appreciate the uniqueness of this planet..

its like seed for a plant you can put the seeds in the ground but if the rest of the formula for growth is provided nothign will happen. well here on earth every thin did happen..

if creation theroys claim that we were created then how does it explain the other planet in our system and the millions of other systems out there.. where they all failed attemps at what has succeded here?

there are alot of differnt things to consider..


----------



## cadeucsb (Nov 4, 2004)

The more i keep hearing about this debate (outside of pfury as well)... all the people that are proponents of creationism (or by the term "intelligent design" which our president masks religious ideals) only rationalize creationism by saying evolution isnt right...

not by saying here is such and such evidence as to why our theory is right... if scientists spent as much time concentrating on refuting creationism rather than proving evolution, the idea of creationism would be laughable by now. Again, no one has 100% proved evolution, however no one has ever proved that creationism is even a possibility other than by faith.

Take age of earth for example, with some carbon dating we can find relatively accurate ages of things. (although it is not exactly correct to the day, the amount it is incorrect is immaterial...ie: a rock is 2 billion yrs old and the date is off by 1000yrs.. it doesnt make a difference)... now creationism preaching 5000 yr old earth is fundamentally wrong from the outset.... so while evolution may not be 100%... creationism is flawed to the core, utilizes no scientific findings and only tries to disprove others rather than proving themselves right...

on that note, if you want to teach the idea of creationism fine... but make sure you present the exact amount of scientific data behind it as well as let any ideas be introduced as well as long as the scientific data is presented as well, people can make educated decisions from there.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Lots of talk about a lot of cool stuff here. I really only meant to discuss how science is taught to our children in the US.

How animals evolve camouflage or how real amazing things like our eye evolved are really cool questions. Some have been answered by science (through evolution) and some aren't answered. It's those unanswered questions that are the coolest and what make most good scientists tick!

I'm in agreement with you Dippy, scientists that are religious dont get the press. How boring would it be for both theories to be right. God is one heck of a scientist! Us mortal scientists can only marvel and strive to understand what She has done (I prefer 'She' for God....







giving birth to all things, etc...)


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Bummed out that User stole my answer for the nipples question.







That's a classic that's fun to shoot down.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

> with some carbon dating we can find relatively accurate ages of things.


Just wanted to add one more thing. Carbon dating only is good for things around 50,000 years or younger. Other techniques determine the age of the earth, dinosaur fossils, etc.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Really not to sure that this is really mixing science with religion. I think its more the fact that every american has to have their way and everything has to be so fair and equal. Lil akmad wants to wear his traditional dress knife to school. Schools dont allow weapons brought to school. The school suspends lil akmed. Lil akmeds parents contact the ACLU... And the rest is history.
Whats wrong with america today is the over sensitive assholes and the f*cking ACLU.









*steps off soapbox


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

What?


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

......yeah, what???


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

QUE?!?!


----------



## solar-ton (Aug 5, 2005)

THAT JESUS LOVING DUMBASS!!!!!!!!!!!he wont even allow stem-cell reserach


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

get a clue? There is currently steam cell research going on.


----------



## solar-ton (Aug 5, 2005)

oh i dont watch the news often


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

At the moment federal money can only be spent on *22* stem cell lines derived before Bush put a freeze on research in 2001. BTW what does stem cell research have in common with this topic?


----------



## Blacksheep (Dec 11, 2003)

solar-ton said:


> THAT JESUS LOVING DUMBASS!!!!!!!!!!![snapback]1149605[/snapback]​


Yeah...that won't offend anyone.

Ticks me off how if you make a racial comment on this thread everyone comes out of the woodwork and people get banned, but make a comment like this and it is o.k.

There is a huge difference between teaching creation vs. intelligent design. HUGE DIFFERENCE! When you look at a pocketwatch, and open up the back and see all the gears moving and you see the pocket watch work, you know instantly that there had to be an intelligent creator. You would not think that all the parts just randomly fell in to place. We are not saying WHO the creator was, but that it was created by intelligent design. The primary belief with intelligent design is God, but it is very wrong to say that all who believe in intelligent design belive in God, it just simply does not work that way.

Just recently one of the primary atheists of our world made the statement that creation has to stem from intelligent design. YET, he in no way states that it is creation in the sense that it comes from or was done by God.

Evolution is a theory. Creationism is a theory. Aliens developed this planet and will come get us at a later date, is a theory.

Here is what ticks me off, and I will use the local public high school in my city as an example. They (the school) will teach all kinds of stuff, and some of it is really out there. For example, they have a section in one of the SCIENCE classes on personal meditation with the emphasis on transendental meditation and the effects of transendental mediation on the body and mind.

