Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JB73 on January 13, 2005, 02:20:55 PM
-
how in the F*** can this be called
"unconstitutional endorsement of religion"
???
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=718&e=3&u=/ap/20050113/ap_on_re_us/evolution_stickers
sometimes i really really hate liberal whining pansies who sue over anything they can think of, wasting MY money, just being the bi*ch of the continent, doing it for nothing more than attention, whatever.
i hate liberals with a new passion now.
-
Good for Cooper. :aok
-
Good call Judge Cooper. :aok
When will these religious zelots stop trying to force their beliefs on others?
-
Meltdown, meltdown, meltdown!
-SW
-
er, maybe you meant to do it, cuz right above it is says a,b,3s,
but i believe the quote is, im mighty tighty whitey
:D
-
the sticker said:
"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
where WHERE WHERE WHERE does it say a thing about religion?
if anything it sounds to me like it is promoting evolution you heathans.
-
I love it that you are calling someone else a stupid idiot.
-
What is the alternative to evolution?
Wait for it...
CREATION.
-
Textbook Disclaimers (http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/)
-
Originally posted by Samiam
Textbook Disclaimers (http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/)
Perfect.
-
Not many people who've read my posts are gonna call me a bleeding heart Liberal.
I agree with the verdict.
J_A_B
-
This text book contains material on gravity. Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding a force that cannot be directly seen. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.
-
As a Catholic school teacher (read into that what you will), I agree with the verdict. Anyone concerned that the teaching of evolution to students is misleading, is basing their concerns on their own religious beliefs. Public school curriculum should not be influenced by curriculum. People who are concerned that curriculums should be aligned with their religious beliefs should send their children to private schools and leave public schools, their students, teachers, and curriculum alone.
eskimo
-
this article is an interesting read.
raw story (http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/avery/Occams_Sledgehammer_120104.htm)
-
Originally posted by JB73
sometimes i really really hate liberal whining pansies who sue over anything they can think of, wasting MY money, just being the bi*ch of the continent, doing it for nothing more than attention, whatever.
What about the whiney, conservative pansies that "bi*ch" and moan about it? :D
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
What about the whiney, conservative pansies that "bi*ch" and moan about it? :D
well we are right of course. :) Show me a well documented study Proving evolution to be anything other than a theory and I will recant my words.
Of course no one worries about offending christians.....just muslims, terrorists suspects, and minorities. teaching something that may be outright contradictory to somones religious beleifs as fact to me is wrong.
in addition the only one here being unconstitutional here is the judge. He's the only one mentioning religion.
-
i knew there was a reason i liked you gunslinger, and kept you off "ingore"
LOL
-
Originally posted by Sandman
What is the alternative to evolution?
Wait for it...
CREATION.
Creation by an Alien life form....such as humans in the future seeding distant planets to produce life....more logical than complicated life forms springing from a primordial soup, that tells me that it is possible for a tornado to blow through a junk yard and assemble a complete 747....because all the raw materials are there. Just have to have the tornado twist in the right direction the right number of times.
Wait a minute that would make us a Creator " a GOD" to bad if that ever happened they may not be able to teach the truth.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Creation by an Alien life form....such as humans in the future seeding distant planets to produce life....more logical than complicated life forms springing from a primordial soup, that tells me that it is possible for a tornado to blow through a junk yard and assemble a complete 747....because all the raw materials are there. Just have to have the tornado twist in the right direction the right number of times.
well said weaselsan,
I was listening to the radio a month ago about a scientist who was working on theories. He came up with the mathamatical probability for the creation of life and he was astounded. So much so that it shook his atheism to its core.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
well we are right of course. Show me a well documented study Proving evolution to be anything other than a theory and I will recant my words.
Of course no one worries about offending christians.....just muslims, terrorists suspects, and minorities. teaching something that may be outright contradictory to somones religious beleifs as fact to me is wrong.
in addition the only one here being unconstitutional here is the judge. He's the only one mentioning religion.
Evolution is a scientific theory (regarding macro-evolution) but fact for micro-evolution. It's only a matter of time before we unlock all of life's mysteries.
Fact is, religion isn't even a theory. It's based on faith. There is no scientific data that shows creationism as even possible.
