Georgia's giant leap backwards

[Rose]

I guess I've not been taught "proper evolution" then.


As for separation of church and state - that's a whole other issue for a whole other thread. Because to get into it you'd have to get into removing ALL of church from ALL of state - no more "in God we trust" on the money, no more ten commandments in government buildings, so forth and so on. Not to mention this entire country was founded as a Christian country for people to worship as they wish - or not worship if they wish. Point is - it'll be a day in frozen hell before America truely separates church and state.

 

[drkavnger99]

Seperation of church and state is the question. I agree to truely seperate church and state you would have to goto extremes but since when has a dollar bill taught/influence someone about a religion. I'm sorry I just don't see too many ppl being influenced by that. Now as for the teaching it in schools thats another thing you are influencing a person directly and without regards to what they have been brought up to believe! And do you really think one day in school is enough to go over the thousands of religions that exist today including all thier subdivisions! I think not! Be realistic!

 

[chcr]

I guess I've not been taught "proper evolution" then.

Typically, when you are taught things that the people teaching don't really want you to accept, they don't give you all the facts.

Do you really wish to learn it?

 

[Mirlyn]

Been there done that, three times over. At least they're mentioning the topic instead of excluding it altogether.

 

[chcr]

But that's just the point, Mirlyn. They want to remove all mention of "evolution." It is an old argument by now, sure enough, and you either accept it or don't I suppose. I just get tired of listening to the creationist dogma that they ascribe to evolutionists theat have nothing to do with the theory.

 

[BeardofPants]

Yes, I've been there countless times. I have a degree in anthropology specialising in archaeology and biological anthropology (evolution & primatology.) It sickens me that there is a lot of misinformation out there being fed to people. The things creationists have come up with - and are now being licensed to propagate in the State of Georgia. Off the top of my head there are:

Carbon dating live specimens - which you can't: the way carbon dating works is measuring the rate of decay AFTER death
Carbon dating paint - You can only carbon date certain types of paint.
Evolution is only a theory - Please get yourself a dictionary and familiarise yourself with what exactly THEORY with regard to science means.
The second rule of thermodynamics - how then does something like H2O work? Hmmm??
We come from monkeys - we don't. We share a common ancestor with the ape family.
Lucy is really a chimp - Oh?? Then why was she bipedal? Has a larger brain capacity?
Carbon dating shows that these fossils are not millions of years old - Carbon dating only goes back 60,000 years Before Present, at most. If you want to date further back, you MUST use another method.
We have found human remains with dinosaurs - Hunh, study up on the Laws of Superposition, will ya?
The earth isn't that old - well, why are these rocks being recorded at 4.55 billion years old? And how do you explain light from stars millions of light years reaching us just now?

Can anyone else think of some common creationist fallacies?

 

[AlphaTroll]

No. Evolution is a fact. It has been proven genetically years ago. Creationist's childish refusal to accept that in no way abrogates the fact any more than the flat-earthers refusal to accept the round earth makes it theoretically flat. Creation is a myth, not a theory.

Edit--Teach it in church if you must, it has no place in the public school system.

Gosh, so many opportunities to repeat myself today (and because I'm a lazy sod I'm copying & pasting from Nationsates:

Marineris Colonies wrote:
*ahem*

"God invented, created, and is controlling the process of evolution."

So much for your argument. In fact, the existance of a logical process of evolution is pretty good evidence of a logical Creator

And I replied:

But then we go back to the start again - prove that God did in fact create it. There is substantial proof that says that yes, the physical world we occupy has changed throughout the centuries due to various factors, some of which I have already mentioned (they are testable through repeatable observation). How everything came to be is rather speculative as there was no-one around to observe it, so we theorise and speculate in order to order it in our own minds.

Thus far no-one has been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Christian God (which I assume is the one you are referring to as the maker of it all?) indeed did create it all. Assuming that the earth was created by a higher being, which as you point out could be a logical argument, then you'd have to prove that the Christian God did in fact do it & not for instance Allah, Buddha, Brahma or any other supreme diety.