Yet, if I tried to get them to teach on prayer and the effects of it on the mind and the body, they would come unglued that I am trying to teach religion in the classes. Time magazine recently did a study on the effects of prayer on the human body...and Time magazine has NO CONNECTION to the church. Transendental meditation is nothing more than another division of a religion. Why is one o.k. and the other is not?

What does this have to do with the topic of conversation? Why is it o.k. to teach evolution in the schools, but to bring in any other discussion on alternate beliefs it is a merging of church and state? Just because you teach them (the other theories) does not mean combination of church and state. Forcing an hour each day dedicated to Chapel in the schools would be a combination of church and state.

We are never going to find out the origin of man, or how we came into being. It is going to always have 3-4 different theories behind it. So why not educate the same way.

Not trying to start an argument, just getting in on the fun.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

solar-ton said:


> THAT JESUS LOVING DUMBASS!!!!!!!!!!!he wont even allow stem-cell reserach
> [snapback]1149605[/snapback]​


Please have respect for other members of the forum. Flame Bush all you want, but show some courtesy to our community, many of our members are Christian


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Jewelz said:


> solar-ton said:
> 
> 
> > THAT JESUS LOVING DUMBASS!!!!!!!!!!!he wont even allow stem-cell reserach
> ...


Agreed. I dont think Bush is too bright on science but you're taking a stance just as offensive as Bush's ignorance (actually you're offending more than 1/2 the U.S.).

And please note that I intended NONE of this to be anti-religion (although diddye did try to bait me







). This is about teaching SCIENCE. Religion and philosophy are beautiful things that are usually not founded in science. Science teachers aren't rallying to teach cell biology in an Asian studies class, are they?


----------



## cadeucsb (Nov 4, 2004)

All this stuff about creation and evolution being theories get soooo old... its all i keep hearing lately. Yes evolution is not 100% proven, but there is definately scientific data behind it... creationism has nothing more proving it than a bunch of people not willing to accept the random state of the universe (there is no science whatsoever)... Yes they are both theories, but they are no where near the same plane scientifically.

heres a little reference: there is an equation.... 2 + 2 = 4
evolutionists have proven the first 2 and the second 2 and know that it equals 4, but cannot 100% prove the +.

creationists just know the 4 and *assume* that someone greater than them has to be responsible.

Thats an assumption i dont want my kids taught as its an assumption predicated on faith to a religous docturine... if you want to teach your kids that, no big deal, there are TONS of religous schools out there... just keep it out of govt funded public education


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

And Pastor Jeff, who is one of the coolest members on this board, I finally disagree with









Alternatives are a great thing and should be presented to children. There will be all kinds of fuss but other religions of the world (Judaism, Islam, Zen Buddhism, etc.) would be cool to expose kids to as well. Unlike many folks, I'm not just saying that for the sake of argument, I really think it would be a cool idea (some right wing folks would probably flip out though, imagine that going on in Mississippi!).



> Evolution is a theory. Creationism is a theory. Aliens developed this planet and will come get us at a later date, is a theory.


That is the part I disagree with. Sure, I could make up extra theories to add to that list but only Evolution is based in scientific fact. Intelligent design is only based on an observation, not scientific fact. Intelligent design may very well be a bridge between evolution and religion but it isn't science.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

I also agree with cadeucsb (although your name is quite odd







), it gets back to the point. Let's not disadvantage our kids by teaching them something that doesn't have scientific backing in a science class.


----------



## KrazyCrusader (Oct 26, 2004)

I don't believe many things that are presented in Genesis however you have to admit that life is far to intricate and complicated for man to pretend to understand. The more that we learn the more we realize there is to learn. Many of the most intelligent people to ever have lived were Christians. I don't think that we should quit teaching evolution theory but there is nothing wrong with presenting Creationism as well.


----------



## cadeucsb (Nov 4, 2004)

Acestro... its actually CadeUCSB...hehe Cade being my name... I think the basic point is, you can teach the idea of creationism in a class like philosophy or similar... you cant teach it along side evolution in a biology class because its not science.


----------



## Blacksheep (Dec 11, 2003)

acestro said:


> And Pastor Jeff, who is one of the coolest members on this board, I finally disagree with
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Acestro - Thanks for the compliment, and I have no problem with disagreement, I love it actually as it gives me another look into another viewpoint.

O.K. Here are my questions to your response. Remember that my worldview is totally centered on my beliefs, so my questions are going to obviously center around that.

How do you define "Scientific Fact"? Here is my concern about using the term scientific fact with evolution. Scientific fact creates an absolute that cannot be aruged with (I am scared to go down this road as I am not a teacher of this...I am getting my fireproof underwear on! HooDoggie!), such as the ability for a species of animal to develop a defense technique. I think that is called Generational Evolution (but I think you know the thing I am talking about). That can be scientifically proven as we see it with our own eyes. And I totally agree that, that type of evolution takes place.

