Natural Selection Shrinks Herd of Kansas Darwinists

James the Lesser,
I nor did the news story, deny that only creationism should be taught.
I have actually, promoted that evolution as well as the acknowlegement that there are other theories should be the way to go.

I believe that I am fairly educated and I question both versions so I am not sticking my head in the sand not have I denied any "facts"
Theory definition of : a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

I do have another problem with your posting, your unilateral dismissal of being opened to other ideas and your condemning anyone that questions is essentially the promotion of ignorance.
By the By, I love Stephen Hawkins work and I believe in most of his theories, but that does not leave me with the inability to also believe that there are other ways of the creation of the universe.

Alright JJ! Those are really difficult to read, even for me, hell, had to have Kevin(Shadow) explain some of the stuff to me.

Anyways, one is being stupid if they don't realize Theory is Fact. It would be like someone saying 2+2=9.4538375467, then a mathimetician(sp?) calling them stupid after showing them 2+2=4.

Of course, yelling is done by both sides, one yells "KILL everyone who doesn't worship me" the other side yells "Pull your head out of your ass and look at the facts!". In the Dark Ages those people were killed or arrested, like Galileo or Copernicus, or ran away before the church could capture them and kill them. How long did it take for christians/church to admit the Earth is NOT FLAT and NOT CENTER? So, just have to wait for the same thing to happen with evolution.

HEY! Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it! They said KLL! RAPE! SLAUGHTER! when a person said Earth is round, after a few hundred years they finally admitted the Earth was round. Then KILL! RAPE! SLAUGHTER! when a person said Earth not the center, after a few hundred years they finally admitted it wasn't. So, how many centuries till the church/christians admit they are wrong again?

BTW, thanks for attacking what I said and not me, someone has voted JJ for WATS.

[edit on 3-5-2005 by James the Lesser]

Originally posted by James the Lesser

Anyways, one is being stupid if they don't realize Theory is Fact.

BTW, thanks for attacking what I said and not me, someone has voted JJ for WATS.

[edit on 3-5-2005 by James the Lesser]

Can't tell ya how happy I was to read that first comment. Got a big on my face. As to the second line in the quote, no problem, I hope I never have attacked someone instead of thier words in discussion here. Just because I disagree with someone doesn't mean I don't like em

Now, to the big ol' grin. Let's talk about falsifiability. Here's a definition:

Falsifiability is an important concept in the philosophy of science that amounts to the apparently paradoxical idea that a proposition or theory cannot be scientific if it does not admit consideration of the possibility of its being false.

To say a "Theory is Fact" is to ignore scientific history. Theories have been proven wrong, but the very definition of fact states that it can't be proven wrong because it is a ... well, fact. Physics is riddled with false theories. Probably the most well known theory which has been debunked, though most people don't know it's been debunked, is Newton's Laws of Motion. These laws had moved from mere theory into the realm of law, something evolution hasn't been able to do. Yet, those laws were proven false in the 20th century and replaced with General Relativity. Examples of where Newton's laws didn't hold up:

The anomaly of the motion of Mercury(planet)
The behavior of light passing sufficiently close to a star
And the behavior of particle being accelerated in a cyclotron

The exception did not prove the rule, the rule was changed.

To use another theory that you like to point out a lot, the flat earth theory was proven false. So was the Aether theory. Then we enter the biological.

You remember this one? The miasma theory of disease? Probably not, it was obliterated upon the discovery of the germ. Proved that air polution was not the cause of illnesses like cholera.

There are many, many more theories, far less known than these, which have also been proven false through falsifiability. Now, to Darwin's credit, he put in criteria which would prove his theory false. However, now it has become such a political issue that the only people who are willing to talk about the exceptions are labeled religious nuts, and their evidence is ignored. We found here on this thread that, if a biochemist comes out and says (s)he has weighed the evidence and it appears evolution does not work on the cellular level, they get labeled a hack or something along those lines, and their evidence is ignored.

Darwin had a valid scientific theory. However, due to the politics of science, people are being told to accept evolution as the end all be all fact, that theory is fact, and you cannot question it without some severe brain damage. Darwin's theory of evolution has lost it's falsifiability. Not because of Darwin himself, but because of his supporters who hate religion and see evolution as a great shot against it. This theory will not be proven false because no one will look at the evidence presented by those who are questioning the theory.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again. Keep politics out of science.

Originally posted by junglejake

I've said it once, and I'll say it again. Keep politics out of science.

Keep religion out of it also and we have a deal.

Normally I would post all ten, but only one is needed.

While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

An amendment will be added to this. "All you need is a old man raping your child to prove god."

Er...Don't follow ya at all, James All 10 what?

Also, if we were to keep religion out of science, science would be far, far behind what it is today. If you don't know what I'm talking about, say something and I'll fill in the details

Oh, and no, James, because all those branches of science rely, as far as evolution goes, on the geological 4.5 billion year old earth model. Without that, everything falls apart. If that theory fails somehow, everything comes tumbling down. As a result, I highly doubt that theory will be permitted to be questioned by the "legit" scientific community without getting ostracized. You know, like Galileo was after proposing a (correct) theory that the politics of the time did not want to hear, know, or learn about.

Before y'all say it, I'll preemptivly answer. Make no mistake, the Catholic church is both a religious institution and a major political player in world politics. They have far less power today, but in the day of Galileo, what the church said went, and they used that for political gain. Now we have a new church, a secular church, which is using its clout for political gain, as well.

I'm not trying to pick a fight or question anyones faith, just turning the tables to make a point.

How would the creationist feel If I coached my daughter to go to sunday school and ask......

how did noah get 2 of every creature on the ark ? What about the animals in australia, south america, and north america ?

if we are all decendants of adam and eve, how did the earths population grow to 6 billion people so quickly? that would take a looooooong time to produce from 2 people.

etc etc etc

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
if we are all decendants of adam and eve, how did the earths population grow to 6 billion people so quickly? that would take a looooooong time to produce from 2 people.

If we are all decended from Adam and Eve, then why is incest taboo?

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
How would the creationist feel If I coached my daughter to go to sunday school and ask......

Not only would I not have a problem with this, I would encourage it. Hopefully the Sunday school teacher would be able to answer those questions. If not, (s)he would, hopefully, say they didn't know, but then talk to the pastor or try to find the answers to be better equipped to answer those questions in the future. I am a firm believer in knowing all of the package, and asking the tough questions that just don't make sense to you. Discussion of the unknowns and the tough questions either reinforces your faith, or shows you that your faith is wrong. By shying away from them, we're only inviting willing ignorance.

So ask the tough questions, don't be afraid to answer, "I don't know", and continue to educate yourself in that which you do not know. Rock, rock on!

Originally posted by HowardRoark

If we are all decended from Adam and Eve, then why is incest taboo?

What an even more confusing question is, if we are all decended from Adam and Eve, where the heck did Kain find a city?

Oh, the Ten I have is a top ten list of christian hypocrisy/lack of logic. I used number 3 for that pertains to the discussion. Also, Earth is that old, give or take a couple million years either way. If Earth was as young as the church/bible says then oil, fossils, Ice Age, moon, all don't exist.(all older then 6,000 years old/take more time to make) And millions sound like alot, but in the time span the Earth has been around it is nothing. Like how I say the Roman Empire was killed by christians in a week. It was actually a few decades, but compared to the centuries it existed under pagens/jews it was a week before the church killed it.

ALso, don't ask those, you get hate mail, or hate graffiti on your car/house for asking questions. Or in some places in the bible belt you get killed for asking questions of the local child rapist, I mean local priest. Now a Luthern Minister you can ask, same with Methodists, they won't try to kill you as far as history shows(by history I mean reported news) or something like that. But the church(catholic) and a South Baptist churches, don't ask if you want to live.

Oh wait, to answer your question, I'll give you the answer I was given by christians on here. "Special Rain" for where all the water came from, since there isn't enough on or under Earth, and "Special Sex" to explain why inbreeding didn't kill everything off after 3-4 generation. That's right, ask for science, I get "special".

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
so Nygdan, are you just trying to say that it is wrong for students to question those who are teaching them?

No. I am obviously not saying that.

If the questions are bunk? Then what is wrong with the teacher pointing this out? Educating the students as to why the questions are bunk and are incorrect?

"students, those questions were handed out to you by ministers and activists who are immoral and corrupted liars. Your parents, also, have been lying to you. Take out a pencil and paper and write an essay explaining why creationism is propaganda, your parents are decieved, and why the religious radicals are a dangerous political force that has to be destroyed. This will count for 15 percent of your final grade'

Actually, that does sound like a good idea. These questions can only be answered by taking on that which they hint at, biblical literalism, yecism, oecism, faith, directly. We do not want to turn science classrooms into places where religious dogma are examined and rejected.

As for what alternatives can / should be taught. a simple statement that evolution is only a theory and that there are others.

Again, what others?

If a student wants to learn more of them, please visit the library.

Pointless. They can do this on their own. Singling out Evolution in this matter, as opposed to say gravity, or the germ theory of disease, is a political ploy, not a valid scientific issue. I wouldn't have an issue with it at all, the basic concept is acceptable: Evolutionary Theory can be overturned at any moment (of course, the factual existence of evolution is a different matter). We can all wake up tommorrow and someone can have demonstrated that matter is not composed of atoms. But I don't see any activists groups calling for that. I only see opposition to 'evolution', and by that the protestors usually mean 'abiogenesis, common decent, and the big bang', because, for some reason, those scientific theories clash with their religious beleifs. Since its a religious issue, I see no reason to allow, for a moment, it to become a subject of discussion in a science class. Science education clealry notes that theories are based on evidence, and that new evidence can overturn/refute theories. Thats all that needs to be noted. Its a sufficient catchall, and its taught early in science education. Singling out evolution is clearly not motivated by scientific 'skeptisism' or 'exactness' in realtion to evolutionary theory.

By a teacher and or parent denying the instruction or explaination ( to the best of their ability) either of these theories are wrong and will lead to our children just accepting what others "teach" them.

Lets face it, public education does not seek to make super scholars out of children. It seeks to make them civically minded and responsible and moderately educated individuals. Not scientific researchers. Thats something for post-college levels of education. We teach students the basics of economics, we don't expect them to be able to outwit donald trump. We teach a very simplified and basic way of studying history, and are barely succeeding in doing that. Throwing in marxist interpretations of history, or functionalist vs evolutionary models of social change into the mix is going to result in a bunch of kids who don't even know as little as students know now. SImilarly, having teachers have to deal with creationist anti-rational propaganda is silly, especially having science teachers have to deal with it. Kids need to learn some basic stuff before then can deal with these things. Case in point, most of the questions that creationists make and push, like the idiotic 'if we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes', is a question that anyone with a decent high school education on evolution shouldn't even have to ask. These creationists are disrupting public education, and creating enough false doubt and dismissal, that their own members don't even understand what they are rejecting.
Bottom line, in a public school, these kids should get a decent education. If some religionists want their kids to 'question evolution because if contradicts with the bible', well, maby those sunday school teachers should fielding the questions. These kids get a religious education at church, in religious classes, at home, and in society. In a science class, they should only be getting a science education, not wasting everyone's time with idiotic front questions pushed by religious activists.

If Darwin had done this, then we would not be having this discussion as he would have blindly accepted the creationist beliefs as was predominate back then.

Darwin had to have a basic education about nature before he could grapple with evolutionary theory. He thought on if for years. Now we expect students to learn in it, what, a single year? And during that time we all have to worry about creationist tools wasting everyones time asking irrelevant bogus questions that don't advance the discussion and only serve to get religion discussed in class? No.

I thought that the motto of this site was to deny ignorance,

If everyone on this site denied ignorance, then there'd be practically no creationists, nor tolerance for the movements anti-rational, pro-ignorance, deceitful and lying political propaganda.

by not at least presenting both sides of any matter the begining of man or any other subject ionly promotes ignorance.

No, it does not. The creationist side of the evolution arguement is not a scientific arguement, its an irrational religious beleif. Discussing religion in a science classroom is ignorance. I'd be all for a few days taken out of 'world history' to look at how the ideas of creationism and intellifgent design were already on the wane by the time of lamarck and more or less completely rejected in Darwin's own time.
The 'modern' ID movement, which tries to seperate itself from 'scientific creationism', can be something considered in a philosophy class, under a session on epistemology. However, we don't require philosophy and episemology studies in public schools, and, I dare say, most creationist advocates would be protesting if students were required to read Nietzche, Islamic philosophers, Marx, Rand, etc, having to explain how religion is used as an 'opiate for the masses' or having their kids write essays on 'going beyond good and evil' and explaining 'why god is dead', etc etc.

aelita
In addition, I find the term "intelligent design" blasphemous. If anything, it should be "divine".

If they called it 'supernatural design', then the ruse would be up. The whole point of the modern intelligent design movement, backed and pushed by Phil Johnson, and articulated in the wedge document, is to claim that intelligent design is merely a scientific theory that seeks to identify design, as in cars and buildings, and use ID to 'wedge open' the schools and get creationism proper on the table. That, in fact, is how its used. Eugenie Scott, of the NCSE, has found that these IDists will contacty sympathetic members of local school boards, and get them touse ID as a front for a series of suggested changes to the science curriculum, claiming its just a matter of inclusive science, which tends to sit well with those who don't know the scam. Then, when there is some public support, and the matter comes to review, all discussion of ID is dropped, and outright creationism starts getting pushed.
Why do this, why not just be open and honest about it? Because the creationist movement, decades ago, tried to use the courts to force schools to teach their religious dogma, and, obviously, failed utterly, I beleive the idea was even rejected by the SCOTUS itself. So ever since then its been a series of dirty tricks and frauds to get it done.
So they can't call it 'divine design', becuase they have to pretend that they mean anythign by the 'intelligent designer', when they really mean jesus.

junglejake
I like how you finished your statement by comparing questioning evolution to school shootings

I wouldnt' say that, but I would say that teenagers are pretty emotionally confused as it is. I don't see anyone benefit to having their religious beleif system forcibly and publically torn down by authority figures.

All those stupid parents (if, of course, they've gotten a "proper" scientific education, otherwise they're just ignorant, I hope) stop indoctronating thier kids with idiot mumbo-jumbo like creation and just accept a scientific theory

That would be a good start.

Let me be clear, my attitude is torwards the major promoters of the fraud and lies, the people at AIG, ICR, DI, etc etc. THey're frauds, hucksters, charlatans, plain and simple. The public are a different matter. The 'creationists laity' that I have met are very nice people, and are usually as excited as I am to discuss the issues. They're not stupid. They're manipulated (perhaps not as insidiously as it sounds) by a good propaganda machine, and a set of ideas that very strongly tug on man's mind. And, outside of that, they simply have faith in their god, and beleive that god is telling them how the world was created (more or less) in the bible. Some of them take it more literally than others. I mean, faith is faith, you can't get 'upset' with it, its not a 'rational choice', by definition.
Personaly, I'd love to see students, throughout the country, put into a few hours more of school every day, and have their school year expanded to include almost the entire year (adults don't get 'summer vacation', its not a 'psychological necessity'). There's so much stuff that kids can be taught about, and its worth the extra time. I'd very much like to see the average school curriculum include classes about philosophy and such, and see things like creationism discussed, and I'd very much like to see a more open and spirited public discussion about the issues.

All those stupid parents (if, of course, they've gotten a "proper" scientific education, otherwise they're just ignorant, I hope) stop indoctronating thier kids with idiot mumbo-jumbo like creation and just accept a scientific theory

This is not true. One does not need faith to accept evolution, at least no more 'faith' than one needs to accept that its not angles pushing the planets around, but rather gravity pulling them, or that its not some 'divine fire' that rumbles around inside a computer, but rather electricity composed of electron flow.

and view the facts that support the theory while ignoring those that do not

This is the critical point.
We approach a rock formation. Its a sedimentary layer with a progression of grain sizes, generally, from bigger to small, bottom to top. We find fossils in it of water and land animals along with petrified smashed up peices of wood.
Is it evidence of a local flood, that swept up and eventually settled out dirt, mice, fish and turtles and smashed logs into peices?
Or is it proof of 'The Flood' in the bible and is the wood Noah's Ark?
Is it evidence for or against 'evolution' (even tho it has nothign to do with natural selection, and evolution is more of a catch all?)
How do we answer that question? By refereing to the bible? Even then, we'd expect to ask some rational questions about the evidence.
Thats how we answer the questions, not thru the bible, but thru rational thinking. The bible is plenty good for lots of people in answering important life questions that can't even be touched by 'rational thinking'. But its not a book that can be used to answer scientific questions. We need to apply a rational methodology to how we do things, at least if we want to call it scientific. Rational logical methodology is scientific methodology. the catchall 'Evolution' is scientific, it is a rational way of looking at things (actually, its the conclusion we reach by rationally and logically looking at the world around us).

and demonized if they have any scientific credibility at all

Thats something that has to be looked at on a case by case basis. Behe and Dembski are supposed to be scientists, but they should know better than to call a search for divinity scientific. Supernatural Design/Divine Intervention can not be studied by the scientific method, its beyond its purview. Science can't anymore prove that there is a god than it can possible disprove that there is a god. Those are the primary complaints that I have seen against thos guys and most creationists who have science degrees and back disclept 'scientific creationism'. There are other people in the creationist movement who claim to have scientific degrees or advanced degrees, but in reality, don't. Kent Hovind's PHD from a 'locally accredited' university is a good example. Actually, its sort of unfair, because Hovind is such a fraud that one could claim that one is merely pointing out the worst of the worst.

However, teachers have had talking points for a while now, why not the kids?

Because the teachers are there to teach science, the students are there to learn science, these 'talking points' are bogus. They're mostly false claims that the people distributing tem can't honestly claim to have not been informed about.

If, however, they are asking the questions because they want answers or to understand, let them ask the questions

Indeed, they should. These questions are distributed to their families and them by creationist activists at church and religious meetings and they are encouraged to bring it up. They are not issues or questions that the kids came up with in the course of their studies. Therefore, theyshould be rejected. And, look at it, these activists, they already have the kids attention, they have them in church, at religious meetings, and in sunday school. If they really were concerned about educating these kids, they'd be doing it there. But they don't, they don't want to waste their time explaining evolutionary theory and why those questions are wrong or inaccurate or inapplicable, they want to teach religion (understandably enough). So if they won't even teach this stuff to their kids in their own schools, why should public teachers have to work with this garbage?

The questions you quoted from that ten link were pretty easy to refute

Precisely. Anyone doing a modicum of research would see, they're bogus questions, the people that maintain that site, and distribute the questions,they know the answers, they've had it explained to them, and yet they still had it out. Thats why its propaganda, thats why its bogus, thats why its political.

The question about the Peppered Moth I would pose is why do evolutionists use the peppered moth study, an obvious example of micro evolution, to prove macro evolution?

Good question, the relationship of micro evolution to macro evolution.
I think we are in a discussion on this in another thread, so I will breifly cite this and this and quote this:

Microevolution and macroevolution are different things, but they involve mostly the same processes. Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population. There is no argument that microevolution happens (although some creationists, such as Wallace, deny that mutations happen). Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth. Speciation has also been observed.

but thats a snippet only.

As for the Archaeopteryx, I spent about a page discussing this little buddy a while back on ATS

I'd be interested to see that discussion. Archaeopteryx is clearly a transitional animal, it has bird like characteristics and reptilian characteristics. If nothing else, it demonstrates that the idea of 'kinds' of animals is bunkum, ie not real, there are no 'kinds' of animals. Creationism often puts forth this pseudo-scientific stuff about 'Baraminology' (baramin apparently being a biblical word for kind), and 'baraminologists' will usualy state that 'every kind was created, and then the kinds evolved', ie, an intial bird kind was created ad hoc, and then that bird evolved into all the birds around. Problem is, as noted above, kinds simply do not exist.

[edit attributions - nygdan]

[edit on 4-5-2005 by Nygdan]

Hey, how come when I make a long post I get 50 replies "Your post is to long" yet Nygdan makes a long post and nothing? CONSPIRACY!(kidding, good responses though)

Anyways, I looked in the bible, no where does it say "And God created everything and Micro Evolution, not macro, but micro." No, so any evolution makes bible bunk, again. Anyone know where in the bible it says god made everything and micro evolution?(sarcasm, it doesn't, unless you use "special" again)

Also, is the dolphin evolving from a land mammal to a sea mammal micro or macro? Seems kinda macro to me.

Arch. is several things. To science/reality/real world it is a inbetween species. To religon it is evil, satan planted it. Of course, they say that about all fossils. I am not making this up! People on here even have stated that fossils were planted by !SATAN! to test the faith of the sheeple/christians. How sad is that? Lord of the Dance.(Dennis Leary, No Cure for Cancer/Lock N Load 2 pack DvD set)

Edit: Links to things showing how uh, illogical christians are and information on how science/reality/real world are right. AMazing how many ATS/BTS/PTS links popped up on google.

vsredthought.dailykos.com...
www.xenophilia.com...
www.tim-thompson.com...


[edit on 4-5-2005 by James the Lesser]

Here are some photos I took of some dino-bird fossil:





Wow, they look even worse than the last time I looked at them.

Anyway, its nice to be able to see these things sometimes.

There is nothing I can add to this thread regarding evolution that Nygdan hasnt already covered. There are no alterative theories to evolution that dont require some kind of intellectual defeatism in other words "we don't know how it happened, we're not even going to bother to try to figure it out, we'll just say god did it". Thats no way to approach science.

all those branches of science rely, as far as evolution goes, on the geological 4.5 billion year old earth model. Without that, everything falls apart. If that theory fails somehow, everything comes tumbling down.

Exactly why you cant pick and choose what you want to use from science its all interconnected. If you want to abandon scientific theory for mysticism by all means go ahead. Just please abandon the rest of science with it please. Don't be a hypocrite give us back our technology and all byproducts of it. Stop using cars computers and modern medicine. Go live in the woods or the desert and scratch a living as best you can using nonscientific principles. Thats why I like the Amish they're not hypocrites unlike the creationist movement in America.

AMish use science. The whole lever and opposite reaction is how they do barn raises. One pulls, one pushes. But if you mean advanced science, then no, they don't.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Of course, yelling is done by both sides, one yells "KILL everyone who doesn't worship me" the other side yells "Pull your head out of your ass and look at the facts!".

i must say james your ovious HATE of religion is disturbing. that "kill everyone who dosn't worship me" bit is not something that i have seen. yes in the old testement there is LAWS for the CHOSEN people that state to kill certain peoples WITHIN their society for differant "Crimes". it how ever never stated to go out into the world and kill off all of those who don't worship me. now there was the case of God ordering the chosen to kill off those who lived in the land that they were to be given (guess what they didn't listen to God). there is NOWHERE in the new testement that says to kill of everyone who does not worship either.

sure it happened that they persecuted those who "thought out of the box", this did not mean however that they were in the "right". just as they were "proveen" wrong so might these "other "theories be wrong. mabe to use your words, people need to "get their heads out of their asses", about the absolute VALIDITY of their claims as well.is not the "rightness" and persecution of those who not think that "these" are correct doing the EXACT same THING that you are damming the church for?

In the Dark Ages those people were killed or arrested, like Galileo or Copernicus, or ran away before the church could capture them and kill them. How long did it take for christians/church to admit the Earth is NOT FLAT and NOT CENTER? So, just have to wait for the same thing to happen with evolution.

HEY! Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it! They said KLL! RAPE! SLAUGHTER! when a person said Earth is round, after a few hundred years they finally admitted the Earth was round. Then KILL! RAPE! SLAUGHTER! when a person said Earth not the center, after a few hundred years they finally admitted it wasn't. So, how many centuries till the church/christians admit they are wrong again?

where does rape, slaughter from this come from? i guess it was possible certainly some people were killed over these things but rape? slaghter?

yup the catholic church was guilty of doing this, one of may things that i don't like about that paticular "group" of christians (the orginization not the actual people). then again THERE WAS APSOLUTLY NO "REASONING" FOR THIS IN THE BIBLE. this was paticular people that caused this, with nothing i have found to support it in the word of god. yup btw these were THEORIES. just as EVOLUTION/"BIGBANG" theories are theroies.

was the rcc wrong? yup bet your boopies they were. you know what? there was even yet another "theory" to deal with this. something about the fact that it was once true but God caused it to change. do i believe in this "theory"? nope i rather think it is a bit far fetched. might I be wrong? yes i could be. God caan prety much do as he pleases. just as many of us as kids made changes to toys to make them our own. heck i changed my fisherprice sesime st. appartment toy into a gijoe army base compleate with gunnery stations . it was MINE to do with as I pleased. the universe is likewise God's to do with as he pleases.

you know when push comes to shove many who do not "belive" in evolution do hold that at least some parts are probably correct. we all know that there is definately some changes that take place though not on the scale that the evolution "theory" states. if there was no way that creatures could change then how the heck would you explain how humans have been able to "breed" creatures and plants for spacific traits. sure some things can and do indeed change over time. that being said however, does not mean that everything has evolved from say a cell to apes to humans. or that say a dinosaure "evolved" into a cat.

i actualy find it amuseing when "evolutionists" call foul on the rcc for doing in the past, what they are currantly doing. you would thjink that when they blaim the church for being unbending to "other ideas" that these same people should be open to other possibilities as well. just as the rcc dammed, called heritics and tryed to persecute those believeing in a "round earth", and that the universe was not doing as they thought. the "evolutionists" are currantly damming, calling heritics, and "persecuting" those who think differantly from them. it is a double standard that bears looking at.

"Thoery"? So you are being sarcastic or qouting someone?(that's what quotes stand for)

See, this is why christians would still have the world flat/center. Theory means fact/reality. Like oh say, Theory of Gravity, or Theory of Relativity, you know, things that must have been made up by stoners cause they are theory. What a christian needs to understand is that unlike BS, science can change, when they find new/more evidence they change, while BS just kills anyone or calls it satan. Science says there is an answer lets find it. BS says kill anyone who doesn't agree with our answer that we made up out of thin air.

Slaughter? Inquistions sound familiar? Or how "Gee, one person in this town has proof we are full of it, he may have told others in the town, bye bye town." Or say, all the other people who had proof we weren't on the back of a one eyed pink and purple turtle from Neptune that got killed. Not to mention any magician that didn't reveal the trick they did. Not to mention witches, druids, Indians, and today the Africans.

Rape? Well, besides recent past 50 years of kiddy bopping, in the past they did the same thing. Sure they had the common decency to use little girls instead of boys, but still, pervs then, pervs now. Except back then when caught they weren't moved to another parish or told "Don't do that, bad priest, go to you rectory." but were killed.

Also, god has killed more people then Hitler/Pol Pot/Bush&Co/Black Plague put together, if you read/believe the bible anyways.

Again, how come I can edit posts made months ago, but ones made only a few minutes ago I can't?

"Friend, I am a '22 Scientist'. I want to introduce you to a beautiful and simple truth: 2 + 2 = 22. You can just look at it and it is obvious. The evidence for this fact is all around us. We are surrounded by the number 22, and EVERY SINGLE '22' shows how it is created, by adding '2' and '2'. Glory be!"


