Kansas evolution vote nears, scientists fight back

CNN - LAWRENCE, Kansas (Reuters) -- At the new "Explore Evolution" museum exhibit in Kansas, visitors pass a banner showing the face of a girl next to the face of a chimpanzee for a lesson on how the two are "cousins in life's family tree."

It would seem from reading this entire article that a big brew ha-ha is ...well..... brewing between scientists and the religous sect.

What do you think? Your points would be appreciated.

1. Evolution

2. Religion

3. Who will win this battle of Kansas

www.cnn.com...

- One Man Short

Damn can't religion keep it's paws off of anything? It doesn't fit with our book that was written by men and changed a million times over the years....waww. waww..waww. I mean c'mon. How and why do we keep standing up for this? Everbody says how the gov't is stealing their freedoms but their blinded by religion who steals them everyday.

God, the bible and what's written in it has never been proven and never will be, so how can they say anything?

[edit on 5-11-2005 by I See You]

You have voted I See You for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Totally agreed. It's quite a coincidence that it is realigon that has started most of the terrible wars in history because they can't accept that sometimes they are wrong. Evolution, a scientefic not totally prove theory is for science class, KEEP RELIGON IN CHURCHES, SYNAGOGUES, MOSQUES ETC!!! My God! If people want religon taught so bad why dont they just put it in a cultural studies class?!? These fundamentalist people are the one reason why I have pulled away against religon. Quite a sad fact eh?

How can anyone VOTE to determine whether evolution is valid or not?

Incredibly perverse!

Hello all,

It's really not all that hard to trace passages in the Bible to real events.

But things get touchie IMO, when God is excluded from the Bible. The problem comes if you're wrong.

Something like burning all the bridges behind you.

bc
.

i think science has gone further in evolution and worked hard at there facts.religion is for the people who wish to belong to an group of worship.its ok to be both also but the work speaks for itshelf.let science be. let it grow and find us new places of life.we are 7 million years in the making so dont pack up and give up now.what a waste of dinosaurs we would be lol......

Originally posted by One Man Short of Manhood

CNN - LAWRENCE, Kansas (Reuters) -- At the new "Explore Evolution" museum exhibit in Kansas, visitors pass a banner showing the face of a girl next to the face of a chimpanzee for a lesson on how the two are "cousins in life's family tree."

It would seem from reading this entire article that a big brew ha-ha is ...well..... brewing between scientists and the religous sect.

What do you think? Your points would be appreciated.

1. Evolution

2. Religion

3. Who will win this battle of Kansas

www.cnn.com...

- One Man Short

I'll tell you what I think. I think by the very title you have given this thread you are incapable of discussing this subject at all. Apparently you believe that all people who agree with the ludicrous theory of evolution are "scientists" and all those who don't agree are "religious freaks."

Actually I'd put it the other way around. You would have to be the most devoted and determined fanatical believer to even consider that evolution could be anything more than the lamest excuse man EVER came up with to try to explain God away.

What you could have titled your thread is:

Kansas evolution vote nears, Atheists fight back.

or

Kansas evolution vote nears, Evolutionists fight back. (because you're losing unfortunately because even though the Illuminati controls the schools and the evolution crap is promoted on the Illuminati controlled television and news and magazines, still people JUST DON'T BELIEVE IT.)

The Big Lie is just too preposterous for most people to swallow.

I don't know why ATS allows people to post these misleading titles. All evolutionists are not scientists, and all creationists are not nonscientists. Duh! I'd like to appeal to the moderators here for some kind of intellectual fairness in this instance.


Basic logic? The rules are broken in this title. Doesn't anybody but me SEE this?

Found a new place to attack Atheists, eh Resistance?

Originally posted by resistance
I think by the very title you have given this thread you are incapable of discussing this subject at all. Apparently you believe that all people who agree with the ludicrous theory of evolution are "scientists" and all those who don't agree are "religious freaks."

He didn't make the title up, the story already had one. Where exactly did anyone say anyone who doesnt believe evolution is a religious freak? I hate when people try to words in other's mouths.

Originally posted by resistance
You would have to be the most devoted and determined fanatical believer to even consider that evolution could be anything more than the lamest excuse man EVER came up with to try to explain God away.

From what I have read, you are very hypocritical. Always complaining that Christians are being called ridiculous, and yet you do the same thing to evolutionists.

Originally posted by resistance
What you could have titled your thread is:
Kansas evolution vote nears, Atheists fight back.

WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM WITH ATHEISTS? Do you always feel the need to slander them in every post? This has already been stated by Zipdot on the other thread but I guess you didnt read that.....