However, what scientific fact is there for species evolution? Every type of mutation that we have tried to create or develop has only created chas rather than an improvement in the species?!? For example...Down Syndrome.

Does this make sense? I know what I am trying to ask, but not sure if it is coming across in the right way?

If this does not belong in this thread, I will glady start a new thread with these questions. Again, remember, I have almost in a way been inundated with Creationistic thoughts, so I am asking this out of serious curiosity, not to start a fight.

Thanks Acestro! Good conversation!

There have been alot of good conversations on P-Fury lately!


----------



## Blacksheep (Dec 11, 2003)

cadeucsb said:


> I think the basic point is, you can teach the idea of creationism in a class like philosophy or similar... you cant teach it along side evolution in a biology class because its not science.
> [snapback]1149888[/snapback]​


I agree with this statement 100%!!! And it is refreshing to hear someone say that!

But my question as I stated above is what deems Evolution to be backed with scientific data? I do understand how Creationism is not backed with scientific data but rather faith, I had not thought about it like that, but I do understand where you are coming from on that.

Whew...wait until I see the Sr. Pastor on Wednesday, I am going to make his brain hurt! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## cadeucsb (Nov 4, 2004)

As a small point to what you said Jeff... mutations that we create have nothing to do with interspecies evolution. That is something that takes such a long period of time that we cannot simply replicate and prove it before everyones eyes. Which is obviously the limiting factor in keeping Evolution from being absolute fact. However if we can witness mutation on that level before our very eyes...does it not begin to make sense of what evolution claims over Bilions of years?

Obviously the point isnt to prove that evolution isnt fact, everyone knows that. However there is science behind what has been proven and there is nothing on par with that in terms of Intelligent design. I mean even the core idea of the earth only being a couple thousand years old is completely flawed due to scientific fact.


----------



## cadeucsb (Nov 4, 2004)

PastorJeff said:


> cadeucsb said:
> 
> 
> > I think the basic point is, you can teach the idea of creationism in a class like philosophy or similar... you cant teach it along side evolution in a biology class because its not science.
> ...


Yea I think if more people took this approach, the uproar would be far less significant. But for a lot of very religious people its a way to work religion into public education and could become a trojan horse for other agendas...

But to shut any idea out is ignorant... just present them on the footing they should be... ie: religious beliefs (all, not just christianity) in a philosophical basis and leave science in the bio classes.


----------



## Blacksheep (Dec 11, 2003)

The way you summed it up I have to say that I agree with you 100%. No matter how hard you try, you cannot (and I mean CANNOT) make Creationism a science any more than you can call the Bible a history book (that one annoys me as well)

Thanks, good conversation!


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

solar-ton said:


> THAT JESUS LOVING DUMBASS!!!!!!!!!!!he wont even allow stem-cell reserach
> [snapback]1149605[/snapback]​


This is your first and only warning. Another blatant comment of disrespect towards any of our members will ensure you get banned.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

> However, what scientific fact is there for species evolution? Every type of mutation that we have tried to create or develop has only created chas rather than an improvement in the species?!? For example...Down Syndrome.


Species evolution largely becomes a case by case study with lots of arguments among scientists as to what mechanisms happened (or are happening) and who's related to who. What this doesn't change is all of the mechanisms that have been shown to cause evolution in species studied before (mutation, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, gene flow, allopatry, etc.)

The mutation point you make is actually VERY insightful. Most mutations (nearly ALL) are one of two things; lethal or neutral. What that means is they are harmful to the organism or do absolutely jack squat (the mutation occurring in DNA that isn't used, etc.). It is extremely rare for a mutation to be one that makes things better for an organism. But over much time (as Cade indicated) stuff happens!



> Acestro... its actually CadeUCSB...hehe Cade being my name... I think the basic point is, you can teach the idea of creationism in a class like philosophy or similar... you cant teach it along side evolution in a biology class because its not science.


That would be an excellent summary Cade, I've probably been too wordy...











> I don't believe many things that are presented in Genesis however you have to admit that life is far to intricate and complicated for man to pretend to understand.


People pretend all the time! And the complexities are worthy of scientific research and make evolutionary biology one of THE most fascinating things on the planet. The more you look into evolution, the more you'll find it to be more fascinating than just about anything else in this world (I'm a little biased, being a biologist).

Origins and divine effects on the goings on of the planet are on an equal level of fascination to me but can be taught well in other classes.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

acestro said:


> His only point is the one at the top of his dunce cap.
> 
> [snapback]1143502[/snapback]​


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Scrap5000 said:


> acestro said:
> 
> 
> > His only point is the one at the top of his dunce cap.
> ...


I was wondering if anyone noticed that!


----------

