Thankfully, Galieo Gallilei did not die in vain. To all you creationists, touche (thats french). As I said before, I wish to reiterate the FACT thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
THERE IS NO DEBATE. Enjoy your tea :banana:
Printable View
Thankfully, Galieo Gallilei did not die in vain. To all you creationists, touche (thats french). As I said before, I wish to reiterate the FACT thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
THERE IS NO DEBATE. Enjoy your tea :banana:
You see, people will debate whether there should be a debate or not if nothing else. There will always be a debate; alwaysway (that's Pig Latin).
:p
I believe that God is responsible for our creation, but I do not believe creationism, or something akin to it, should be taught in public schools due to the separation of Church and State prescribed by the second amendment of the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution, the supreme law of the land.
Pfew...that was a long one.
Ofcourse. but unforunatelythe ramications of reopening a debate on evolution v creationism sets a dangerous precident that aims to undo what others have sacrificed thier freedoms and thier lives to defend. To carelessly reopen a debate on this subject throws sand inthe eyes of those most impressionable with the most to lose, our kids, and incapable of weighing a hypothesis that has been tested by time. Ignorance is a dangerous weapon, particularily when it is aimed at our children and the weapon of choice is our public schools. I say, admit the debate has been over for hundreds of years, debated by those who have lost much to see that our children know its lessons. Lets debate how to stop hunger, or war. Lets choose a subject that does not try to reinvent the wheel. Also, our role models in our societies, revered practioners of the sciences and leaders of our collective countries are unanimous in that there is no debate on creation v evolution, and there is no need for one. Lets emulate the wisdom of giants by throwing down this subject and tackling one that needs our care and discretion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
There is no debate :santasmil
The First Ammendment... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."Quote:
Originally Posted by Diadem
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#The_Amendments
"The point of such an amendment is twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government "establishes" a church - and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the authors of the Constitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here."
--http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/phrase.htm
Government run public schools are worried about Intelligent Design being taught as fact.
While the "creationism" camp is worried that government taught evolution will seep into their religion. Evolution did seep into Christianity, via the Gap Theory, introduced by Thomas Chalmers in 1814.
Even Christians debate "old earth" versus "new earth."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree that "there is no debate;" scientists themsleves debate this theory, and have done so for hundreds of years. Scientists debate the plausibility of the theory as a whole, they also debate the finer details of how evolution occured scientifically.
Darwin thought natural selection breeded life on earth, then recanted, turning back Lamarckism. Darwin was also upset by a lack of linking species found in the dirt.
Neo-darwinists believed that natural selection and random mutations would do the trick.
Even more modern evolutionists like Stephen Gould disagreed,
[I]"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[/I]."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "The Return of the Hopeful Monsters," Natural History, June/July, 1977.
Gould turned to the "hopeful monster" theory introduced by Richard Goldscmidt, "that every 50,000 years two animals are born within a close parameter and mate creating a new species." (evolution-facts.org)
"Richard Goldschmidt (1878-1958). The same year that *Clark wrote his book (1930), Goldschmidt gave up also. An earnest evolutionist, he had dedicated his life to proving it by applying X-rays and chemicals to fruit flies at the University of California, Berkeley, and producing large numbers of mutations in them. After 25 exhausting years, in which he had worked with more generations of fruit flies than humans and their ape ancestors are conjectured to have lived on our planet, Goldschmidt decided that he must figure out a different way that cross-species evolution could occur. For the next ten years, as he continued his fruit fly research, he gathered more evidence of the foolishness of evolutionary theory;—and, in 1940, he wrote his book, The Material Basis of Evolution, in which he exploded point after point in the ammunition box of the theory. He literally tore it to pieces (*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried, 1974, p. 152). No evolutionist could answer him. Like them, he was a confirmed evolutionary atheist, but he was honestly facing the facts. After soundly destroying their theory, he announced his new concept: a megaevolution in which one life-form suddenly emerged completely out of a different one! He called them "hopeful monsters." One day a fish laid some eggs, and some of them turned into a frog, a snake laid an egg, and a bird hatched from it! Goldschmidt asked for even bigger miracles than A.H. Clark had proposed! (*Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, 1979, p. 159)." -(evolution-facts.org)
"Return of the Hopeful Monster (1972). *Stephen Jay Gould, a highly respected paleontologist at Harvard; *Niles Eldredge, the head paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City; and *Steven M. Stanley, of Johns Hopkins University, have led out in resuscitating *Richard Goldschmidt’s "hopeful monster" theory—and demanding that the community of evolutionary scientists consider it as the only possible mechanism for trans-species changeovers." -(evolution-facts.org)
Debates and questions about evolution have been happening in the scientific community for the last couple-hundred of years; to say "there is no debate," shows a lack of study into the scientific community and their research.