A theist believes in a God/ and or Gods. Strong Atheisism is a disbelief in God. Weak Atheisism is a lack of belief in any God.

An Old Earth Creationist can believe in Evolution, just as a weak atheist can choose not to believe in evolution. Just because someone is Atheist does not mean they believe in Evolution. What is the logic in that statement?

Originally posted by resistance
I don't know why ATS allows people to post these misleading titles.

This was the title of the article on CNN's website, One Man simply used the same one.

Originally posted by resistance
All evolutionists are not scientists, and all creationists are not nonscientists.

Where did anyone imply this? Many creationists are scientists, but I highly doubt their numbers even come close to those supporting evolution.

Originally posted by resistance
The rules are broken in this title.

What rule has been broken? I seriously don't see any problems with it.

Charley -- I don't care if CNN came up with the title. CNN hates Christians. CNN's owner Ted Turner believes the world is overpopulated and needs to be thinned and culled by at least three-quarters. He's Illuminati.

The title is bigoted and misleading -- just what you might expect from CNN.
I think the title needs to be changed.

"Kansas evolution vote nears, scientists fight back"

No rules have been broken in the title of this thread. That title is perfectly accurate and descriptive.

Originally posted by One Man Short of Manhood
It would seem from reading this entire article that a big brew ha-ha is ...well..... brewing between scientists and the religous sect.

What do you think? Your points would be appreciated.

1. Evolution

Based on facts.

2. Religion

Based on faith.

3. Who will win this battle of Kansas

If the courts vote for religion.. they risk losing credibility. The legal sytem is meant to be based on rationale not wishful thinking. In the event that religion does win.. creationalists will still lose trying to fight off the flying spaghetti monster for class time. Which is more credible?

[edit on 6-11-2005 by riley]

Originally posted by resistance
You would have to be the most devoted and determined fanatical believer to even consider that evolution could be anything more than the lamest excuse man EVER came up with to try to explain God away.

See, its this kind of thing I don't get. Why do 'evolution' and 'God' have to be so incompatible in so many people's eyes? Am I being naive in considering that scientific teaching is the best way to find the material truth of my existence whilst not neccesarily removing the essential mystery of this 'life'...if that makes sense to anyone.

I sometimes get the impression that these arguments are about biblical belief v scientific belief, rather than belief in 'God' v no belief in 'God'.

Khieu -- I guess it depends on how the word "scientific" is defined. If scientific means that it's pronouncements made by people who call themselves "scientists" -- people who are held in high respect by the accouterments of this world -- well, that may or may not be actual science but as Scripture calls says it may just be "science so-called" -- or pseudoscience. Sometimes when people want to "prove" something, to convince people to believe something they just know is not true, in order to convince people to ignore their eyes, ears and common sense these "scientists" will conduct a "study" -- and do "tests" -- and come up with "scientific conclusions" that are actually just plain false conclusions based on rigged tests whose results were predetermined from the outset. But this way these so-called "scientists" can get people to go along with believing something that isn't so because not to do so is to "deny science." God forbid anyone should do that. And people are trusting and tend to believe what the people in the white coats tell them.

My idea of science is the discovery of the truth no matter where it takes you. When you have a preconceived notion that God does not exist and that God must never be a factor in any of the equations in the discovery -- well, what kind of science is that? That's just pseudo-science, or false religion disguised as science, where instead of priests and nuns you have people with white coats and lots of letters after their names and articles published in National Geographic or whatever, quoted on the Discovery Channel. Just because it's written up in NG or you get to be on the DC doesn't mean the information is true. Much if it is not true.

There's only one book that has complete truth in it, no mistakes, no error mixed in. The Good Book. For example, the Good Book says the birds were created before the dinosaurs. Well, our brilliant "scientists" insist the birds "evolved" out of the dinosaurs, that the scaled dinosaurs had their scales turn into feathers, their teeth fell out and their mouths turned into beaks, and their forelegs turned into wings. They say the big-haunched back legs shriveled up and became spindly bird legs. Well, they could have saved themseles a lot of scratching and digging in the dirt looking for any kind of links on THAT one if they'd just read the first couple pages of the Good Book.

I could go on on some more huge bloopers "science" has made because it either does not listen to the Bible, or is determined to disprove or discredit the Bible, but I'll leave it at that for now.
removed quote of previous post

[edit on 6-11-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]

Well I for one hope that common sense wins out and that the pro-evolution party, which has to be the only side speaking sense at the moment, wins. The bible should remain in RE classes and people's homes. Bringing it in to science classes is just plain wrong. My views on the Bible are fairly simple - it's a great history of a bronze and iron age people, with their theories on the way that the world started. Nothing more. People who regard it as having all the answers are welcome to think that way, just as long as they don't try and push said views onto other people. The Bible doesn't mention an awful lot and it certainly does not mention evolution, so the entire court case is a bit of a no-brainer. The fact that it's been brought in 80 YEARS after the Scopes Monkey Trial beggars belief.

Originally posted by I See You
Damn can't religion keep it's paws off of anything? It doesn't fit with our book that was written by men and changed a million times over the years....waww. waww..waww. I mean c'mon. How and why do we keep standing up for this? Everbody says how the gov't is stealing their freedoms but their blinded by religion who steals them everyday.

God, the bible and what's written in it has never been proven and never will be, so how can they say anything?

[edit on 5-11-2005 by I See You]

So if people want their kids taught atheism, let them do it with their own money, not force Christians to pay to have their own kids and other people's kids taught to love what Christians hate and to hate what Christians love. Somebody took the First Amendment and kind of stood it on its head here. If the atheists are so positive there is no God, that atoms have godlike properties of self-existence, and the ability to form themselves into planets and suns and produce all the living creatures from dead matter -- hey, let them raise the money for their own schools to teach their own kids these things. Those of us who don't believe we are animals, just another animal on the food chain, a polluting and overpopulated animal at that who needs to be culled and thinned -- why should we be forced to pay for this kind of indoctrination?

So it's not the Christians who can't keep their paws off anything. It's the evolutionists who think they have a right to force everybody else to do things their way, and they want a free ride in the indoctrination of atheism into the minds of young schoolchildren.

resistance, it's not just regular people who support evolutionary theory.

The / vatican itself rejects / intelligent design and supports evolutionary theory.

So perhaps the agenda to explore and support scientific initiatives is not entirely atheistic.

Zip

Not only that, but Old Earth Creationism rejects Young Earth Creationism, and Intelligent Design rejects the idea that there are created kinds, rather it states that god intervened at particular moments for particular things, like bacterial flagella, and perhaps abiogenesis, but not macro evolutio, nor, even the evolution of man from other primates.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Intelligent Design rejects the idea that there are created kinds, rather it states that god intervened at particular moments for particular things, like bacterial flagella, and perhaps abiogenesis, but not macro evolutio, nor, even the evolution of man from other primates.

Untrue. Intelligent design does not reject the idea that there are created kinds. Furthermore, it doesn't state anything about God intervening. You know this is untrue, Nygdan.

Behe might not believe that man was created in his present form but certainly other ID advocates agree with this.

The perspective of particular IDTist's is not necessarily that of all IDTist... much like Evolutionary theorists... ie: was archaeopteryx a bird or protobird (not trying to start that discussion over, just citing an example).

Originally posted by Zipdot
resistance, it's not just regular people who support evolutionary theory.

So perhaps the agenda to explore and support scientific initiatives is not entirely atheistic.

Zip

Hey, Zip, we all know the Catholic Church has decreed that evolution is true. They have also decreed a lot of other things are true that are not true. The Catholic church is the World's idea of "Christianity." I distance myself totally and completely from the Vatican, as being one of the biggest tentacles of the Illuminati octopus -- if not the actual head from which the tentacles protrude.

They want to teach this stuff in their own schools? Fine. But don't ask me to pay for it. And don't ask me to pay for it to be taught in the government welfare schools either.

P.S. It is not the government's job to educate and raise the kids. People in government like to talk about "our children," and "our farmers and ranchers," etcetera. Well, the only children that are ours are the ones that God gave us to raise. They don't belong to the government.

Originally posted by resistance
They want to teach this stuff in their own schools? Fine. But don't ask me to pay for it. And don't ask me to pay for it to be taught in the government welfare schools either.

The theory of evolution is taught as a theory in one class in one grade over a very short period of time. During this process, pupils become objectively informed about the most modern scientific explanation for the change of organic populations over time. They are not required to support the theory to pass the class, they are just required to be informed about it. I can see nothing wrong with this - we cannot allow our country's children, who we intend to be competitively educated in comparison to the rest of the world, to be considered "high school graduates" without having a basic understanding of certain popular scientific principles.

Originally posted by resistance
P.S. It is not the government's job to educate and raise the kids. People in government like to talk about "our children," and "our farmers and ranchers," etcetera. Well, the only children that are ours are the ones that God gave us to raise. They don't belong to the government.

Public education is one of the faculties of government in America. Maybe you can try to change that with your vote. You have the option of home schooling your children or sending them to a private school, but many Christian private schools teach evolution in place of creation science, and the trend towards this is growing.

Zip