Funny how you want to tilt the argument where you demand proof of your opposition, yet you fail to furnish yours.
I have yet to see any proof of:
1) The existence of a supreme being.
2) Creationism
Having said that, I am not about to insult you or anyone else with religious beliefs as it is a noble and very personal thing.
I have zero rights to interfere with how/who/what you want to believe in, just as you shouldn't be meddling in my personal (belief based) affairs.
Prove creationism does exist so it cancels out any argument of macro-evolution and you'll be world famous. If it is the truth, I'd be happy to see our laws of church and state seperation being overturned.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Evolution is a scientific theory (regarding macro-evolution) but fact for micro-evolution. It's only a matter of time before we unlock all of life's mysteries.
Fact is, religion isn't even a theory. It's based on faith. There is no scientific data that shows creationism as even possible.
Funny how you want to tilt the argument where you demand proof of your opposition, yet you fail to furnish yours.
I have yet to see any proof of:
1) The existence of a supreme being.
2) Creationism
Having said that, I am not about to insult you or anyone else with religious beliefs as it is a noble and very personal thing.
I have zero rights to interfere with how/who/what you want to believe in, just as you shouldn't be meddling in my personal (belief based) affairs.
Prove creationism does exist so it cancels out any argument of macro-evolution and you'll be world famous. If it is the truth, I'd be happy to see our laws of church and state seperation being overturned.
Law's of Church and State separation???? Help me out a little on that will ya. I find a few old left wing farts that where judges rule on something like that, but no laws. Of course a few years before that a few old racist farts ruled that seperate and equal was constitutional....they where wrong too.
-
See the link in Samiam's post. Would you care to explain why, out of all of the material in the book, evolution is being targeted? The answer is obvious, but I don't expect you to admit it. And not suprisingly, you seem to have gleemed over the part in the article that explains why the stickers were on the books in the first place.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Evolution is a scientific theory (regarding macro-evolution) but fact for micro-evolution. It's only a matter of time before we unlock all of life's mysteries.
Fact is, religion isn't even a theory. It's based on faith. There is no scientific data that shows creationism as even possible.
Funny how you want to tilt the argument where you demand proof of your opposition, yet you fail to furnish yours.
I have yet to see any proof of:
1) The existence of a supreme being.
2) Creationism
Having said that, I am not about to insult you or anyone else with religious beliefs as it is a noble and very personal thing.
I have zero rights to interfere with how/who/what you want to believe in, just as you shouldn't be meddling in my personal (belief based) affairs.
Prove creationism does exist so it cancels out any argument of macro-evolution and you'll be world famous. If it is the truth, I'd be happy to see our laws of church and state seperation being overturned.
Prove that julious ceaser existed.....prove that king tut existed.....just the same, other than historical text you cant prove these people actually existed. But as far as creationism goes the stickers are not arguing that as theory or fact BUT creationism is in fact a theory. You can't prove that creationism is false just as you cannot yet prove that evolution is true.
All these stickers are doing is apeasing parents that want their children to keep an open mind about the creation of all things living. In addition the stickers also serve the purpose of telling kids in highly religous areas that what they believe may be wrong and this may be right because it is in FACT a THEORY and that they need to keep an open mind.
To stay on subject here saying this is endorsment of religion by govt is ludicris at best. You would think in our warning label society that this would be met with open arms by all sides concerned considering that this is a sticky subject in some areas of the country.
so what did come first....the chicken or the egg.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Of course no one worries about offending christians.....just muslims, terrorists suspects, and minorities. teaching something that may be outright contradictory to somones religious beleifs as fact to me is wrong.
Gunny,
I would be first in line to defend govt intrusion into (noncriminal) church affairs. I would object to our govt taxing and or forcing evolutionist teachings onto organized religions. Even if it became irrefutable fact of macro evoluton did/does happen and creationism didn't happen, I would still object to our govt. breaking the Separation of Church and State.
Our govt isn't against religious teachings as that is what private places of worship is all about (tax-exempt). What makes our democarcy so special and unique is how we protect everyone's privacy and beliefs. Because our public schools rely on taxation to function, they become a part of govt. To allow any forms of religious teachings/doctrine as standard into public schools, breaks that Separation of Church and State.
-
Methinks people get hung-up on the word "theory" which in the scientific community means something quite different than in CSI:Miami.
A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
-
Originally posted by SOB
See the link in Samiam's post. Would you care to explain why, out of all of the material in the book, evolution is being targeted? The answer is obvious, but I don't expect you to admit it. And not suprisingly, you seem to have gleemed over the part in the article that explains why the stickers were on the books in the first place.
The material you speak of "Evolution" is a theory. But was not mentioned as a theory in the science book. IT IS A THEORY. Creation is not mentioned as another THEORY. It is possible that life was seeded on the Earth by another life form or if you wish to call it...A creator. How that seeding may have occured is open to speculation...the same as the primordial soup non-sense.
-
Originally posted by Samiam
Methinks people get hung-up on the word "theory" which in the scientific community means something quite different than in CSI:Miami.
so a "theory's" arent ever proven wrong because they are in fact true? Theorys never have contrary Theorys wich might also be correct?
So in theory a 747 can be assembled in a junk yard full of parts by a tornado with the right wind gusts of course. Since that's a known scientific fact that means its happend befor or bound to happen in the future?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
prove that king tut existed.....just the same, other than historical text you cant prove these people actually existed.
So his tomb exhibit with his remains is just a govt conspiracy?
If it isn't King Tut, who is it?
Did the dinosaurs exist?
How long has man been on this earth?
PS. Nash, something other than a gun thread that might get long ;)
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
The material you speak of "Evolution" is a theory. But was not mentioned as a theory in the science book. IT IS A THEORY. Creation is not mentioned as another THEORY.
Again, "theory" carries a scientific meaning here.
Creation is not a theory. It consists of no (none, zero, zilch) hypotheses than can be proven scientifically. Creation is a belief.
Evolution is not a belief. It is a scientific theory. This theory is supported by thousands of proven and multiply verified facts.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
So his tomb exhibit with his remains is just a govt conspiracy?
If it isn't King Tut, who is it?
Did the dinosaurs exist?
How long has man been on this earth?
PS. Nash, something other than a gun thread that might get long ;)
but how do you know he really existed or if all the stuff written down about him were just myths created in historical text and inturpreted as fact. the body might be his brother-in-law who created this myth about him.
the point is that just as you really can't prove that jesus christ and god exist you can't disprove them either. Like king tut all we have is historical documentation to go by and our own faith.
-
The facts are:
Evolutionism is theory.
Creationism is a "religous" theory.
No one is arguing this.
So, the inclusion of a sticker to say that the "evolution" is not a fact and is indeed a "theory" does not seem to be a problem to me...
I think the printing that "evolution" is indeed fact is misleading, and it should be taught as it applies as a well supported theory based on evidence thus far gained.
Now, had the sticker said that evolution was a theory, and that people should look to creationism as the fact, then, the courts would be correct in having it removed. It does not mention creationism in the least.
I fail to see where the issue is, other than that some one believes the sticker implies that creationism is the alternative. The only way I can see them thinking this way is that the stickers were placed there by a church group...
Hmmm, so let's see if I got this straight? Stating fact, that indeed evolutionism is a theory is incorrect, but stating incorrectly that evolutionism is indeed fact is ok... wow, I guess I need to go to law school, maybe I can learn how they do that... maybe I could get my mortgage company to believe that $1200 is really in "fact" $2400... :rolleyes: <--- for you RPM ;)
-
i have a theory liberal males actually have two buttholes, but i can not prove it, because i will never look at another man's butt. yet until you torchure me and make me look my theroy holds fast, unproven.
so where does that leave us?
science itself is a theroy, as discussed in the thread about "things you can not prove"
just to throw a curve, think about that for a second, don't dismiss it as you want to. if everything is SO complex, how can we even be here with all the variables involved?
if you Really believe scientific theroy is scientific fact, then the theroy of thing moving from order TO chaos instead of the reverse negates evolution as an even valid concept.
here endeth my contribution to this dicussion
-
Originally posted by JB73
i have a theory liberal males actually have two buttholes, but i can not prove it, because i will never look at another man's butt. yet until you torchure me and make me look my theroy holds fast, unproven.
