Posted on 05/25/2006 2:59:09 PM PDT by dukeman
<< Try telling this to the ACLU, they are trying to outlaw any questioning of Evolutionis-Darwinism >>
No -- they are trying to keep religion out of science class. And on this, I agree with them. There's not much else I agree with them on, but I do on this.
<< and ridding our schools of anything that has to do with the Bible, whether they be in 2 different courses. Where would that leave high schoolers? >>
First -- the public schools are not the place to deal with religious issues. Private schools can do what they want in that regard. But public schools, by definition, are open to everyone of all religion -- and no religion. It would be an impossible situation to try to accommodate the religious ideas of all the competing religions represented in this country.
I always ask people who want "the Bible" in school: Do you also want the Koran? The Vedas? The Zen Avesta? The Book of Mormon? Where do we stop? And if you only want the Bible -- what gives you the right to dictate that to all those other families of other beliefs? So far -- every one of them has flatly refused to allow for that.
Further -- public school cannot be in the business of teaching religion -- or else we get into the same problem I pointed out in the previous paragraph. And even if they tried to put together a comparative religions class -- that would be a disaster, primarily because all the Christians would be up in arms over QUESTIONING of THEIR religion.
Even if we confined ourselves to Christianity -- there are thousands of differing Christian groups with hundreds of controversies among them over various points of doctrine. Why should we give the teachers any responsibility for dealing with all that? And if we do NOT deal with all that -- then WHOSE version do we teach, and on what reasonable basis do we exclude all the others?
You seem to be quite eager to include questioning of evolution -- and inclusion of the Bible. Tell you what -- why don't we include the Bible -- AND include questioning of THAT. You up for that? Then -- we can include all those other texts and teach them -- and question them -- and never have any time for any science -- or history or math or anything else.
<< By the way, ever read what the science book being taught in the school from where the Scopes trial originated had to say about the races? >>
No. Not sure what that has to do with the topic -- but go ahead and tell us. I can imagine, considering the times. Racism was pretty strong in America in the 1920s -- or so I hear.
But -- will this do? I HAVE read sermons by several prominent Christian preachers of that same time, and I have seen what THEY said about the different races. Maybe we can compare that with that Dayton, OH, textbook. What do you say? Bob Jones would be a good one to start with.
I am also a little confused about something in your question. Scopes was accused of teaching evolution. The fact is -- he was absent the day he supposedly did that. Be that as it may, it is my understanding that the teaching of evolution was not legal in that school at that time; that is why Scopes was accused.
So -- what would the text-book used in that school at that time have to do with evolution? I don't know the answer, but this seems illogical to me -- for the text-book to deal with evolution, while it was illegal to teach evolution.
Did it, in fact, teach evolution? Did it teach anything about the races IN RELATION TO evolution? If it did -- again, I would say that this pretty much reflects the racism of the time -- which was reflected pretty strongly in most churches, also. If not -- why are you even bringing it up?
What a textbook said in 1925 about races has nothing to do with the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact -- if evolution has done anything in that regard, it has shown us that the concept of "race" has nothing to do with biology at all. We are all the same "kind" -- contrary to what many Christians taught for a long time -- and contrary to what some STILL teach.
And why do you keep shifting gears? What happened to your providing some evidence for your contentions about oxygen and water? Others have been asking you about those.
Tell ya what do: I'll leave you alone for a while, so you can gather and present that evidence. We keep moving from one topic to another -- without resolving anything. Better to stick to one topic and deal with it more thoroughly than to just jump around from one irrelevant topic to another.
I'll drop out now for a while, so you can get back to your original argument. After that -- I would be interested in what you have to show us about that textbook, and why it is relevant to this discussion.
So why do you call yourself Right Wing when your such a Communist? And how many voices in your head are laphing with you?
<< who's pushing all this junk science, Christians or atheist? >>
You would have to be more specific for me to be able to answer this question. What "junk science" are you talking about? And what does it have to do with religious beliefs.
If you are referring to "global warning" -- an evangelical Christian group just recently came out strongly warning about this "problem." I don't really see the problem, but I am not up on the subject.
I am, at this stage, sort of in the middle on this question -- and it does appear to me as if many on the "chicken little" side are using the issue to drive certain other agenda. But -- again -- even if that is what they are doing -- that has nothing to do with whether or not the evidence is valid. The evidence can be evaluated without recourse to an inquisition concerning whether or not someone is an atheist, Christian, Hindu, or whatever.
Speaking of evidence -- had a chance to gather yours yet. We are still waiting..... waiting..... waiting.....
My original "argument was 2 questions that were never sufficiently answered:
1) Was there oxygen, water, and, or UVs when life began here on Earth?
2) How could it begin with, or without, these conditions?
After that -- I would be interested in what you have to show us about that textbook, and why it is relevant to this discussion.
You don't think it odd that an anti-Biblical book would have racism as its theme? Also, what do you think has caused more death in this world, Atheism or Christianity?
If you think these last 2 questions are off topic, don't bother answering.
In the mean time, I'll look at your first dissertation (post #456) and give you a ping later.
<< You don't think it odd that an anti-Biblical book would have racism as its theme? >>
You said this was the science text-book used in the Dayton school -- right? Why would you call that book anti-biblical?
And I don't think it odd that ANY book written in the 1920s included racism in it. Much of our culture did at that time. Google "Jim Crow."
<< My original "argument was 2 questions that were never sufficiently answered: >>
Post #437 contains an assertion -- not a question. Please provide the evidence for that assertion.
Your going to be waiting a long time; what "evidence" can I bring to these questions?:
1) Was there oxygen, water, and, or UVs when life began here on Earth?
2) How could it begin with, or without, these conditions?
I see your point, lost it with all the correspondence. Back on track. Oxidation, UVs and hydrolysis are all biological killers if they don't have an immunity, is this what your referring to?
I am referring to your assertion in post #437. LOL!
Be back in 15 minutes.
1) Oxygen is a poisonous gas that oxidizes organic and inorganic material, quite lethal to non-evolved species that did not have this protection (Rare Earth, Ward & Brownlee, pg 245)
2) UVs kills organic material (that’s why I stick my toothbrush in a UV lit box). Without oxygen, there is no ozone.
3) Water would have immediately destroyed organic molecules through the process of hydrolysis, or “water splitting,” the addition of a water molecule between 2 bonded molecules(2 amino acids in this case), which causes them to split apart (Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, vol. 1, pp 411-12).
I've got to entertain my kids (no, they did not evolve from a goat), I'll be back in a couple of hours to see if you have commented on post #491
Untrue.
<< I've got to entertain my kids (no, they did not evolve from a goat) >>
I'm sure no one would even consider that they did -- least of all anyone even remotely familiar with evolutionary theory.
Why don't you read the thread?
Thanks -- I will.
Like I said -- I am not knowledgeable in this area. I was just trying to see how long it would take to get Celmak to actually stick to a discussion of the evidence, instead of all those rabbit-trails.
Okay -- I've read the thread. I see celmak's arguments and those in answer to his. I don't know enough about these matters to determine who is right -- although there are posters whose judgment I tend to trust more than others. Right-wing-professor is certainly one of those I have come to trust more than those who throw around so many ridiculous claims about so many things.
My "trust" doesn't determine the truth, however. Celmak might be right -- I just don't know. What I still don't see is how any of this has anything to do with evolution -- since life IS here, however it got started.
Did you finish grade school? Heck, did you start grade school?
This is true, with the qualification that very early primitive organisms probably used sulfur and methane chemistries rather than oxygen. The ability to work with oxygen as well evolved later, when there was enough oxygen in the environment to make it a survivable niche. Sulfur chemistries are similar to oxygen chemistries so the pathway is pretty obvious. If you develop enough protections against oxygen chemistries while working in sulfur, oxygen has some clear advantages over its sulfur relative.
2) UVs kills organic material (that’s why I stick my toothbrush in a UV lit box). Without oxygen, there is no ozone.
Life does not require ozone, nor does UV destroy it in many cases. Early organisms were subsurface, and many simple organisms can thrive in environments with incredible levels of ionizing radiation. Humans don't do so well, but then we evolved in an environment with much lower radiation levels thanks to an oxygen atmosphere. Just because some organisms are sensitive to hard UV radiation does not mean that they all are.
3) Water would have immediately destroyed organic molecules through the process of hydrolysis, or “water splitting,” the addition of a water molecule between 2 bonded molecules(2 amino acids in this case), which causes them to split apart (Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, vol. 1, pp 411-12).
Organic macro-molecular structures self-assemble in hydrothermal systems quite readily in the presence of many common mineral formations that catalyze the process (including organic structures that are very similar to primitive cell walls). Plumb a hotspring in Nevada and see for yourself -- the chemistry is very rich and not fully understood.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.