Oh fun news...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/12....ap/index.html
Printable View
Oh fun news...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/12....ap/index.html
I seldom post in this part of the forums now, but Is till like to read it. Anyway, I have to mention that strictly scientifically speaking niether evolution, nor creation has been proven. I am a practicing Christian, I believe in creation, I have some quams with evolution. Nevertheless, let it be known that despite some brillient rhetoric, facts, and hypothisese there is no scientific proof for either. At least none that i have ever heard as published.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noais_Dantes
Cheers!
I didn't say I could disprove Creationism. I said your argument was flawed, and easily refuted. The only way for me to disprove Creationism by disproving your argument would be if your argument was direct proof of Creationism, when, in fact, it had nothing to do with the subject. I also said that, over the past two centuries, there has been evidence gathered to support various (read: not all) theories of evolution. This is in no way the same as proving Evolution as the singular origin of all life on Earth, thereby inevitably disproving the rival theory of Creation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noais_Dantes
Please don't misquote me, especially when the quote itself is visible not two inches away. The word "prove" does not appear anywhere in my previous post. I take great care in choosing the words I use. Unless I say "prove," I do not mean "prove." Please read more carefully, if you wish to engage in an intellectual discussion.
You will find that I have great patience for intelligent arguments with which I disagree. If, however, you do not have the patience to even pay attention to the topic on which you are arguing, I do not have patience for you.
Please don't take offense at this, Rachel, but you don't talk to something unless you already believe it to be there. Talking to God, no matter what you say to him, is an admission of faith. I believe that any answer you get, you get because you're already expecting to hear one. Also, bread results from chemical reactions between heat and the ingredients. Understanding bread doesn't require a leap of faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by rachel
:( It takes courage and patience beyond my comprehension to be a teacher of science in Kansas.Quote:
Originally Posted by jamuscubed
I take no offense Emily. So GLAD you are back. No it was not because I already believed. It was because I was tired of people I knew talking to Him, I was being rude and mocking and so just said it. And the very fact that I heard what I heard made me stop being rude and just at least try to find out why i heard what I heard, was it just me or was it possible it was Him? Because of the life I had I couldn't see how there could possibly be a God, but if there was one I didn't like him. Well it is hard to explain but believe me I made quite a few enemies back then because I believed Darwin.
for all of you who think we evolved i suggest that you.
A. go get a bible.
B. go to church.
and C. learn about GOD!
I learnt quite enough about "god" while I was at school. I've been to a church, well, for a concert, but we had compulsory praying and stuff in chapel at school, RE classes, etc. and that was quite enough. Pure hypocrisy. And as to a bible...we already have two in the house, one from when I was at school and the second from when my father was at school. No thanks.
My friends. There is no reason to debate. Some will drive themselves mad trying to convince some people that Darwin even existed. Some people think war is a necessary part of life, that we all must endure it, to preserve a limited edition of 'freedom'. It is some peoples lot in life to distract free thinking individuals from thier passions to debate the non debateable. Sit back, relax in the comfort of your homes and know the truth that evolution is proven fact. Aristotle is dead and has not been required reading in school since the 15th century, and it will always be so. Creationists/fundamentalists will fume as they grasp at straws and try to turn back the clock :rage: . So have a tea and breathe and have a look at the fossil record. Its not going anywhere soon. There is no debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by nodia 4
Those of you evolution fans dedicated to trying to convince or sway the creationist converted, watch out for viruses on your emails. :banana:
Good point. :D
But they think there is...[a debate]
Since we had a little humor with the "Peanuts" cartoon on the "Christians Thread", and frankly I have used examples from "Peanuts" in sermons, please take the following poem, which I published in a Sci-Fi magazine once also as the humor it is mean to be:
Darwin Down the Drain
On the continent of North America,
in the mountains of the East,
an undiscovered species of Man was found
a-living like a beast!
The Government convened a panel,
whose duty was to ascertain
just who and what this poor being was,
and just from whence he came!
The committee was a varied one;
a Minister, a Scientist, and a Lawyer too;
a burley Sergeant of the Marines,
a Politician, and an Old Maid. (What’s she to do?)
The Politician looked at him,
and this is what he said:
“If he’ll vote for me, then he’s OK!
If not, I’ll bust his head!”
The Old Maid looked him up and down,
then proceeded to relate:
“We haven’t met. My name’s Matilda Brown.
Big Boy, how about a date!”
The Scientist said, “He can’t exist!
I’ll prove he isn’t real!”
And then he bopped him on the shins
to see if he could feel!
The Lawyer said to him: “Dear Sir,
you are bedecked with feathers from an eagle
in violation of Code 45, Section C.
Sir, I’m telling you—that’s illegal!”
The Sergeant ran an appraising eye
along the Wildman’s show of muscle.
Then he barked: “Tension! I could use youse, son,
Youse be great in a tussle!”
The Minister looked long at him,
his face was very grave.
He said: “Son, do you know that you are lost?
Or that you have a soul to save?”
But then the Aborigine burst out
In a voice both clear and loud:
“Yer d’sturbin’ maw fishin’, ye buncha fules!