Incorrect 73...
A theory has to be founded on some sort of evidence that there is "two butt holes on liberal males"...
So, you would have to seen some or have a witness to colaborate the existence of your theory that liberals are "two butt holed males".
Now fact would include that liberals are indeed butt heads, but that is undisputed. :rofl
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
It's only a matter of time before we unlock all of life's mysteries.
You are in a good company. That's what Laplace said some time ago. All we need to do is to measure the current state of the Universe and then we can predict the future.
Physics of late 19-th century was a "dead" science except for some minor unexplained details like failure to prove an existence of aether.
-
prominent scientist once had a theory that the earth was flat. Then it was theorized that the earth was the center and all celestial bodies revolved around it. These theorys were all proven wrong because people actually studied it.
it still doesnt solve the problem of chicken or the egg
now as far as the "two anused liberal male" this theory was studied until a court order stoped it citing gay rights and defimation legistlation.
-
"Prove that julious ceaser existed.....prove that king tut existed.....just the same, other than historical text you cant prove these people actually existed."
Is Zeus real? Is Anubis real? They figure prominently in historical texts, too.
How about Hamlet? Antigone? Beowulf? Ymir?
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Samiam
Again, "theory" carries a scientific meaning here.
Creation is not a theory. It consists of no (none, zero, zilch) hypotheses than can be proven scientifically. Creation is a belief.
Evolution is not a belief. It is a scientific theory. This theory is supported by thousands of proven and multiply verified facts.
You are telling me that it is not a proven possibility to "seed" life on a planet? To purposely transport and seed life elsewhere...that it has never happened....but life crawling out of a primordial ooze makes sense...no wonder our education system is in a shambles.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
"Prove that julious ceaser existed.....prove that king tut existed.....just the same, other than historical text you cant prove these people actually existed."
Is Zeus real? Is Anubis real? They figure prominently in historical texts, too.
How about Hamlet? Antigone? Beowulf? Ymir?
J_A_B
I allways thaught hamlet was a fictional character?
no I can't prove that Zeus was real anymore than I can prove that Jesus, Ceaser, pharrow, or king tut were real.
-
This thread is retarded, and so is everyone who is posting in it. I am not excluding myself. Retards.
-SW
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
As a Catholic school teacher (read into that what you will), I agree with the verdict. Anyone concerned that the teaching of evolution to students is misleading, is basing their concerns on their own religious beliefs. Public school curriculum should not be influenced by curriculum. People who are concerned that curriculums should be aligned with their religious beliefs should send their children to private schools and leave public schools, their students, teachers, and curriculum alone.
eskimo
We have a WINNER!!!
Guns, you and I see eye to eye on a lot of things. Unfortunately, this isn't one of them.
-
wulfie, you missed a few threads started by me, don't let me down now but not calling everythign i post retarded
btw hows the crummy job going? feel good to post about how miserable things are on bulletin boards?
-
Ahh the E vrs C arguement.
A thread sure to be closed at some point as this debate tends to go downhill fast.
I will now take this opportunity to say
IM IN
Beyond that. I have no problem with the judges ruling.
If they dont have stickers on books disclaiming Creation as a theory and not fact, nor should they on evolution.
I personally beleive that the truth in the matter lies somewhere inbetween both theories as the truth usually does
I vaguely remember seeing the whole tornado/747 idea debunked somewhere some time ago.
Dont remember by whom though.
In any event the sheer arrogence of both sides and their arguements is always amusing.
To me it makes for an interesting and often amusing discussion but thats about it.
In the end it we will probably never know for sure and doesnt really matter.
We're here
-
Originally posted by rpm
We have a WINNER!!!
Guns, you and I see eye to eye on a lot of things. Unfortunately, this isn't one of them.
I just don't see how this has ANYTHING to do with religion. I think the stickers would be benificial to both religious and none relgious types.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
If they dont have stickers on books disclaiming Creation as a theory and not fact,
ok i lied im bakc in the thread...
they dont have stickers because they are not even allowed to MENTION creation as a possibly theroy.
in fact teachers have been fired for bringing up the subject.
-
Why do you need to put a sticker on a book? Isn't the role of the teacher to do this?