Pardon me just a moment here while I try to let this settle in. Are you saying there is no debate because the GOVERNMENT recognizes evolution as science and has stated that creationism is religion? Or rather, a constantly changing body of people, The Supreme Court, whose decisions so often hang on the opinion of one person, i.e., a 5-4 vote, have made their interpertaton of the Freedom of Religion admendment into something called "Seperation of Church and State" which no one has yet shown me anywhere in the Constitution? There is no debate as long as people agree with the evolutionist is what you are saying. If one chooses to believe in a Creator, even if one then thinks evolution shaped everything, as I do, one must be considered at the least suspicious? 5-4 votes. Shouldn't a vote that is of that magnitude at least have to be 6-3, that is more than a tie break? Because then, after all, in a government where it is supposed to be majority rule, on a tremendously serious vote one person actually made that decision for the rest of us. Think about it. :nod:
You are going nowhere fast.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenburke
It is obvious to me that you havent the foggiest idea what the definition of science is. I am a student and a practitioner of the sciences, and for someone to blandly string quotes, as I stated earlier, doesnt stimulate a healthy discussion. All you have succeeded in doing is vainly attempt to insult me with your arrogance. Why dont you look at the words Ive written instead of trying to bully me and everyone else into your narrow minded view. Watch and learn;
Judge Jones: "Breathtaking inanity", "lying under oath", "trying to introduce ID religious thought through the back door", " ID not science".." cannot uncouple itself from its creationist and thus religious antecedents", and finally, " unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school classroom". Question: do you want your children to subscribe to these traits?
Not me. My experience is that when I attempt to "discuss" this issue with narrow minded bigots I am insulted and the evidence that I present scientifically is ignored. Therefore, this is the last post from you that I will respond to, unless of course you have something intelligent to share on this issue.
Last: I spend six hard earned years studying biology in a university. I dont need your approval. If youre so smart, why couldnt you tell that? There is more to a scientific discussion than simply throwing around quotes that are not backed up, misdirected and ill begotten. You could at least explain yourself in your own words.
Ask the real scientists; there is no debate. It only serves the creationist rhetoric to try slip ID "through the back door" by force feeding unecessary debates down peoples throats. Go back to bible study, and leave the scientific discussions to the pros.
nIce to meet you. :lol:
.Quote:
Originally Posted by jollyollie
I'm sorry you've had upsetting :rage: experiences in the past.
I don't doubt that you know a lot about the sciences.
.
.
Happy Holidays :santasmil
Auld Lang Syne and all that jazz.
Happy Holidays :santasmilQuote:
Originally Posted by greenburke
lol ! :lol: dont patronise me. My experiences and your defintion of "rage" :mad: are not at issue here.
You seem to have sidestepped the gist of the point, once again. I dont think youre a bad person, but ill equipped to recognise the seriousness of this issue.
Do any of you remember what I said about Gallileo? Do you know what the church did to him for pouring water into columns from his upstairs bedroom window to make a simple public demonstration on fluid mechanics, contrary to Artistotlean assumptions? They excommunicated him and threatened to torture him to death if he did not publicly admit he was wrong. And he did, and the church gave him house arrest FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE, all for speaking out in the name of science and progress, for your kids and mine.
And what of Newton? He secretly despised the role of the church in science. If he had spoke his mind about his rage :mad: we would have no Newtonian Physics, because the church wouldve made sure he was utterly ruined, and he knew this so he wouldnt speak up about his true beliefs while at Kings College. And he did this for your kids. And so did Copernicus, by the way.
And Darwin? Do I have to educate you all on him? And how he paid to have his theory heard? He survived that debate after they ridiculed him in the newspapers, compared him to a monkey or an ape or whatever.
But his truth endured. And it will endure you nice folks, because the debate has been over since the early nineteenth century, and you cant change history. Ernst Zundel is still trying to change history. This is why I say there is no debate.