Both evolusionism & creationism are inferences based on circumstancial evidence (often pitched against each other to disprove each other) and I'm not saying that evolution is scientific fact (hell, it could even be viewed as an ongoing research programme) while creationism is mere religious mysticism. But evolution is easier to prove as it can be measured and in some cases rather accurately predicted. (Which is why, you will note I did not say that evolution DOES disprove the existence of God, merely that it gives a good argument, since no-one could prove that there has been divine intervention from a singular diety).

And I'm not trying to disprove that God exists (in fact, I believe they all do) I'm merely pointing out that using a religious argument in something like abortion is futile as not everyone believes there is such a thing. Which is why I listed all the things you'd have to prove IMO to make a religious argument valid.

 

[MrBishop]

You can be a monkey's uncle, I prefer to believe my ancestors always were humans. .

we're not descended from apes, but if you consider evolution as a tree with Today being on the tip or the tallest branch, the idea might be clearer. As you go backwards in time, the branch that you're on joins another larger branch etcetc until it meets with the trunk itself. Going forward in time from the tree to today, you can see where organisms were the same...at some point one part changed (Branched off). Both parts kept going, some to branch off again and again. Every time that there's a new branch..there's usually a progression towards a better organism.

At some point, apes, monkeys and humans were part of the same branch...we split off, as did the apes and the monkeys. At some point, we all had a common ancestor, but the more time went, the more the differences between our branch, that of the apes and that of monkeys made us different.

Consider this though... we share about 99% of the same genes as do chimpanzees, Gorillas and Orang-otangs. We share opposeable thumbs, we share blood types (The + or - in your blood type refers to the RH, or Rhesus factor -

Rh factor, protein substance present in the red blood cells of most people, capable of inducing intense antigenic reactions. The Rh, or rhesus, factor was discovered in 1940 by K. Landsteiner and A. S. Wiener, when they observed that an injection of blood from a rhesus monkey into rabbits caused an antigenic reaction in the serum component of rabbit blood (see immunity). When blood from humans was tested with the rabbit serum, the red blood cells of 85% of the humans tested agglutinated (clumped together). The red blood cells of the 85% (later found to be 85% of the white population and a larger percentage of blacks and Asians) contained the same factor present in rhesus monkey blood; such blood was typed Rh positive.

-and we share many more things.

As for teaching it in school - why not? Devote a week to "history of the world" in science class. Teachers should be frank and present the information in a way that allows the student to form his own opinions and do his own research. The teacher should note the two "main" theories of the beginning of the world - creation & evolution. In a subject that is so widely debated as this, the teacher should not teach either to be correct or right, but to supply a few statements on either side. Spend one day's class time on evolution, big bang, whatever. Spend the next day on creation - not reading the bible but teach that various religions believe that the world was created by a God/gods/godess(es). Overview a few of the main ones. That still leaves three more days of class for open discussion and whatnot. Then on the last day of the week - the students should be told to choose a theory they think is most plausible and write a report on why it is.

The point is - keep it simple and let the student decide what to believe for themselves.

The problem is that one is a science and the other theology. You can't use physics, math, chemistry or any of the other sciences to teach creationism. You either believe that the universe was made in 6 days or that it happened over a period of several billion years. or both for that matter. :/

 

[chcr]

Well, when the facts don't support you, make shit up.

Edit--That one was for BoP
How about the "missing link?"

A famous remark by a bishop's wife during that period says it all: 'Descended from the apes My dear, let us hope that it is not true, but if it is, let us pray that it will not become generally known.'

 

[chcr]

Gosh, so many opportunities to repeat myself today (and because I'm a lazy sod I'm copying & pasting from Nationsates:

Marineris Colonies wrote:
*ahem*

"God invented, created, and is controlling the process of evolution."

So much for your argument. In fact, the existance of a logical process of evolution is pretty good evidence of a logical Creator

Since you cannot prove there is a God, would this not render the rest of your argument meaningless for the purposes of this discussion?

 

[freako104]

I disagree, science is about fact.

