Posted on 09/27/2002 5:59:21 AM PDT by Heartlander
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:01:19 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) --A suburban Atlanta school board Thursday night voted unanimously to allow teachers to introduce students to different views about the origins of life, among them creationism.
The Cobb County Board of Education, the state's second-largest school board, approved the policy change after limited discussion, calling it a "necessary element of providing a balanced education."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Definitely, that is why we need to get evolution out of the schools. Marx praised Darwin profusely and wanted to dedicate Das Kapital to him. Evolution is also an ideology which countenances no discussion and tries to sustain itself not by competing in the realm of ideas but by suppressing opponent's rights to express opposing views.
You: You mean so called "Christians" like Hitler.
Now there's an honest argument! </sarcasm>
Did gore clone himself? I've rarely seen ignorance and dishonesty combined to such ludicrous effect in just a few posts, the way you have done with yours toward the bottom of the preceding page.
May be true when one takes a completely skeptical view of what can be proven. Indeed one can go even beyond science and say that nothing at all can be proven if one takes a completely skeptical view.
However, science is a rational undertaking and while it does not 'prove' anything to be an absolute, complete, indisputable fact, it does give strong evidence for its legitimate theories. The proof comes in various ways:
1. it gives proof by applying the theories in practical ways.
2. It gives proof by building upon other theories from another theory.
3. It gives proof through repeatable experiments.
4. It gives proof by constant testing of the theories against all available evidence.
Evolution cannot provide any of the proofs mentioned above and therefore it is not legitimitate to call it a scientific theory.
He thought he was part of the "Master Race" that should rule the world.
Evolution has shown itself to be the religion of so-called "scientists" gone mad. Only a fool could believe that evolution is anything more than a joke.
Hitler was and is a fool and will pay for eternity in the flames of hell.
How about you Vade? Are you ready for the judgment day?
The fossil record disproves evolution. The evidence is the Cambrian explosion and the lack of both intermediate fossils and intermediate species.
The molecular clock does not exist, looking at different genes one comes up with a different 'tree of life'.
Potassium-Argon dating is not exact enough to tell us what came first because of the large +- variable. In addition, because the fossil record is spotty, one can never be sure which species arose first or later.
The problem with mtDNA is quite simple - there is no standard (or for any other genetic dating technique). We do not know what the mtDNA was of any creature a billion years ago for the simple reason that DNA decays quite fast (hardly any usable samples over 100,000 years of age). So how can you measure a distance when you only know the end point but not the starting point? The answer is that you cannot.
Do you deny that no one was talking about Hitler until you brought him up? (Even less did I, as you pretended to understand, mean Hitler when I said "Many Christians are perfectly good at science and have no problem with evolution." Godwin's Law, you lose.)
Hitler's grounding in evolution was probably as good as his understanding of theology. If he perverted Darwin's idea, he also perverted religion. (Look up what Gott mit Uns means, sometime.) What is debunked or disproved thereby?
Evolution has shown itself to be the religion of so-called "scientists" gone mad.
You're just spewing madly yourself. (Well, so are Heartlander and as always, gore3000.) There's no thread of logic here. Hitler was not a scientist any more than he was a general. He's also pretty irrelevant to the history of life on Earth, since he came after all but the last little bit of it.
Hitler was and is a fool and will pay for eternity in the flames of hell.
Interesting, but not science.
How about you Vade? Are you ready for the judgment day?
I'm not even ready for Kitchen Floor Inspection Day, but it has nothing to do with science.
This is the canard always used by evolutionists against opponents, that everyone who opposes them is some kind of nut. Well sorry to tell you but there is much scientific evidence against evolution and when you wish to discuss it honestly instead of beating up on strawmen you will see that your position is totally wrong.
Wrong - in your own words 'Theories, by their nature, can never be proven.' You are thus engaging in double talk. You can either play the skeptic and say that nothing is provable or you can play that evolution is a fact, but you cannot take both sides.
I am aware of no alternatives sufficiently rigorous to rise to the level of scientific theory. If you have one, post it here and we'll give it the same treatment as the theory of evolution.
I think we can promise a highly critical and detailed examination.
Really? Well, Intelligent Design can explain the following but evolution cannot:
Euglena - who it descended from
Himeneopimecis wasp - the mode of reproduction
Butterfly - the mode of development
Playtpus - where it got its characteristics
Bat - the develpment of sonar
All the above are evidence which evolution cannot explain. Therefore your statement is blatantly wrong.
Dear Creationist,
We who follow conventional science appreciate your zeal and commitment in desiring to show us the errors of evolution. However, it has been our experience that the vast majority of challengers such as yourself are woefully unequipped for this endeavor. So in order to save us all some time and grief, and to keep you from making an utter fool of yourself, we have prepared this text to help you out.
Step 1: Do you know anything at all about evolution? (you'd be surprised how many creationists don't) Please answer the following yes or no questions:
1. Does evolution rely entirely on randomness?
2. Does evolution violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
3. Does evolution say anything about the origin of life?
4. Does evolution say anything about the origin of the universe?
5. Does evolution deny the existence of God?
6. Does evolution proceed from simplicity to complexity?
7. Does evolution proceed from lower to higher lifeforms?
8. Does evolution incorporate the notion of progress?
9. Does evolution have any moral consequences?
10. Does evolution stipulate any political attitudes?
11. Is evolution incompatible with any major religion?
12. Is it true that their are no transitional forms?
Step 2: Scoring. Count up the number of times you answered "yes". If this number is zero, proceed to step 3. Otherwise slam your head against the wall as many times as you answered "yes" and go back to step 1.
Step 3: Materials. Do you have any materials authored by members of the ICR? If so throw them away. Use them here and you will be held responsible for the blatant lies and stupidity in them.
Step 4: Conventional Science Quotes. Are you planning to present quotes from conventional scientists that seem to express disagreement with evolution? If so, make sure that you have them from the original sources and that they are quoted in full and in context. If you have misquotes and typical creationist butcher jobs, you will be destroyed without mercy.
Step 5: Creationist Quotes. If you have quotes from creationists, they'd better be supported. And if the creationists claim educational or scientific backgrounds, degrees, titles, and such, you'd better check them and make sure they are accurate. If we catch you quoting liars, we will treat you as a liar yourself.
Step 6: Anecdotes. If you have stories of things that you think bolster your case, be prepared to cite verifiable specifics. Be assured that you will be checked up on.
Step 7: Faqs. There are some wonderful faq files available. Read them. Carefully. All the way through.
Step 8: Congratulations, you are ready to argue against evolution. Please state your first objection.
Here's an opportunity to see how good you are at refuting evolution scientifically. That means using science, not faith. If you have faith that evolution is false, that's great for you but has nothing to do with science.
HOW TO PLAY
Just write a series of statements showing either inadequacy in the basic tenets of evolution, or contradictory evidence.
It is not necessary to absolutely disprove evolution, just give us something to rock conventional science.
Your statements will be evaluated and assigned points. 10 points wins.
PROCEDURE
1. To enter the game, leave a post declaring your intention to play. You may start making statements in that post if you like.
2. You will then have 60 days to make as many posts as you like with statements for the game. If you do not make 10 points in those 60 days you will have to start over.
3. All posts in the game should have ANTI-EVOLUTION GAME as the subject line and contain only statements relevant to the game. Anything else will not be counted.
WINNING
SCORING
TYPE OF STATEMENT, AND POINTS EARNED FOR IT:
Observation of spontaneous generation of a modern lifeform either from nothing or from nonliving elements: 5 points
Explanation of how totally independent dating methods agree so well if the dates they show are wrong: 5 points
Evidence showing that all remains of Earth are younger than 1 million years: 3 points
Example of total genetic discontinuity (polymerase chain reaction) between two species considered closely related by conventional science: 2 points
Example of two species considered separated by over 100 million years of time by conventional science found to be contemporaneous: 2 points
Example of a fossil considered over 2 million years old by conventional science showing the exact same genetic makeup as a modern member of the same species: 1 point
Correct statement of the theory of evolution: 1 point
Any other single statement showing you understand evolution: 1 point
Any quote from secondary sources: -1 point
Any statement mischaracterizing evolution: -1 point
Misunderstanding of the difference between theory and fact: -2 points
Misunderstanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: -2 points
Misunderstanding of entropy, order, randomness or complexity: -2 points
Misunderstanding of the use of C-14 dating: -2 points
Misunderstanding of isochron dating: -2 points
Misunderstanding of nuclear decay: -2 points
Misunderstanding of the speed of light: -2 points
Appeal to supernatural entities. Such is outside the framework of science: -2 points
Misquoting or distorting someone's statement: -3 points
Mischaracterizing a disagreement on the hows of evolution as doubt of the fact of evolution: -4 points
Appeal to your own ignorance "I don't see how else..." is a description of your personal inadequacy, not that of conventional science: -4 points
Outright lie. It doesn't matter if you didn't know it was a lie: -5 points
Use of argument already thoroughly refuted. You are responsible for looking these things up: -5 points
Appeal to moral consequences. That has no bearing on truth value: -5 points
Because once they are found with modern animals they stop being prehistoric. Think, coelacanth.
Or, better... find *one* single example of say, dinosaur fossils. . .
Can you give me an example of a walrus remain found in the same strata as that of a camel?
Disprove radiometric dating for once and for all and replicate labatory conditions where it will give completely wrong results.
fChristian posted an interesting article by Richard Milton in post 44 describing problems relating to radiometric dating of fossils specifically the potassium-argon method. I'm interested in your opinion.
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.