Originally posted by Julie
Are you scared of that possibility???
No I am opposed to using this as a gateway segment piece to be able to thrust God into the discussion of science in the classroom. Hey call it paranoia however I live in the Midwest, I drive to KC all the time and I know how people around this area in general like to keep religion on the "table" so to speak when it comes to "school'n" thar kidz.
i think creationism is not something that should be taught in the classroom, and im glad i dont have the misfortune to have to but up with that bull****. the rest of the world will laugh at the scientist who actually thinks that... there is much concrete proof of evolution.
"god did not make man, man made god."
Originally posted by soleran30
I think this is rather funny, involving ID in science class and why man screwed up the bibble....did dinosaurs get on the ark too......I mean anyone that knows the bible belt knows KC and MO are the belt buckle to the bibble belt it was bound to happen........
Sweetheart you need to go back to Geography class because Kansas is not in the BIBLE belt. Oh and Spelling class too.
Originally posted by Jedi Priestess
Sweetheart you need to go back to Geography class because Kansas is not in the BIBLE belt. Oh and Spelling class too.
With that in mind doll face perhaps you should start a geography and spelling thread while we talk about the topic of this thread.
Glad you had an opinion on the topic at hand.........so half of KC is in the bible belt its so close I'll just let the influence from the state border creep on over then and assume a very similar view point since geographically they are next to it.
With that in mind doll face perhaps you should start a geography and spelling thread while we talk about the topic of this thread.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Semantic nonsense. "Macro-Evolution"..the fundemental "philosophical" concept behind Neo-Darwinism has no empirical evidence supporting it.
Well, you've got fossilic evidence of species change, coupled with intelligent hypthesis against a bunch of sheep bleeting on about Jesus. You decide...
nothing more than an adult fairy tale..albeit an very elaborate one..but a fairy tale none the less. Peppered with a little bit of truth here and there. People are finally starting to realize this.
Ah, 'The Bible'..."Once upon a time there was a man who turned water into wine...". Was it written by Hans Christian Anderson, too?
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Well, you've got fossilic evidence of species change,
Which is nothing more than proof of adaptation/variation among animal families, something which ID and Creationism support.
TOE gives a loosely defined version of the word species, which essentially defines "species" down to the level of "variation" within plant/animal families.
"Variation" meaning..minor physical/genetic differences within these families. For example, many evolutionists use claims such as German shepherds, Pitbulls, Scottish terriers..etc.. being different species of dogs..thus this is proof for TOE. Real silly stuff.
coupled with intelligent hypthesis against a bunch of sheep bleeting on about Jesus. You decide...
ID does not quote scripture or reference any particular religion. It is left upon an individual to decide who/what they believe the intelligent designer is.
Ah, 'The Bible'..."Once upon a time there was a man who turned water into wine...".
Which actually has quite a bit of substantive historical evidence supporting it. Such as the historical evidence of Jesus's existence..and historical accounts that document the miracles he performed. Please give me a link..or provide for me an example..be it historical, scientific, etc..where macro evolution has been observed. And don't give me any of that "variation" within a family speel..I want hardcore proof of an animal of one particular family..evolving into another one(ie reptile changing into a dog or cat, reptile to bird..etc)
And please make sure that the proof given is currently widely accepted by a majority of the scientific community as being valid.
Well, let's see...
There was 'Lucy'... then there was you. Proof enough?
Isn't it ironic that a term such as 'intelligent design' is thought up by a group of ignorant fundamentalists...The acceptance of such garbage requires an extraordinary leap of 'faith' in comparison with the pattern of evolution recognised by original, cognitive thinkers.
You're talking about a Big Daddy in the sky playing paint-by-numbers, whereas evolution recognises the adaptation of all life to fit its environment.
Sounds like someone needs to go back to school...(Not in Kansas, though!)
Originally posted by Draco69
Some of you may remember a previous thread about this but it was never concluded. Now that the outcome has been decided, how do you feel about the decision made by the Kansas School Board?Link:
Why opress the knowledge? That is the greatest ''sin'' ever!
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't creationism a literal interpretation of Genesis as the method by which the Earth was created? How does creationism support fossil evidence, adaptation, chromosomal synteny, orthologous genes, etc? Or vice versa.
BTW could I know of this tangible historical evidence of miracles?
Originally posted by Julie
Although many ID proponents are religious...there are some that aren't...or so I'm told...it's real.....why do you think evolution's called a theory??? b/c there are other possibilities...Darwin certainly wasn't god...I'll tell you that right now
Well a Scientfis Theory is very much different of the common conception of theory though.
Now I don't think that Creationism should be included in Biology or Science Text books (since it is not part of Biology or Science in general), but it should be taught in Philosophy Classes of course.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Its about damn time. Why should the secular and humanistic religion of naturalism be taught in school with the exclusion of any other...hopefully other states will follow this trend.
As ever, the gibbering idiocy involved in labelling the massive and rigorous scientific presence behind evolution as some sort of faith or religion rears its head. Such a naming is so fundamentally wrong that I am astounded that humans can still produce such ideas.
ID is a philosophical belief and nothing more. it has no place in the scientific forum, which relies on hard and tested facts only. Those facts do not support ID and it should not be there in science any more than Descartes and Gramsci.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
ID is a philosophical belief and nothing more. it has no place in the scientific forum, which relies on hard and tested facts only. Those facts do not support ID and it should not be there in science any more than Descartes and Gramsci.
here here
not to be a 'me too' but that sums it up.
if your only evidence is an ancient book of stories,
you have a belief, not a scientific theory.
keep your precious bible to yourself.