Are the studiants so stupid that they need a sticker to have some mind?
-
Originally posted by Ouaibe
Why do you need to put a sticker on a book? Isn't the role of the teacher to do this?
Are the studiants so stupid that they need a sticker to have some mind?
with all the teachers having sex with their students and what not these days do you really trust a teacher with your impressionable child?
if i had children and the money home schooling would be the ticket.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
well we are right of course. :) Show me a well documented study Proving evolution to be anything other than a theory and I will recant my words.
Article from Scientific American (http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/wackononsense.pdf)
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty —above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
-
Originally posted by JB73
ok i lied im bakc in the thread...
they dont have stickers because they are not even allowed to MENTION creation as a possibly theroy.
in fact teachers have been fired for bringing up the subject.
Really? Hmm didnt know that.
I know when I was in 9th grade our history teacher had a guy come in to give a lecture on creation as an alternative theory to evolution.
Nobody raised an eyebrow.
Sad how some things change.
And oh how I HATE political correctness.
-
Originally posted by JB73
ok i lied im bakc in the thread...
they dont have stickers because they are not even allowed to MENTION creation as a possibly theroy.
in fact teachers have been fired for bringing up the subject.
Can it be a theory without any evidence?
Creation is a matter of faith, not science.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Can it be a theory without any evidence?
Creation is a matter of faith, not science.
so the egg came first huh?
-
a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
but it's still just a theory ;)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
so the egg came first huh?
You lack faith in the chicken. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
You lack faith in the chicken. ;)
chicken would sudjest it was "created"
-
I'm betting on the mighty amoeba.
-
lol rpm...i suddenly saw an old newsreel in my head with big black and white letters on a grainy background saying "THE MIGHTY AMOEBA".
followed by an orchestration and then a pan into a kitchen scene where billy and his mother are doing dishes.
billy- mom? why do we use soap on these dishes?
....
-
am I the only person who doesn't really see a conflict between creationism and the theory of evolution? most days it seems so.
I don't have much of a problem with the theory of evolution. not the part where people step outside the theory of evolution and speculate on a random spark creating the first life and back to the 'big-bang', but the real theory. I haven't read up on it much since high school but I don't recall Darwin taking it all the way back past first life and incorporating it into the big bang theory. maybe I missed that part or maybe people have added on to his theory.
as I remember it though it basically says mutations occur, if they are viable they survive and if not they die out. this basic fitness for survival guiding what traits die out and which become common in a given species or, if you follow it through the logical progression, new species.
this is mostly common sense. anyone who's ever owned or worked a ranch or farm, or raised any type of animal has no problem getting this. you just replace the rancher culling the herd with chance, fate, environment, the hand of God, or whatever label you are most comfortable sticking on.
but lets hit the high-points -I'll focus mainly on creation. mostly because I know it better and I won't have to read up on any of Darwin's work (this is helpful because, besides him being a very weird dude, I find his writing boring and very tedious, so I'll avoid it because I can)
creation (very para-phrased)-
1. God created the heaven and the earth. the earth was without form and covered with water.
2. "let there be light"
3. God divided the light and the dark (night and day)
4. land rises from the sea
5. plants
6. sun, moon, stars, orbit, and rate of rotation stabilize becoming predictable to make the heavens (or 'space' for those who can't take any word with religious connections)
7. first animal life brought forth in the seas
8. birds and marine mammals appear and become abundant
9. land animals appear
10. God creates man
isn't that pretty much the same order that evolution lays down as to how things progressed? as I recall, the Bible doesn't say exactly how God created man (or anything else), it just says he did. I've read no schematics, or how-to manuals laying out exactly how the nerves and organs were connected.
maybe he had a magic hat, or maybe he created us by setting up the situation. maybe he actually created us through the use of evolution. or he might have used a process that nobody on this planet is yet to define, in the absence of further word from God defining the process, I'll keep my mind open. if there ever comes a time were it is critical or even relevant to the salvation of my soul I'm quite sure God will clear up any confusion. I find it likely that further detail isn't given is that God didn't find it important or relevant enough (or maybe at the time the Bible was given to us we didn't have the capacity to understand the info if he did) to write down ( he didn't see the exact details as important enough to provide more than the high-points. considering this I find it difficult to believe that he would find it important enough to justify the amount of effort spent on arguing it so far.)
as I see it evolution confirms creation more than it conflicts. we've got a workable scientific theory that backs up what the Bible has been telling us for thousands of years.
the only true conflict I see is the time-line.
