Utah House kills evolution bill

Fort Wayne Journal Gazette ^ | 28 February 2006 | JENNIFER DOBNER

[PatrickHenry]

House lawmakers scuttled a bill that would have required public school students to be told that evolution is not empirically proven - the latest setback for critics of evolution.

The bill's sponsor, Republican state Sen. Chris Buttars, had said it was time to rein in teachers who were teaching that man descended from apes and rattling the faith of students. The Senate earlier passed the measure 16-12.

But the bill failed in the House on a 28-46 vote Monday. The bill would have required teachers to tell students that evolution is not a fact and the state doesn't endorse the theory.

Rep. Scott Wyatt, a Republican, said he feared passing the bill would force the state to then address hundreds of other scientific theories - "from Quantum physics to Freud" - in the same manner.

"I would leave you with two questions," Wyatt said. "If we decide to weigh in on this part, are we going to begin weighing in on all the others and are we the correct body to do that?"

Buttars said he didn't believe the defeat means that most House members think Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is correct.

"I don't believe that anybody in there really wants their kids to be taught that their great-grandfather was an ape," Buttars said.

The vote represents the latest loss for critics of evolution. In December, a federal judge barred the school system in Dover, Pa., from teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in high school biology classes.

Also last year, a federal judge ordered the school system in suburban Atlanta's Cobb County to remove from biology textbooks stickers that called evolution a theory, not a fact.

Earlier this year, a rural California school district canceled an elective philosophy course on intelligent design and agreed never to promote the topic in class again.

But critics of evolution got a boost in Kansas in November when the state Board of Education adopted new science teaching standards that treat evolution as a flawed theory, defying the view of science groups.

[Elsie]

Oh boy!!!

 

PICTURES!!!

 

 

---

---

Mammal-Like Reptiles

As previously stated, a succession of transitional fossils exists that link reptiles (Class Reptilia) and mammals (Class Mammalia). These particular reptiles are classifie as Subclass Synapsida. Presently, this is the best example of th e transformation of one major higher taxon into another. The morphologic changes that took place are well documented by fossils, beginning with animals essentially 100% reptilian and resulting in animals essentially 100% mammalian. Therefore, I have chosen this as the example to summarize in more detail (Table 1, Fig. 1).  

M. Eyes =           ?           Nose =           ?        Teeth incisors = ?       K. Eyes =           ?           Nose =           pointy    Teeth incisors = small       J. Eyes =           Medium    Nose =           stubby        Teeth incisors = BIG       I. Eyes =           Medium    Nose =           less stubby    Teeth incisors = big       H. Eyes =           smaller    Nose =           more blunt    Teeth incisors = smaller         G. Eyes =           SMALL    Nose =           Pointer    Teeth incisors = Skinny           F. Eyes =           BIG    Nose =           Blunt    Teeth incisors = Thin         E. Eyes =           HUGE!    Nose =           pointy, again    Teeth incisors = Bigger         D. Eyes =           Smaller    Nose =           Getting wider    Teeth incisors = Bigger: two!         C. Eyes =           Huge, again!    Nose =           broader    Teeth incisors = very small         B. Eyes =           less huge    Nose =           less broad    Teeth incisors = ??         A. Eyes =           bigger again    Nose =           rounded    Teeth incisors = small

Skulls and jaws of synapsid reptiles and mammals; left column side view of skull; center column top view of skull; right column side view of lower jaw. Hylonomus modified from Carroll (1964, Figs. 2,6; 1968, Figs. 10-2, 10-5; note that Hylonomus is a protorothyrod, not a synapsid). Archaeothyris modified from Reisz (1972, Fig. 2). Haptodus modified from Currie (1977, Figs, 1a, 1b; 1979, Figs. 5a, 5b). Sphenacodo n modified from Romer & Price (1940, Fig. 4f), Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 16);note: Dimetrodon substituted for top view; modified from Romer & Price, 1940, pl. 10. Biarmosuchus modified from Ivakhnenko et al. (1997, pl. 65, Figs. 1a, 1B, 2); Alin & Hopson (1992; Fig. 28.4c); Sigogneau & Tchudinov (1972, Figs. 1, 15). Eoarctops modified from Broom (1932, Fig. 35a); Boonstra (1969, Fig. 18). Pristerognathus modified from Broom (1932, Figs 17a, b,c); Boonstra (1963, Fig. 5d). Procynosuchus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4e); Hopson (1987, Fig. 5c); Brink (1963, Fig. 10a); Kemp (1979, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 14). Thrinaxodon modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4f);Parrington (1946, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 13). Probainognathus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4g); Romer (1970, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 12). Morga nucodon modified from Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney (1981, Figs. 95, 99a; 1973, Fig. 7a); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 11). Asioryctes modified from Carroll (1988, Fig. 20-3b). Abbreviations: ag = angular; ar = articular; cp = coronoid process; d = dentary; f = lateral temporal fenestra; j = jugal; mm = attachment site for mammalian jaw muscles; o = eye socket; po = post orbital; q = quadrate; rl = reflected lamina; sq = squamosal; ty = tympanic. .

 

 

 

---

---

 

Are you convinced yet?

 

Oscillating eye sizes,

head shapes that shift back and forth,

teeth that are large, then small, then large again.

 

Yeah; I believe this stuff!

[Elsie]

Elsie-thon placemarker.

Ya shudda pinged me sooner!

[AmishDude]

If you say something is best measured in kilometers when it is really best measured in centimeters,

It's the same thing. The same thing. You just have a term that says x10^5 or x10^(-5). That's all. The fact that you choose to use centimeters is just convenience on your part, that is all.

[dread78645]

Poor military decisions in the Thirty Years War?

Must be a doctrinal fault. The Bohemian Hussite kicked RC butt for 14 years.

[Elsie]

So the common ancestor to todays' great apes, which includes humans and chimps wasn't an ape himself.

That's what they say!

[js1138]

FR has more distinct visitors than any blog or forum on the Internet. Almost twice as many as Drudge. Without these threads, FR would be like DU, a haven for those who can't tolerate debate.

[AmishDude]

Then I suppose it's true. The garbageman can refer to himself as a Sanitation Engineer. He can get a Ph.D. and everything.

At least the research won't have that whole Korean Stem Cell Problem.

[ahayes]

You're making the faulty assumption that those are descended in a line from the first to the last. In actuality they branch off in every direction. The actual linear ancestry is not known. Additionally, some features like body size can be scaled up or down fairly easily without major genetic changes (look at a toy poodle and a mastiff--you would apparently say they aren't related by common descent).

[Elsie]

Broad nails indeed!

[Elsie]

Dang! We need a LINK to this pix!

[AmishDude]

But to go down to a level to describe either evolution or continental drift using pure math requires quantifying down to the atomic level.

Exactly! And even then, you don't really know what's going on precisely. So, you're creating models to help you understand what's happening. And guess what's undergirding every model you use?

Go ahead, guess.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Perhaps you would enlighten me as to how to explain complex scientific theories to 5th graders (or sometimes 3rd graders or even 1st and 2nd graders)."

First, the teacher has to understand what a scientific theory is. That would include understanding that being a theory is the end point for a hypothesis; it doesn't graduate into anything higher or get *proven*. You told your class to look at *all other theories...that somewhere (and maybe one of them can figure it out) is a better theory." There ARE no other scientific theories about the diversity and history of life.

[Elsie]

The theory of evolution does not predict that any such thing should happen.

---

The theory of evolution does not predict that any such thing should NOT happen, either!!!

[dread78645]

So there is a Theory of Weather?

Yep. Meteorology.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Nice use of strawmen."

I don't rate your usage as *nice*.

[Elsie]

I'm positive that some people are ionized.

Why?

Some been givin' ya static?

rotflmao!!!!

[pby]

The threshold is set by the definitions of science and by definitions of religious faith themselves (mostly as defined by evos).

Innately, there is a different standard (and science, by definition, can't even address, or disprove, supernatural claims as it doesn't deal in the supernatural).

Scientifically, the threshold for evolution has to be empirical proof...that is what is required by science (btw, notice that you said belief in evolution, which is an accurate freudian slip, but one which does not comport with the oft evo posted definitions list...see it posted in an above previous post).

Several elements of the current theory go beyond observation, and beyond evidence, and into assumed conclusions, which later get stated as fact.

For instance...HOX gene mutations causing lobe-finned fishes to evolve arms and legs with digits. There is no evidence to support this hypothesis/conjecture. Yet...it is oft repeated as fact. In contrast, HOX gene mutations have only been observed to cause monstrosities...not beneficial adaptations...and, specifically, not the one mentioned above in lobe-finned fishes.

This kind of assumed conclusion, stated as fact, creates a "fuzziness" between the actual science of the evolutionary theory and the philosophy, and belief system, of evolution.

Evos often switch back and forth between science and philosophy/belief, making the two equal (and "fuzzy") when they are not...and then claim science when their philosophical, or faith-based assumptions are challenged.

This "fuzziness" often leads to a missionary zeal to "prove" evolution, which leads to feathred dinosaurs that don't exist, and so forth.

Ask National Geographic...They understand the embarrassment that comes with the missionary zeal associated with the philosophy of evolution (over the science of evolution).

Without making any assumed conclusions, scientifically explain how a simple single cell, just formed out of a primordial soup (moment right after abiogenesis), evolves into all of the diverse and complex life observeable today.

BTW, there are several empirical proofs for the Bible (manuscripts, archaeology and fulfilled prophecy). And if the Bible is what it says it is, then we have an eyewitness account of abiogenesis and the origin of species...How much more empirical proof do you want above and beyond an eyewitness account?

[Elsie]

 

The evidence shows that evolution is how God created us.

 

 

---

Ok.......

---

 

 

Most Christians 'believe' Evolution because they do NOT know what their Bible says. 

If, as they say, they 'believe' the words of Jesus and the New Testament writers,

they have to decide what the following verses mean:

 

Acts 17:26-27

 26.  From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.
 27.  God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

 

 

Romans 5:12-21
 12.  Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
 13.  for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
 14.  Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
 15.  But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
 16.  Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
 17.  For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
 18.  Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
 19.  For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
 20.  The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
 21.  so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

 

 

If there were  no one man, that means SIN did NOT enter the World thru him.

 

If Adam was NOT the one man, that means SPIRITUAL DEATH did not come thru him.

 

If SIN did NOT enter the World thru the one man, that means Jesus does not save from SIN.

 

 

Are we to believe that the one man is symbolic?  Does that mean Jesus is symbolic as well?

 

 

The Theory of Evolution states that there WAS no one man, but a wide population that managed to inherit that last mutated gene that makes MEN different from APES.

 

 

 Acts 17:24-26

 24.  "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.
 25.  And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.
 26.  From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.

Was LUKE wrong about this?

---

 

 

1 Corinthians 11:8-9
 8.  For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
 9.  neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

 

1 Timothy 2:13

  For Adam was formed first, then Eve.  

 

---

 

 

Was Paul WRONG about these???

 

---

 

If so, is your GOD so puny that He allows this 'inaccuracy' in His Word??

[narby]

And guess what's undergirding every model you use? Go ahead, guess.

Plumbing?

I mean, it's obvious. Every science is done by humans, and humans require plumbing (indeed, they're MADE of plumbing).

[PatrickHenry]

Scripture spam placemarker.