Now, gear out afore I trow ye out!”
Pendragon
It was published under my initals, of course. Everybody loosen up and have a good day. And as for a debate, it only requires two sides of an issue. If it requires you to be able to PROVE one side or the other, we'd never have a Presidential debate.... :lol: :lol:
Wow, you solved the problem! and it only took 785 posts to come to that...great post nadia...Quote:
Originally Posted by nodia 4
One quick question that maybe isn't addressed in your answer book. How do hindu's/bokononists/raelians (fill in a non-christian or jewish religion) feel about evolution? Oh yeah and you can consult your bible because it's an open book test.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jollyollie
"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution, because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."—*Ronald R. West, "Paleontology and Uniformitarianism"
Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and on the other hand, that geology is documented by evolution? Isn’t this a circular argument?"—*Larry Azar
The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."—*J.E. O’Rourke, "Pragmatism versus Materialism and Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science
"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution, because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory." —*Ronald R. West, "Paleontology and Uniformitarianism"
It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the [fossil] record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences." —George G. Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution, p. 360.
A wise man said once: "Just when you think you've got it all figured out someone throws a spanner (monkeywrench) into the works!" This will never really end you know. People who refuse to accept a creator will continue to do so. People who refuse to accept evolution in any form will continue to do so. And persons trying to find middle ground will get bumped from both directions. The creations will say that we have denied the Bible and the Evolutionist will say we haven't gone far enough. Both camps seem to be in a get in or get out state of mind. There is room for a creator to set things in motion and evolution to shape it from there. I've said before, you cannot put God into time, it means nothing to him. Besides, everything was "formed from the dust of the earth" AFTER the seven (days, thousand years, whatever) of Creation was OVER. How long did that take? Time was never counted until after Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden. How long were they there? Anybody know? I don't, and I study the Bible. Hey. we know dinosaurs existed, so are they the dragons in the Bible or mabe Levaethian? Behemoth? Dragon legends exist in all cultures, as well as sea serpents. Is this the dinos? Questions--questions--questions. I don't think anyone truly has all the answers, but as Mulder always said: The truth is out there, somewhere... ;) :nod: :nod:
The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
-Gen. 1:1
Not putting God into time, rather God created time.
Where in the Bible does it say everything was created from dust?
It doesn't.
Man was created from dust.
Once God created the sun, moon and stars a day would have been what it is today.
God made the plants the day before the sun , moon and stars. A thousand years without the sun's light is a long time for a plant to survive.
I do not know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden,
but the Bible says, "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:"
-Gen. 5:3
So it was less than 130 years, and Adam had two sons before that, after he was kicked out of the garden.
Gen. 2:7-25 is describing only the events that took place on day 6 in the Garden of Eden.
The purpose of this second creation of trees may have been to let Adam see that God did have power to create, that He was not just taking credit for the existing world.
.
.
.
1 Corinthians 15:45-47
45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[e]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.
e. 1 Corinthians 15:45 Gen. 2:7
Forgive me, all, but I must insist on this. To force someone to appreciate something they have no intention on accepting or believing in is -------! Fill in the blank. Personally as a parent, I believe the scriptures belong in the church or sunday school. The debate is not, or should not be Darwin. Mr Darwin did his part in science. The debate is what do we believe our children should learn in school? Thankfully, my children learn that evoltution is the ticket to learn; you wont go far in Harvard developmental biology or genetics if try to tell your prof that the world was invented in seven days by a large handed fellow who doesnt like to be photographed. I think instead of picking on Mr Darwin, why not ask Dr. SJ Gould of Harvard University and see what his opinion on evolution is.
Now, dont get your feathers in a bonnet, because the point is teach your kids what you want, but dont force it on them, or someone elses kids. It is irresponsible and maybe theyll want to go to Harvard some day.
In the world of science there is no debate. Confusing rhetoric is just that.
Persons of aboriginal descent will agree with me when I say that ones personal beliefs should be honored, and persons who are different will always be different, and should be left that way. Not forced by violent means to embrace something they dont understand, or cant verify.
There is no debate, it simply doesnt exist. If someone tells someone who is different, to "go to church and read the bible" to discount evolution in science and education, that is fundamentally irresponsible. Take my words apart and twist them around all you want. But the point is there is no debate in scientific circles.
Maybe you should just change the name of this forum to.
"MMMM Boy, do I ever want everyone I meet to love Jesus"
and I love jesus too.
There is no debate :santasmil
.Quote:
Originally Posted by jollyollie
"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."—*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].
"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).
"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus approved."—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition).
[In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin wrote:] "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."—*Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].
"What good is half a jaw or half a wing? . . These tales, in the ‘Just-So Stories’ tradition of evolutionary natural history, do not prove anything . . concepts salvaged only by facile speculation do not appeal much to me."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "The Return of the Hopeful Monsters," Natural History, June/July, 1977.
"The Supreme Court said you can't force the teaching of creation science, but it didn't say that if individual teachers happen to want to teach it they can't." -*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution, Extinction and the Movies, " in Time, May 14, 1990, p. 19.