Some christian using this to get creation in public school science classes.

Edit: Now it says I can edit it after I posted this. WTF!!!!

[edit on 6-5-2005 by James the Lesser]

Originally posted by James the Lesser
"Thoery"? So you are being sarcastic or qouting someone?(that's what quotes stand for)

i thought an alternate use was EMPHISIS of something not just quoteing something or being sarcastic. i apologise for not realizeing that they can not be used to emphisise something (guess i'll just hve to use caps which is also considdered a SHOUT and not just emphisis) i was NOT BEING SARCASTIC that should have been clear in what i was saying again i apologise for your misunderstanding of it.

See, this is why christians would still have the world flat/center. Theory means fact/reality. Like oh say, Theory of Gravity, or Theory of Relativity, you know, things that must have been made up by stoners cause they are theory. What a christian needs to understand is that unlike BS, science can change, when they find new/more evidence they change, while BS just kills anyone or calls it satan. Science says there is an answer lets find it. BS says kill anyone who doesn't agree with our answer that we made up out of thin air.

again you have misunderstood what i was trying to get across. i never said that those THEORIES were CORRECT. i was trying to point out that the currant situation puts the EVOLUTIONISTS in the EXACT SAME SPOT as the rcc. in regaurds to how they treat those who BELIEVE CREATION is CORRECT as opposed to EVOLUTION. i ask why you who view what the CHURCH did centuries ago as bad but when EVOLUTIONISTS do the same thing that it is correct as EVOLUTIONISTS view creation the EXACT SAME WAY as the chuch viewed THE EARTH BEING FLAT. remember that the earth being almost round HAS BEEN PROVEN since but EVOLUTION has no such PROOF.

Slaughter? Inquistions sound familiar? Or how "Gee, one person in this town has proof we are full of it, he may have told others in the town, bye bye town." Or say, all the other people who had proof we weren't on the back of a one eyed pink and purple turtle from Neptune that got killed. Not to mention any magician that didn't reveal the trick they did. Not to mention witches, druids, Indians, and today the Africans.

yes the inquisition was DEFINATLY WRONG. i never said that it was NOT. what i did SAY however that it was ACTION of MEN with NO backing from the BIBLE.

also there is NO CONCREATE PROOF that has EVER been shown that make evolution CORRECT. heck those who believed the earth was round actualy had much better proof that they were correct.

Rape? Well, besides recent past 50 years of kiddy bopping, in the past they did the same thing. Sure they had the common decency to use little girls instead of boys, but still, pervs then, pervs now. Except back then when caught they weren't moved to another parish or told "Don't do that, bad priest, go to you rectory." but were killed.

again this was the action of the catholic church. it IS IN NO WAY THE RIGHT THING. but how does this aply to people who believe in creation? all CREATIONISTS ARE NOT CATHOLICS. just as all catholics are not creationists. nice bit of sterio typeing there. this has not one thing to do with the discussion, EVERYTHING to do with DAMMING EVERYONE WITH THE ACTIONS OF THE FEW, this is called PREDUDACE btw. actions i might add are considdered to be wrong by those that are even involved in the catholic church. you are sounding like a religious BIGOT yourself with what you say. i feel sorry for you that you hold such doublestandards in your heart.

Also, god has killed more people then Hitler/Pol Pot/Bush&Co/Black Plague put together, if you read/believe the bible anyways.

not so sure of how acurate that that statement is. certainly god killed many. whole towns in fact. even the whole earth at one time. but i doubt that the numbers are that high. you can not count what INDIVIDUALS have done in his NAME against him however. that WAS NOT HIS WILL that i have seen, but the WILL of those involved. if i kill someone just because i felt that that was what YOU wanted, would you in fact be guilty of their murder? you never told me you wanted me to kill them, just that YOU felt that what they did/believed was wrong. i would have MISUSED what you wanted probaly to further my own ends. how could you be held responsible for that?