If it is simply a matter of someone deciding what they believe then we are talking philosophy. When we apply that to creation then we are talking theology which imho fall under the category of Religious Studies not science.

Like it or not evolution happens - fact. Why that would mean God doesn't exist is completely beyond me, I was always under the impression that God (assuming of course that God exists) was omnipotent and could therefore have created evolution...

science uses fact but you need a theory and then you need the facts to prove your theory.



dark the separation isnt in the Constitution word for word so its technically not in there. Id like to think there is one but in a strict interpertation it aint there. but there is Freedom of Religion and also No established religion in the first amendment

 

[AlphaTroll]

Since you cannot prove there is a God, would this not render the rest of your argument meaningless for the purposes of this discussion?

I didn't say you cannot prove there is a God, I said that no-one has been able to prove that the Christian God (and not another diety) is the sole creator of all we see around us, which have evolved over time.

I also said that evolution is something that provides an argument against creationism, not that it completely disproves it.

But IMO both concepts deserve to be studied as viable options in schools, not as opposing arguments, but rather as individual subject matters.

And in the case of creationism, I believe ALL possibilities should be included - it isn't necessary to single one out & study the entire history of it, rather include only those factors of all religions which claim to have anything to do with the creation of earth & study it's merits.

 

[Professur]

You can be a monkey's uncle, I prefer to believe my ancestors always were humans.

Actually, evolution claims we started off as a 'primordial ooze'.

 

[Squiggy]

Evolution?


I knew there was something I forgot to do...

 

[drkavnger99]

dark the separation isnt in the Constitution word for word so its technically not in there. Id like to think there is one but in a strict interpertation it aint there. but there is Freedom of Religion and also No established religion in the first amendment

Thanks for the correction

Evolution?


I knew there was something I forgot to do...

Nah you were just held back!

 

[freako104]

Thanks for the correction



Nah you were just held back!

i wish i could say your welcome but I am a bit disgusted that there isnt one word for word. but I think it was Chic who said it is implied which I agree with although youll find the people who support the teacher and the school will say there isnt one.

 

[drkavnger99]

i wish i could say your welcome but I am a bit disgusted that there isnt one word for word. but I think it was Chic who said it is implied which I agree with although youll find the people who support the teacher and the school will say there isnt one.

Agreed but if a prez/congress/supreme court did that he/they would be considered a athiest (sp?) Thats the problem with todays times its either my way or the hiway on alot of these relgious subjects!

 

[freako104]

sadly yes being myopic is the way of things in this world. agree with me or your wrong. they maybe labeled an atheist or people may also brand them a heretic(tho we have come a long way since the Inquisition and Witch trials, I still hear heretic and other accusations of the like.

 

[Oz]

...maybe i'm oversimplifying the situation...but what i can't help but think is that if you want your child to know something that the school is not teaching them....teach them yourself...hell, they're your kids

*nods * Stroke of genius there

And no, I'm not talking about giving Einstein a handjob...

 

[Mirlyn]

But that's just the point, Mirlyn. They want to remove all mention of "evolution." It is an old argument by now, sure enough, and you either accept it or don't I suppose. I just get tired of listening to the creationist dogma that they ascribe to evolutionists theat have nothing to do with the theory.

Perhaps I misread the article. To me, it sounded like they were not banning evolution from being taught, they were simply calling it something else.

Several years ago (as many probably remember) the BoE here in KS decided against requiring schools to teach evolution and dropped the topic entirely from its standardized tests. Since most of our districts are focused on community-control, it meant it was really up to the local district as to whether it should be taught or not (not required by State and not tested on...which makes a huge impact in small schools who don't have the funding/manpower to teach outside the required curriculum). You can imagine how many districts viewed it here in the bible belt. The media saw this and immediately began screaming "Kansas outlaws evolution" when in fact we did not. It was overturned a few years later.

I wish we could teach everything and leave it up to the young minds to be interpreded based on how they were brought up, not the teacher or the BoE. Freedom of thought sort of thing. However, as was said before in this thread....that idea opens a whole new can of worms.