Silly debates on scientifically proven subjects especially evolution only mean to turn back the clock of collective knowlege, to put it politely. There are few things that are classified as scientific truth and this is one of them. You choose to debate the non debateable. This is why I said earlier, call it a discussion. Dont call it a debate. The debate is over. There is no debate. Darwin did that already.
Now, if there is no debate, why am I seemingly debating it? Because, Im not. Im discussing and sharing with you fine folks, out of the goodness of my heart. It is worth it, because this is important And I think of it as a holiday gift of wisdom to all of you nice folks. Seasons Greetings to you all! And to all a good night. :santasmil
You can go back to your tea, now.
Please say, perhaps, that there are no grounds for debate, but please stop saying "there is no debate." It's... very irksome. Also, just a general plea to everyone to not sling personal remarks. Ollie and Greenburke, you may have missed it since you joined the debate (yes, I said it) later on, but we're trying to keep the debate (hah, I said it again ;)) as respectful as possible. The first rule of any civil discussion is to respect the opposing viewpoint, even while attempting to change it. I know few people who are positively influenced by outright disdain for the view they hold.
The simplest way to begin is to say "Hello." There, that wasn't bad or threatening at all , was it? Now, I wish to say just a few words about your post, having you bear in mind that I believe in a Creator for a beginning, but evolution for the shaping of the world and all forms of life since.
Yes, this despicable type of thing did happen. "The Church" as you call it does not exist in the same form today, nor represent all of Christianity, not to mention the many other religions worldwide. I myself have told people on this very forum to learn, that if they truly believe in God knowledge cannot destroy that but it may help them understand a lot of other things. I do not condone ignorance as a way of life. I just don't like being called a fool for trying to find middle ground. Evolution had to occur in some form, that much is evident. I just don't buy into something like "a string of accidents" as I heard a scientist say yesterday on a TV special on how evolution develops. I base that on mathematics, the laws of chance would prove astronomical. So I believe in a Creator. The atheist problem of how long it took based on Biblical record, I say, I do not know. You can't put God into time. It would be irrelevant to such a being. The genelogies count time from after Adam was cast out of the garden. So how long did it take? I don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by jollyollie
Then, please discuss without rancor, or judgemential statements. You make good points, stick to them. As I told greenburke, I will admire anyone who will stand on his own convictions, even if I disagree. You must stand for something or you fall for anything.... God Bless. :angel:Quote:
Originally Posted by jollyollie
OK,Ok! Listen, I am sorry for going off a bit on you, greenburke, and I am very moved by the above. I appreciate your goodwill you have asserted in this discussion.I also greatly appreciate you addressing a couple of the points Ive raised. You all seem like good people and I hope I havent offended anyone here. If I have, please accept my regrets. I am very passionate on many things, and this is one of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Now, Im not telling you folks what to believe; you should do likewise. As long as you call this a debate, I can no longer participate. There is no debate. for me. for many.
Blaming the govmt is irresponsible, dont you think? Take some time and try to find a middle ground. I did.
Some physicists believe that some form ID may have played a role in big bang theory. Who knows. Myself, I dont believe in fate.
I am religious but in a very personal and scientific way. I really like hinduism and buddha, and I pray to Jesus now and then. Im just not big on the whole creation story. At one time, It answered alot of questions for alot of people. My OPINION is that creation is not plausible, and is outdated. I think in time some of us grow out of the story, and search for more meaning. Not saying its not a nice story, it just doesnt fit anymore, for me or my kids in school. Everthing is going to be OK.
Thank you for your patience, if this applies.
Have a super christmas everyone. Peace on earth.
Long live the three spine stickleback and the last remaining few caelocanths. Rock and Roll
and no more war.
Im editing in a link that I found. You will all please note the word debate is in parentheses, so the bbc put it in there, not Science.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4552466.stm
have a gooder :santasmil
You're a big man, jollieollie! :D :angel: :santasmil
Just a quick read on terminology for those who think "evolution is a theory, not a fact": http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/t...evolution.html
One quick question. What is the binding force that keeps an atom together? We have learned to split one, with catastropic results. But why should it stick together in the first place? One of the laws of electricty is "like particles repel each other." The nucules is made of protons and nuetrons, with electrons orbiting. All protons are postively charged and should repel each other. So why do they not? What keeps them together, especially if all it takes to split the atom is to fire a rogue proton through it? Technically speaking, by the law of electricty, it should never hold together in the first place... :brow: