Isildur9473
12-20-2005, 09:29 PM
Clicky (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intelligent.design/index.html)

I agree with the Judge's ruling. Intelligent Design is just too close to actually bringing religion into school. Since Evolution is the most plausible theory, they should teach that if they absolutly have to teach something.

What do you think about this?

NightCrawler
12-20-2005, 09:33 PM
Disagree with everything you said. And I don't want to go into it. Sorry. It has been hashed and rehashed in several threads.

disciple
12-20-2005, 09:40 PM
Yeah, from what I recall the last Evolution thread/s... went the way of locking.

terrasin
12-20-2005, 10:23 PM
I'm passive on both ends. I believe it should be the choice of the student what they want to be taught instead of a "one way or the other" decision. If the kids want to study intelligent design, they should have a class for it. If they want to study evolution instead, they should have a class for that too. There would be enough demand for both that they should be able to make the change very easily. Personally, I think both should be taught because it's not about what is truth or fiction, but learning other peoples views and ideas to broaden peoples minds.

CJ

riz
12-21-2005, 04:47 AM
I agree. I feel bad that I didn't learn about evolution until I got into college because my parochial high school thought it was 'evil' and 'not worth to be learned' and if we did learn about, it was a highly biased viewpoint with very little information about the actual theory. As a result, I did not get proper knowledge about it when it came to discussing it with others after graduating high school. Big downside for me. Even if one doesn't believe in evolution, it definitely needs to be taught so that one can know the other viewpoint.

Mr. Xcitement
12-21-2005, 08:43 AM
I disagree, I feel they need to teach Intelligent design in schools, if they make it illegal, then it's invading free speech, and covering up another theory of how we got here, both are theories, neither has been proven true, and every year, the case for evolution gets weaker, also Intelligent Design is open ended, and doesn't leave you on a straight path too God, from what I understand about it, it also says things like, that we could have come from aliens putting us here, peopple just keep getting confused thinking that Intelligent Design means Creationism, when it doesn't.

drumchick101
12-21-2005, 10:09 AM
The thing about calling intelligent design a theory is that many people think it is not. This is because they say that it conrtdicts the definition of science, which it does contradict one of them. Dictionary.com:

sci·ence

1.
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

They say that intellgent design is not science because it's supernatural. They say this because it is something that did not naturally happen which contradicts the second definition there. However, it does not contradict the first, so in that sense, it is still science. This is where things get hairy.

I'm with CJ. but I'm not worried because in the end, the greater evidence will come out on top and, from what I've studied and got from talking to people who are experts on both theories, intelligent design is the greater evidence. But we've only scrached the surface so no one in either theory has prooved anything. Soo, as CJ said, they should offer both.

><sarah><

skynes
12-21-2005, 10:40 AM
I disagree with the ruling.
Firstly, separation of church and state is NOT constitutional. Even a foreigner like me knows that it was written in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to protect the church from persecution n stuff.

As for the ID vs Evolution.

Realistically, neither are science. Neither can be observed, neither can be proven. Both make assumptions. So NEITHER should be in the classroom.


As for the second definition of science, God is the only natural. We are created, thus un-natural.

disciple
12-21-2005, 11:09 AM
Realistically, neither are science. Neither can be observed, neither can be proven. Both make assumptions. So NEITHER should be in the classroom.
I don't disagree with that. Theories of how we came into being should come for later in life, in my opinion, not forcing one theory on all early on in life. That way, it leaves choice for every student.

Of course, I believe heavily in choice, and I could get talking on the complexity of the human mind and choices a human can make, so yeah.

drumchick101
12-21-2005, 02:55 PM
As for the second definition of science, God is the only natural. We are created, thus un-natural.

I agree with you, but that's not how they see it. They see natural things as things within the universe. If God created the universe then He is not in it & thus, supernatural. Personally, I think it's kind of a crappy argument & just another way to weasel their way out of a predicament.

><sarah><

Isildur9473
12-21-2005, 05:39 PM
Hmm, well am I the only one that thinks Evolution is logical? I had a long talk with my dad today about it, he raised some very valid points. Bacteria had evolved in labs, as well as fruit flies and other organisms. They've never created a world in 7 days in a lab.

Does the Bible seem really far-fetched to any of you? It always has to me...

bob
12-21-2005, 05:55 PM
There are way too many animals that disprove evolution. It's just way too impossible that it could have formed due to natural selection, because each new part is supposed to benefit the animal in the environment, and some of these animals have thousands of parts. I think that it's interesting, but certainly not valid.

Isildur9473
12-21-2005, 05:58 PM
There are way too many animals that disprove evolution. It's just way too impossible that it could have formed due to natural selection, because each new part is supposed to benefit the animal in the environment, and some of these animals have thousands of parts. I think that it's interesting, but certainly not valid.

There's not terribly much evidence of a God either. Actually, there really isn't any. :\

It isn't only Natural Selection that induces evolution. Sometimes it's mutations, sometimes it's adaptation to a changing enviornment...

bob
12-21-2005, 06:01 PM
There's not terribly much evidence of a God either. Actually, there really isn't any. :\


I beg to differ.

Isildur9473
12-21-2005, 06:04 PM
I beg to differ.

Explination?

NightCrawler
12-21-2005, 06:31 PM
Explination?
Romans 1:
20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Simply said... This means.... God's creation is enough evidence for man to know God exist, and that means mankind cannot just say "I didn't know God existed"... Because it is obvious.

Mr. Xcitement
12-21-2005, 09:07 PM
Hmm, well am I the only one that thinks Evolution is logical? I had a long talk with my dad today about it, he raised some very valid points. Bacteria had evolved in labs, as well as fruit flies and other organisms. They've never created a world in 7 days in a lab.

Does the Bible seem really far-fetched to any of you? It always has to me...

Well that would mainly be because the people in the lab are not God and do not have the power to create worlds, and will never have the power. Also, from my reading on science and evolution type things, we have NEVER seen much of any proof of it, maybe a slight change in a birds beak, but that took thousands of years, and if you take that into mind, with the date of age they give our planet, evolution could not be true. Also, I feel there is proof God exsists, many things happen that science cannot explain, and only the supernatural can. Just look at your hand or the anatomy of the eye, do you know how long and how many millions of years it would take just to make something so complicated? We are called to believe in God, and we should never have to ask for proof that He exsists, just look at someone you love, science for one, cannot explain love, they might say something about hormones or what ever, but love is much more than that.

amodman
12-22-2005, 01:31 AM
Hmm, well am I the only one that thinks Evolution is logical? I had a long talk with my dad today about it, he raised some very valid points. Bacteria had evolved in labs, as well as fruit flies and other organisms. They've never created a world in 7 days in a lab.

Does the Bible seem really far-fetched to any of you? It always has to me...

Define "Evolution is logical", lol. Radical Evolution from one species to another has never been proven and is scientifically impossible. Any Creationist with half a brain admits, though, that slight evolution exists. How do you think we have so many freaking kinds of dogs? However, dogs + millions of years does not = monkey, it = many more possible kinds and breeds of dogs.

Furthermore, one has to take into account the very basis evolutionary belief is founded upon, that is, that the Earth is millions if not billions of years old. The Earth, however, couldn't possibly be that old. At least, not have been habitable that long. Gravitational and orbital changes over that long of a period of time would've made this Earth uninhabitable.

Bah, but this is sounding more in the vein of the old Evo/Creation thread, and I think lessons were learned in that one, lol.

As far as the legality of the decision, I'd have to agree with Skynes. If you ban Intelligent Design theory Evolution must needs be banned as well. If the decision is chalked up to seperation of church and state, I'd have to call bullcrap on that one. That philosophy is from private letters of Thomas Jefferson (who, IMO, was flat out not a good guy at all) and has no presence in our legal system other than precedent of previous judges using the same justification based off of...well, nothing. Nothing mroe than a shoddy excuse, really.

alorian
12-22-2005, 10:39 AM
I'm passive on both ends. I believe it should be the choice of the student what they want to be taught instead of a "one way or the other" decision. If the kids want to study intelligent design, they should have a class for it. If they want to study evolution instead, they should have a class for that too. There would be enough demand for both that they should be able to make the change very easily. Personally, I think both should be taught because it's not about what is truth or fiction, but learning other peoples views and ideas to broaden peoples minds.

CJ

Yes. That would burden me with two classes, because I would take both to_________________________________________ learn more, there we go.

alorian
12-22-2005, 10:41 AM
Hmm, well am I the only one that thinks Evolution is logical?

No. To me it sounds logical, but, with further research, I've found it to be untrue. Macroevolution anyway.

I beg to differ.

Greg was right, there is no "proof" of God. If there were, what need would there be for faith?

drumchick101
12-22-2005, 01:05 PM
There are facts that can logically lead someone to the existence of a creator.

I think evolution is logical but I don't see the evidence as adding up enough to support it becasue of how complex and intracate everything is.
><sarah><

disciple
12-22-2005, 03:00 PM
Nothing in science can prove God's existence, otherwise faith would be needless and irrelevant.

drumchick101
12-22-2005, 05:06 PM
I disagree...I think there are a lot more things to God that are scentific than we think, it is just not Earthly science. The only thing is that we are not smart enough to figure it out, we are human you know ;). I mean, I think a lot of the miricles in the Bible were scientific, but it was God who made the science happen. For instance, they say that there is this scentific phenomenon that could have made the red sea part. What if they are right & it was God who made it happen? Stuff like that.

><sarah><

alorian
12-22-2005, 05:09 PM
Science can prove some things, but cannot totally prove God exists.. I believe I found a verse on this some time ago, about how God cannot be proven, but must be taken on faith.. Can't remember where, though, sorry :\ It makes sense, too. If one knows that a ripe banana is yellow, they know it to be 100% true, and don't need to take it on faith. Make sense?

Mr. Xcitement
12-23-2005, 12:28 AM
Science can prove some things, but cannot totally prove God exists.. I believe I found a verse on this some time ago, about how God cannot be proven, but must be taken on faith.. Can't remember where, though, sorry :\ It makes sense, too. If one knows that a ripe banana is yellow, they know it to be 100% true, and don't need to take it on faith. Make sense?

Yes it does make sense, it is called "blind faith" just like believing in the wind, you cannot see it, but you can feel it, technically science can't really prove wind exsists, because they can only sense it's movements and see what it causes to happen, the same is with God, we may not be able to actually see Him, but we can feel Him and see what He does. Also with the evolution, scientist can agree, that the only way to create a new species is gene splicing (sp), which is a form of Intelligent Design, and there has been no sign of a new species created by evolution, thus, evolution can't really prove how we got here, only small things like hair color and stuff like that maybe.

alorian
12-23-2005, 08:54 AM
Ya know, one of my first instincts on seeing this thread was to post:

"Hasn't it been this way for years? No intelligent design? I mean, look at Martha Stewart, the model industry, etc"

Okay, I got that out, I'm happy :)

skilletosis
12-23-2005, 10:03 AM
When I went to school we were taught the big bang theory and the theory of evolution. I cannot however remember them being taught as theory. If the big bang and evolution can be given time in school so can intellegent design and creationism. I personaly have seen this through scientific means. Have you ever bought a petri dish? The dish gets manufactured, sterilized, and sealed. I'm talking one without that gel stuff in it. Then it gets shipped across the country and sits on the shelf at the school supply house sometimes for months. You then go and purchase it and what you get is a sterile, empty container. Nothing happend, nothing grew, nothing evolved. In fact the something from nothing theory is even cancelled out because there is air molecules in the petri dish. So if something were to grow it would be due to air molecules or contamination.

If any time in classes is to be given to big bang or evolution; equal time should also be given to intellegent design and creationism. All of these theories do rely on some sort of faith for one to believe in them. Whether it be faith on no supreme being to design or create; or faith in supreme being to design or create. So in my opinion if a class is to be taught it should be a class just on these theories and not a section in a science class with the outcome of these are all theories, decide on one if you want to.

I think the downfall to the latest decision could be the persons that argued the case. Wasn't the ACLU involved in argueing against the case? Who argued for it? Was it a person who was local and not as experienced or knowledgable in argueing cases? You can't put a big dog up against a toy poodle.

NightCrawler
12-23-2005, 07:19 PM
I think if you can accept the premises, evolution is logical.

Also, Intelligent Design fits that too.

Intelligent seems more realistic with its premises and has more evidence. But both theories -- accepting the premises -- are logical.

At least I think.

Get rid of both theories in school.

Mr. Xcitement
12-23-2005, 08:10 PM
I think the downfall to the latest decision could be the persons that argued the case. Wasn't the ACLU involved in argueing against the case? Who argued for it? Was it a person who was local and not as experienced or knowledgable in argueing cases? You can't put a big dog up against a toy poodle.

I'm not sure, but you'll notice the ACLU is very evil and will fight intelligent design to the end. There is a group out there that has been formed to fight the ACLU, but I forget it's name.

riz
12-24-2005, 04:39 AM
Get rid of both theories in school.
Better to keep both perspectives in school and have the students knowledgeable about both - then have them ignorant.

alorian
12-24-2005, 08:46 AM
I agree with Riz.

drumchick101
12-24-2005, 10:32 AM
dito

><sarah><

xdisciplex
12-24-2005, 10:37 AM
Disagree with everything you said. And I don't want to go into it. Sorry. It has been hashed and rehashed in several threads.

Totally agree with ya. :)

disciple
12-24-2005, 12:11 PM
Better to keep both perspectives in school and have the students knowledgeable about both - then have them ignorant.
True. But they won't do that, because even teaching Intelligent Design theory shows too much support for Christianity, because we all know that supporting Christianity is evil, we have to support other religions.

Isildur9473
12-25-2005, 07:39 PM
Romans 1:
20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Simply said... This means.... God's creation is enough evidence for man to know God exist, and that means mankind cannot just say "I didn't know God existed"... Because it is obvious.

I meant an explination that had relevance to people who don't believe in the Bible.

Well that would mainly be because the people in the lab are not God and do not have the power to create worlds, and will never have the power. Also, from my reading on science and evolution type things, we have NEVER seen much of any proof of it, maybe a slight change in a birds beak, but that took thousands of years, and if you take that into mind, with the date of age they give our planet, evolution could not be true.

They gave the age of our planet to be 3-4 Billion Years old. That's way more than enough time for organisms to evolve.

Also, I feel there is proof God exsists, many things happen that science cannot explain, and only the supernatural can. Just look at your hand or the anatomy of the eye, do you know how long and how many millions of years it would take just to make something so complicated?

Probably Billions. Coincidently, the Earth has been around that long according to Evolutionists/Geoligists.

We are called to believe in God, and we should never have to ask for proof that He exsists, just look at someone you love, science for one, cannot explain love, they might say something about hormones or what ever, but love is much more than that.

I want proof in something I believe in. As for love, I agree.

As far as the legality of the decision, I'd have to agree with Skynes. If you ban Intelligent Design theory Evolution must needs be banned as well. If the decision is chalked up to seperation of church and state, I'd have to call bullcrap on that one. That philosophy is from private letters of Thomas Jefferson (who, IMO, was flat out not a good guy at all) and has no presence in our legal system other than precedent of previous judges using the same justification based off of...well, nothing. Nothing mroe than a shoddy excuse, really.

You're right, besides stopping the Federalist Party, writing the Decleration of Independance, being one of the only 2 Rennaisance men, and a plethora of other things Thomas Jefferson was a terrible man.

There is a good excuse though. Religion has done nothing but screw up other countries governments when it gets too involved. People are greedy/beligerent. Until that changes, Religion has no place in government.

True. But they won't do that, because even teaching Intelligent Design theory shows too much support for Christianity, because we all know that supporting Christianity is evil, we have to support other religions.

Actually the States do a fairly good job of not supporting any religion in schools.

amodman
12-25-2005, 08:37 PM
True. But they won't do that, because even teaching Intelligent Design theory shows too much support for Christianity, because we all know that supporting Christianity is evil, we have to support other religions.

This is wrong. The "Intelligent Design" doctrine itself was designed to accomadate very nearly all religious beliefs of Creation. It does not specifically spout the Bible or any other's Creation story, simply the scientific basis of intelligent design on how it must have been implemented in Creation.

As for Jefferson, I could care less about arguing the point (make a thread if you like), but IMO he was a racist, hypocritcal, son-of-a-B who merely played to the ear of the people (and I wouldn't call his almost fanatical defense of the French Revolution and its atrocities much of a "+").

Jefferson's character and beliefs aside, however, even if he would have gon along with such a philosophy or not Jefferson's "seperation of church and state" isn't even a philosophy at all. Within the context of the letter, all the man was doing was assuring a certain group (can't remember the denomination off hand), that the prevalent Christian demonination could not become a national religion as that was barred in the Constitution creating "a seperation of church and state". This concern was brought forth since much of Congress at the time was of a certain denomination.

Anyways, the idea that religion has no place in government is complete nonesense IMO. I agree that government in this imperfect world must not have a national religion that bars the practices and freedoms of the people (within reason), but without religious moral concepts government couldn't possibly hope to succeed. What is commonly accepted to define as "good" and "bad" in sociey comes from historical religious precepts. If you truly removed these from the Gov.'s functioning, most and many laws could not possibly hope to be justified without a considerably radical secular moral theory to accompany it (which, as far as I know, does not exist). It doesn't matter if you consider certain things "common sense". For, you will find, "common sense" doesn't often define the perceptions you suppose others will have.

Obviously, in a perfect world, I as a God-fearing man myself would desire a completely religious Government such as that of ancient Israel (which was excellent...as long as the people actually conformed with it, and yes, there was a massive amount of personal freedom granted elsewise).

Considering your previously stated opinions of what you think of the Bible, Greg, it's pretty obvious that much of what I said won't hold much weight with you. This is, however, what I believe as fact. Take it as you will.

Mr. Xcitement
12-25-2005, 11:48 PM
They gave the age of our planet to be 3-4 Billion Years old. That's way more than enough time for organisms to evolve.

3-4 billions of years old still isn't old enough, because the homo-sapien species didn't even come about until after the dinosaurs, which would have taken about a billion or more years just for the dinosaurs, and then a billion or so after them for us, and you'd have to have multiple things all evolve at one time in order to make a species, and there has been no proof that any species originated from this planet, find the link between sinle cell organism evolving into a multi single organism such as a human, and then you could try to prove evolution, other than that, evolution only happens on a very very small scale.

Isildur9473
12-26-2005, 11:57 AM
find the link between sinle cell organism evolving into a multi single organism such as a human, and then you could try to prove evolution, other than that, evolution only happens on a very very small scale.

They don't think it happened quite that fast. First Single-Celled organisms, then Tissues, then Organs, then Organ Systems, which is what a human is. A system of organs.

I don't believe in Evolution in case you thought I did.

Mr. Xcitement
12-26-2005, 10:57 PM
They don't think it happened quite that fast. First Single-Celled organisms, then Tissues, then Organs, then Organ Systems, which is what a human is. A system of organs.

I don't believe in Evolution in case you thought I did.

I try hard not to assume anything, but with your last post you seemed to support evolution. I can't agree with evolution like that though, because how could a liver survive all on it's own? or any organ for that part? It'd have to happen all at once to survive.

Isildur9473
12-27-2005, 12:57 PM
I try hard not to assume anything, but with your last post you seemed to support evolution. I can't agree with evolution like that though, because how could a liver survive all on it's own? or any organ for that part? It'd have to happen all at once to survive.

It's not that simple. Next time I Have 2 hours to type in some of my textbook I'll do so.

asparagus
01-02-2006, 12:30 PM
3 pages of comments, and has anyone bothered to look up the actual decision? This frustrates me. I'm tired of hearing the same old slogans and phrases tossed back and forth while NO ONE bothers to read what the actual decision says.

It surprises me that young-earthers would want ID taught in the science classroom.

Before we start start blindly judging this decision, let's take a look at some of the facts:
-+- The judge is a highly-respected Bush appointee
-+- The judge's decision was so overwhelmingly against the school district that those who brought the case against the school district are asking the judge to order the school to pay for attorney's fees for ALL involved
-+- The Discovery Institute (the leading ID research institution) apposed the school's policy. From DI's official statement:
We disagree with efforts to get the government to require the teaching of intelligent design. Misguided policies like the one adopted by the Dover School District are likely to be politically divisive and hinder a fair and open discussion of the merits of intelligent design among scholars and within the scientific community, points we have made repeatedly since we first learned about the Dover policy in 2004. Furthermore, most teachers currently do not know enough about intelligent design or have sufficient curriculum materials to teach about it accurately and objectively.

And finally, the judge's decision can be read here: http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/kitzmiller_decision_20051220.pdf

Aren't Christians already accused enough of judgement and rushing to decisions? Let's not go out of our way to look foolish.

kittygirl
01-02-2006, 01:30 PM
There's not terribly much evidence of a God either. Actually, there really isn't any. :\

It isn't only Natural Selection that induces evolution. Sometimes it's mutations, sometimes it's adaptation to a changing enviornment...

Well, we have to create mutations. They don't just happen. And if you think that there's not much evidence for God, maybe it's because you don't know how to see it.

In the meantime, I got a book last year, called It Couldn't Just Happen, and a few others. Read them.

amodman
01-02-2006, 02:52 PM
3 pages of comments, and has anyone bothered to look up the actual decision? This frustrates me. I'm tired of hearing the same old slogans and phrases tossed back and forth while NO ONE bothers to read what the actual decision says.

It surprises me that young-earthers would want ID taught in the science classroom.

Before we start start blindly judging this decision, let's take a look at some of the facts:
-+- The judge is a highly-respected Bush appointee
-+- The judge's decision was so overwhelmingly against the school district that those who brought the case against the school district are asking the judge to order the school to pay for attorney's fees for ALL involved
-+- The Discovery Institute (the leading ID research institution) apposed the school's policy. From DI's official statement:


And finally, the judge's decision can be read here: http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/kitzmiller_decision_20051220.pdf

Aren't Christians already accused enough of judgement and rushing to decisions? Let's not go out of our way to look foolish.

So what exactly is your point here? Because of the parties involved the decision must be right? Are you saying no one mentioned the "required statement"? Oooo. No offenese, but what exactly are you even trying to point out?

Also, you're right, I haven't read too much of the info online. I've seen it discussed at length on the news, instead.

Isildur9473
01-02-2006, 04:06 PM
Well, we have to create mutations. They don't just happen. And if you think that there's not much evidence for God, maybe it's because you don't know how to see it.

In the meantime, I got a book last year, called It Couldn't Just Happen, and a few others. Read them.

The point I was trying to make, is that to non-believers, there isn't much evidence of God. Not to us.

frymeskillet
01-02-2006, 07:24 PM
even though i enjoy joining into dicussions like this, i will try not to get to heated. what i AM going to say is that i was taught of Darwin's Theory and Evolution in the 9th grade. it did nothing for me, first of all i was very young in the Lord. the only thing this did for me is confuse me. im the kind of person who wants proof for everything before i will believe it. and to me, just believing that God created everything was hard to understand for me at that age . so it basically drew me farther from God until i finally had to go and figure things out for myself and i learned that seeing is not believing and a theory is a theory. believing that God made us all is just as far a stretch as saying that we evolved from monkeys. i decided that i would believe my God over a plain man any day. there, thats my view. i ultimately believe that it shouldnt be taught in schools, but it does give students a chance to go and figure things out for themselves. i honestly dont think its true, but hey, what are christians worth these days? all we do is let all of the nonbelievers stomp on us. i wish for once we could win against the rest of the world...but thats another subject :)

-Savannah-

NightCrawler
01-02-2006, 09:36 PM
Well, we have to create mutations. They don't just happen.
Not true.

Mutations are common, outside of mankind's effort/effect:
1) Radioactivity from the sun.
2) Natural degradation of the RNA/DNA process when new cells are created/reproduced.
3) Other means.

Most of these for all three can be passed down.

But... most are harmful... which doesn't say too much in Evo's favour.

Isildur9473
01-02-2006, 09:40 PM
Mutations resulting in climate changes seem plausible. Such as in the Devonian era when the water was drying up, and fish had to be able to breathe as they went from one pond to another..

Even though it isn't true, Christians shouldn't dismiss evolution as a stupid, unthought out idea. For over a hundred years, vast amounts of research have gone into perfecting this theory, and if you actually research it, it does make sense in its own way.

Some Christians make fun of people for saying, "Man was created from fish", but it sounds just as funny to the non-believer when you say "Man was created from an all knowing, omnipotent being." :\

NightCrawler
01-02-2006, 09:52 PM
Mutations resulting in climate changes seem plausible. Such as in the Devonian era when the water was drying up, and fish had to be able to breathe as they went from one pond to another..You don't even want me to pounce on this, do you? Think about it....


Even though it isn't true, Christians shouldn't dismiss evolution as a stupid, unthought out idea. For over a hundred years, vast amounts of research have gone into perfecting this theory, and if you actually research it, it does make sense in its own way.True... but... eh... sounds counter intutive.

Some Christians make fun of people for saying, "Man was created from fish", but it sounds just as funny to the non-believer when you say "Man was created from an all knowing, omnipotent being." :\
Some Christians run out of the college's BIO101 lecture hall plugging their ears when the professor talks about evolution. Or at least that is what my professor said. ... : /

Isildur9473
01-02-2006, 09:53 PM
You don't even want me to pounce on this, do you? Think about it....

I'm saying it's PLAUSIBLE, not true. It makes a lot more sense than pretty much any other creation theory.

NightCrawler
01-02-2006, 09:56 PM
I'm saying it's PLAUSIBLE, not true. It makes a lot more sense than pretty much any other creation theory.
Umm... it doesn't even sound plausible!!! ... It doesn't make ANY sense...

Again, I warn you... less subtley... do you want me to pounce on this?

Isildur9473
01-02-2006, 09:58 PM
Umm... it doesn't even sound plausible!!! ... It doesn't make ANY sense...

Again, I warn you... less subtley... do you want me to pounce on this?

Pounce on it. After taking a class on it, I want to hear your argument.

NightCrawler
01-02-2006, 10:09 PM
Pounce on it. After taking a class on it, I want to hear your argument.
I'm going to give a few stereotypcal ones.

Consider an experiment done by some scientist. He cut off the tails of mice for several mice generations, but they still kept growing in the next generation. Wouldn't the tails stop growing if it found that the environment didn't support tails?

Or consider the fact that fish would need to pass down a large-scale number of beneficial mutations ahead of time to 'prepare' (lack of better word) for this expedition. How would the organism 'know' (lack of better word) to adapt to such an environment (breathing on land) to gain access to another one that it belongs in already (water)? Also... what about the transition? I don't mean missing links... I mean how could it breath on land and water? Surely it couldn't do partially for either... it would die. And surely it couldn't do one or the other, it would die trying to 'adapt'.

Now, assuming there was a transition that didn't kill the animal, wouldn't that be the best thing right then for the environment? Why would it need to go back into the water? Why not continue this new way of life as it is now?

Also... how would it feed?

Also... to pass down said mutations, how would it reproduce? (dissimilar organisms have a hard time reproducing. And similar ones don't ensure that the mutation will be passed down)

Isildur9473
01-02-2006, 10:12 PM
I'm going to give a few stereotypcal ones.

Consider an experiment done by some scientist. He cut off the tails of mice for several mice generations, but they still kept growing in the next generation. Wouldn't the tails stop growing if it found that the environment didn't support tails?

Or consider the fact that fish would need to pass down a large-scale number of beneficial mutations ahead of time to 'prepare' (lack of better word) for this expedition. How would the organism 'know' (lack of better word) to adapt to such an environment (breathing on land) to gain access to another one that it belongs in already (water)? Also... what about the transition? I don't mean missing links... I mean how could it breath on land and water? Surely it couldn't do partially for either... it would die. And surely it couldn't do one or the other, it would die trying to 'adapt'.

Now, assuming there was a transition that didn't kill the animal, wouldn't that be the best thing right then for the environment? Why would it need to go back into the water? Why not continue this new way of life as it is now?

Also... how would it feed?

Also... to pass down said mutations, how would it reproduce? (dissimilar organisms have a hard time reproducing. And similar ones don't ensure that the mutation will be passed down)

And that's essentially why I don't believe in evolution. However, what other theories are there for people who don't believe in God that make any sense at all?

NightCrawler
01-02-2006, 10:23 PM
And that's essentially why I don't believe in evolution. However, what other theories are there for people who don't believe in God that make any sense at all?
Haha... my point...

Mr. Xcitement
01-02-2006, 11:31 PM
Actually I know of one mutation that is very common, unless my biology teacher was wrong, he said that red hair is actually a mutated gene, if this isn't true, someone please correct me, but if it is true, feel free to call every red head a mutant. hehehe, j/k on that last part.

Spiffles
01-03-2006, 12:13 AM
that would go down well in Scotland... hahaha!! ROFL!!!

(well... i find it funny, but it could be my ttwisted aussie humour, hehehe, lol)

terrasin
01-03-2006, 02:11 AM
I believe in some forms of evolution, though probably not as extreme as a fish jumping out of water and going for a walk down the road.

Think of this:
You've lived in a hot climate the first 20 years of your life and suddenly move to a place where the tempature is 30 degrees. At first, your body rejects the change. You shiver and shake and get the chills. After a year or so of living in said weather, your body has adapted to the point where you can walk outside in a t-shirt and shorts and not be effected as easily. Obviously that doesn't last long as skin tends to freeze fairly quickly, but this has been a proven fact that the body changes and adapts to fit the environment.

Look at animals. Durring the summer months, most animals have a thinner coat of fur on them. But as fall comes, the coat usually gets thicker to keep them warm in the harsh cold air. Same type of adaptation. Now you take that animal down south for a few years and the fur won't change at all because it doesn't have a need to.

These are slight steps in how things evolve and adapt to survive.


This one is the real puzzler: Could not God snap his fingers and make fish jump out of water and walk down the road if he so choose to? ;)

CJ

amodman
01-03-2006, 02:41 AM
I believe in some forms of evolution, though probably not as extreme as a fish jumping out of water and going for a walk down the road.

Think of this:
You've lived in a hot climate the first 20 years of your life and suddenly move to a place where the tempature is 30 degrees. At first, your body rejects the change. You shiver and shake and get the chills. After a year or so of living in said weather, your body has adapted to the point where you can walk outside in a t-shirt and shorts and not be effected as easily. Obviously that doesn't last long as skin tends to freeze fairly quickly, but this has been a proven fact that the body changes and adapts to fit the environment.

Look at animals. Durring the summer months, most animals have a thinner coat of fur on them. But as fall comes, the coat usually gets thicker to keep them warm in the harsh cold air. Same type of adaptation. Now you take that animal down south for a few years and the fur won't change at all because it doesn't have a need to.

These are slight steps in how things evolve and adapt to survive.


This one is the real puzzler: Could not God snap his fingers and make fish jump out of water and walk down the road if he so choose to? ;)

CJ

There are two forms of evolution, radical and non. Most Creationists can never have much of a solid theory w/o accepting non-radical evolution (I know there's a better term for it, just can't remember off hand, lol). Non-radical evolution acounts for the many, many varieties of dogs, birds, etc. we see today. Also the various 'races' of humans. It is completely impossible for one species tp evolve into another, but certain changes within reason are possible to occur.

It is certainly plausible to believe that the first humans had, let's say, brown skin and as generations advanced in, let's say, the desert, skin eventually darkened and built up more of a resistance to the sun. On the flipside, those in progressively colder, less sunny enviroments' skin paled, but became more 'used' to the cold. Similar things happened with animals, and throguh 1,000's of years of subtle changes and cross-breeding we have ridiculous amounts of varieties of each type of, for example, dog.

skynes
01-03-2006, 03:52 AM
Amodman, you're referring to Micro and Macro Evolution.

amodman
01-03-2006, 02:22 PM
Amodman, you're referring to Micro and Macro Evolution.

Thank you, I really did study this stuff, I just forgot those two terms, lol ;).

NightCrawler
01-03-2006, 10:02 PM
Ah, but CJ... that is not evolution, that is adaption. I think evolution is more permanent/can be passed down. What you are saying is just a not-dying trigger.


Skynes & amodman, I know a lot of atheists that believe that only creationists think there is a macro and micro distinction. They think we made it up. (by the way... I heard the differentiation first from an athiest BIO101 professor...)

Pretendeavor
01-05-2006, 03:40 PM
Clicky (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intelligent.design/index.html)

I agree with the Judge's ruling. Intelligent Design is just too close to actually bringing religion into school. Since Evolution is the most plausible theory, they should teach that if they absolutly have to teach something.

What do you think about this?
i have every right to belive you where evolved from a monkey

Reeper
01-05-2006, 03:56 PM
K. not to get too into the evolution debate that you guys are in, cause I think you guys know my stance on that and if you don't read the creation/evolution thread, but to voice my opinion on the ruling, which I think is why this thread started.

Get ready for this... I agree with the ruling. I agree that intelligent design should not be taught in public schools. One, cause intelligent design if I remember correctly is not the same as Creationism. It is not the same as the young earth stance as Alex basically said. All intelligent design gives credit to is a supreme being, not necessarily YHWH, and it only gives credit to that being for creating the world and maybe the base animals in it. After that evolution takes over. And since I don't feel evolution should be taught in public schools in any form I say keep ID out. I say keep secular evolution out. I even say keep Creationism out. That's right I said keep creationism out of school. Both Creationism and evolution are matters of faith not fact. Yes creationism tends to have the facts on its side, but there is no real way to prove creationism since we have already stated that there really is no way to prove God exists. It is faith. And since they are both faith they one, should not be taught in public school, and two if they are to be taught they should be taught in private schools.

Now with that said however, I will say that if we are to teach the most plausible theory as someone said before, in the schools then it should be the theory which is supported by the evidence. This, and you all know what is coming now, is of course creationism. Evolution is only supported by oft repeated misconceptions. I know of someone who helped one school district in Texas with the choice of its textbooks. The laws in the state of Texas state that textbooks shall be factual. So they went through the books and found all the misconceptions in the textbooks they could and surprise, surprise most of them were used in support of evolution. Things like the whale has a vestigal pelvis, the human eye is backwards, etc... so when it came to the meeting that entailed the decision of what textbooks to buy they were voting to pass a bill that stated the the textbooks they buy should not have any of these lies in them. At the meeting a person stood up and said, "This is an anti-evolution bill!"

Everyone else looked at the bill and said, "Um, evolution isn't mentioned anywhere in this bill."

The person said, "Well most of these lies are used to support the evolution theory and if you take them out we won't have anything to teach about evolution."

Thankfully everyone else said, "Tough." and the bill passed.

But in truth the facts point to creation, and yes in my opinion a six day creation about 6000 years ago.

So just to recap I agree with the ruling. I don't think any type of origins should be taught in public school but if any theory is to be taught in school it should be the one with the most factual support i.e. creationism.

Peace

alorian
01-05-2006, 07:45 PM
I'll read all that when I'm more awake :) :P ;) Hahah..

AHHHHHHHHHHHH, this thread has degraded to the feared creation/evolution debate. THAT THREAD WAS CLOSED!!! How naive of me to hope to not see this debate on these boards for a year, darn! :P

Teach both, I say. Knowledge is power.

NightCrawler
01-07-2006, 05:51 PM
Hmm... I agree mostly, Reaper. I've been going back and forth on this one, I might add.

somasoul
02-05-2006, 06:59 PM
I think it should be noted that INtelligent Design is not science. If I throw a ball in the air and it comes down a certain speed and I do it again and it comes down at the same speed......that's science. Science can be measured.

Intelligent Design, though a possibility is not science. It cannot be measured. Got cannot be put into science's box. SHould be taught with evolution as an alternative? It doesn't seem that leading scientists across the globe believe in it.

Perhaps a better choice for christian parents is to remove their children from the public school system.

Isildur9473
02-05-2006, 09:32 PM
Perhaps a better choice for christian parents is to remove their children from the public school system.

Do you really think that Christians should be trying to alienate themselves from the world more than they already are? School teaches kids things they can't get from being homeschooled, or being taught in a small, private institution. While I agree that High School is a transitional time for a person no matter where they get their education, it's very important that a kid goes to a real high school.

At a real high school, a kid meets kids from all over the spectrum, be it good or bad, rich or poor, and they learn how to socially interact with these people. You also make valuable friends you might not meet elsewhere in a public school, not to mention the diversity in classes you can't really get anywhere else.

Mr. Xcitement
02-06-2006, 02:37 AM
Well I have a son (he is only 17 months) and a daughter on the way, and I agree that to believe in Evolution is a step of faith and not science, and thus would be against our religion (my views, not stating all christians feel this way) and so when my kids go to school and are taught about evolution, and the teachers call me complaining that my kids are failing it, I would just tell them "Well you will have to pass my children for teaching them something against their beliefs, test them on Creation instead or Intelligent Design and they would pass".

Reeper
02-06-2006, 11:34 AM
Well I have a son (he is only 17 months) and a daughter on the way, and I agree that to believe in Evolution is a step of faith and not science, and thus would be against our religion (my views, not stating all christians feel this way) and so when my kids go to school and are taught about evolution, and the teachers call me complaining that my kids are failing it, I would just tell them "Well you will have to pass my children for teaching them something against their beliefs, test them on Creation instead or Intelligent Design and they would pass".

Knowing how the school system works you would probably lose that complaint. The best ways for you to not have your children be indoctrinated with evolution is one, talk to the school district before the school year starts and inform them that you do not want to have your children being taught evolution, they are required to honor your request and should provide an alternative for them. Going to them after they have reported to you your kids are failing and telling them they have to pass your kids cause they taught them something against their belief system will basically get you nowhere.

The other option is to simply let your kids be taught evolution however at home show them how what they are being is wrong and tell them the truth. This is what my parents did and it worked fine. I passed all my classes easily, wasn't looked down upon by my classmates cause I received special treatment, and I knew the opposing sides arguments all the better. The way I got around answering questions on tests is I would you this formula I would say, "the book says blah, blah, blah, however this is wrong cause blah, blah, blah." That way the teacher couldn't fail me cause I knew the answer she wanted for the question but I also expressed my disbelief in evolution and stated the truth.

Hope that helps.

Peace

petrameansrock
02-06-2006, 07:19 PM
I agree with the Judge's ruling. Intelligent Design is just too close to actually bringing religion into school. Since Evolution is the most plausible theory, they should teach that if they absolutly have to teach something.

What do you think about this?

Evolution isnt "plausible" at all! Read almost ANY article on evolution in any magazine or book, they will almost ALWAYS tell you about the "overwhelming amount" of evidence they have. But do they ever share it with you? NO!

Mr. Xcitement
02-06-2006, 11:12 PM
Knowing how the school system works you would probably lose that complaint. The best ways for you to not have your children be indoctrinated with evolution is one, talk to the school district before the school year starts and inform them that you do not want to have your children being taught evolution, they are required to honor your request and should provide an alternative for them. Going to them after they have reported to you your kids are failing and telling them they have to pass your kids cause they taught them something against their belief system will basically get you nowhere.

The other option is to simply let your kids be taught evolution however at home show them how what they are being is wrong and tell them the truth. This is what my parents did and it worked fine. I passed all my classes easily, wasn't looked down upon by my classmates cause I received special treatment, and I knew the opposing sides arguments all the better. The way I got around answering questions on tests is I would you this formula I would say, "the book says blah, blah, blah, however this is wrong cause blah, blah, blah." That way the teacher couldn't fail me cause I knew the answer she wanted for the question but I also expressed my disbelief in evolution and stated the truth.

Hope that helps.

Peace

That is very helpful, thank you very much. I'm glad to know you experienced this first hand, so the advice means a lot more coming from you, and it makes a lot of sense too.

skynes
02-07-2006, 12:42 AM
Someone in the UK did a review on over 2000 members of the public.

22% believed Creation
18% believed Intelligent Design
48% believed Evolution
13% Didn't know.

As to what should be taught in schools:

44% wanted Creation included
41% wanted Intelligent Design
69% wanted Evolution.

petrameansrock
02-07-2006, 04:16 AM
As to what should be taught in schools:

44% wanted Creation included
41% wanted Intelligent Design
69% wanted Evolution.

...but thats 152%.

skynes
02-07-2006, 05:31 AM
Multiple choice answers.

Some of those who chose Creation, may also have chosen Evolution, to have an equal teaching.

petrameansrock
02-07-2006, 03:15 PM
Ah. That makes MUCH more sense.

While I believe that evolution is a hoax, and is false, I don't believe that either Creation OR Intelligent Design should be forced on students.

Students should be taught both Evolution AND Creation/ID and they should be allowed to choose. Neither of them have been proven scientifically, no matter what the evolutionists say, so why should we force either of them on people?