OK, if you take it absolutely literally it's a bit of a problem. it would likely take more than a few days from the time we stabilize in orbit until we've evolved to mans first day.
for me it's not a problem.
I do believe the Bible is absolute truth. but when you consider that I haven't read any of the books of the Bible in their original language, it would seem fairly silly of me to expect to know what the exact word God used to get his point across. also, some books appeared to the authors as visions, it was left to the author to find the words. these things can present some real hurdles when trying to focus on literal loop-holes and exact quotations to further your own agenda, instead of focusing on the message.
I do believe the Bible is somehow protected from major change, but I can go to the local Christian book store and find many different versions that choose different wordings for most verses. some of these alternate wordings were changed to intentionally produce a different meaning on various points of argument.
then you take these basic translation/editing problems and you throw in words with multiple meanings, and many words to choose from for the same meaning and you are going to have subtle changes.
so here's one multi-meaning word- the word "day"
1. it can mean the time from when the sun rises until it sets
2. it can mean the time from 12:01 until midnight
3. it can mean any 24 hour period
4. when a company tells me they will send my check in 5 days they only count the ones from Monday to Friday, exclusive of national holidays.
5. it can mean any length of time that happens in one of the "days" described in the first example ("I spent all day welding" it just means the time I was at work. so sometimes a day can be just 8 hours or so)
but this is the one I find interesting (and luckily enough relevant)-
6. it can also mean "an age", "a period", "a stage or era in the progression of time"
for example- when your dad says "you don't know how good you got it. In my day we didn't have no fancy damn school bus. we walked 14 miles, up-hill, in 3' of snow and we liked it"
what day was "his day"?
is it marked on a calender somewhere?
does anyone remember the exact date?
or was "his day" a bit more abstract?
I always took it to mean a period in time (and in his life) were he was living with his parents, doing chores, and going to school. an 'age' that was relevant to the subject at hand.
I had no problem understanding that "his day" was quite a bit more than 24 hours.
if I had had some trouble understanding "his day", he would have likely (after looking at me as if I was a moron) re-phrased it to something like "in my age...", "when I was dealing with this crap", or "at that point in time", and it would have meant the same thing.
so how much of a reach is it to think of the use of the word 'day' in Genesis, and use the definition that is closer to "age" instead of the one that means 24-hours.
so in the first age God created the heavens and the earth.
in the second age the firmament divides the water.
all the way to the seventh age where he finishes up his work and takes a break. I don't see where that effects Gods message in any significant way.
I find this argument tired and over done. there is so much for both sides to agree on with this subject, but do we ever talk about that?
NO, instead we have years and years of argument, law, court orders, and in extreme cases violence over an issue that has no effect on the message the Bible presents and would likely have been avoided if some pencil pusher had chosen a different word while translating a text.
just my 2 cents (OK, looking back at that wall of text, it's more like a buck-50)
-
Originally posted by rpm
I'm betting on the mighty amoeba.
Ok just for RPM
what came first the ameba or the protien cells? ;)
-
That's a toughy, since the amoeba is a single celled organism. ;)
-
All this is easy. There is no guarantee of 'seperation' of church and state. There is only a guarantee of that the state will not endorse any one religion. Atheism IS a religion. By excluding the statement that evolution is only a theory and that there might be other explanations of the creation of the world as we know it, the government is favoring atheism and is violating the constitution.
The ruling is unconstitutional and should be overturned.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
am I the only person who doesn't really see a conflict between creationism and the theory of evolution? most days it seems so.
I don't have much of a problem with the theory of evolution. not the part where people step outside the theory of evolution and speculate on a random spark creating the first life and back to the 'big-bang', but the real theory. I haven't read up on it much since high school but I don't recall Darwin taking it all the way back past first life and incorporating it into the big bang theory. maybe I missed that part or maybe people have added on to his theory.
as I remember it though it basically says mutations occur, if they are viable they survive and if not they die out. this basic fitness for survival guiding what traits die out and which become common in a given species or, if you follow it through the logical progression, new species.
this is mostly common sense. anyone who's ever owned or worked a ranch or farm, or raised any type of animal has no problem getting this. you just replace the rancher culling the herd with chance, fate, environment, the hand of God, or whatever label you are most comfortable sticking on.
but lets hit the high-points -I'll focus mainly on creation. mostly because I know it better and I won't have to read up on any of Darwin's work (this is helpful because, besides him being a very weird dude, I find his writing boring and very tedious, so I'll avoid it because I can)
creation (very para-phrased)-
1. God created the heaven and the earth. the earth was without form and covered with water.
2. "let there be light"
3. God divided the light and the dark (night and day)
4. land rises from the sea
5. plants
6. sun, moon, stars, orbit, and rate of rotation stabilize becoming predictable to make the heavens (or 'space' for those who can't take any word with religious connections)
7. first animal life brought forth in the seas
8. birds and marine mammals appear and become abundant
9. land animals appear
10. God creates man
isn't that pretty much the same order that evolution lays down as to how things progressed? as I recall, the Bible doesn't say exactly how God created man (or anything else), it just says he did. I've read no schematics, or how-to manuals laying out exactly how the nerves and organs were connected.
maybe he had a magic hat, or maybe he created us by setting up the situation. maybe he actually created us through the use of evolution. or he might have used a process that nobody on this planet is yet to define, in the absence of further word from God defining the process, I'll keep my mind open. if there ever comes a time were it is critical or even relevant to the salvation of my soul I'm quite sure God will clear up any confusion. I find it likely that further detail isn't given is that God didn't find it important or relevant enough (or maybe at the time the Bible was given to us we didn't have the capacity to understand the info if he did) to write down ( he didn't see the exact details as important enough to provide more than the high-points. considering this I find it difficult to believe that he would find it important enough to justify the amount of effort spent on arguing it so far.)
as I see it evolution confirms creation more than it conflicts. we've got a workable scientific theory that backs up what the Bible has been telling us for thousands of years.
the only true conflict I see is the time-line.
OK, if you take it absolutely literally it's a bit of a problem. it would likely take more than a few days from the time we stabilize in orbit until we've evolved to mans first day.
for me it's not a problem.
I do believe the Bible is absolute truth. but when you consider that I haven't read any of the books of the Bible in their original language, it would seem fairly silly of me to expect to know what the exact word God used to get his point across. also, some books appeared to the authors as visions, it was left to the author to find the words. these things can present some real hurdles when trying to focus on literal loop-holes and exact quotations to further your own agenda, instead of focusing on the message.
I do believe the Bible is somehow protected from major change, but I can go to the local Christian book store and find many different versions that choose different wordings for most verses. some of these alternate wordings were changed to intentionally produce a different meaning on various points of argument.
then you take these basic translation/editing problems and you throw in words with multiple meanings, and many words to choose from for the same meaning and you are going to have subtle changes.
so here's one multi-meaning word- the word "day"
1. it can mean the time from when the sun rises until it sets
2. it can mean the time from 12:01 until midnight
3. it can mean any 24 hour period
4. when a company tells me they will send my check in 5 days they only count the ones from Monday to Friday, exclusive of national holidays.
5. it can mean any length of time that happens in one of the "days" described in the first example ("I spent all day welding" it just means the time I was at work. so sometimes a day can be just 8 hours or so)
but this is the one I find interesting (and luckily enough relevant)-
6. it can also mean "an age", "a period", "a stage or era in the progression of time"
for example- when your dad says "you don't know how good you got it. In my day we didn't have no fancy damn school bus. we walked 14 miles, up-hill, in 3' of snow and we liked it"
what day was "his day"?
is it marked on a calender somewhere?
does anyone remember the exact date?
or was "his day" a bit more abstract?
I always took it to mean a period in time (and in his life) were he was living with his parents, doing chores, and going to school. an 'age' that was relevant to the subject at hand.
I had no problem understanding that "his day" was quite a bit more than 24 hours.
if I had had some trouble understanding "his day", he would have likely (after looking at me as if I was a moron) re-phrased it to something like "in my age...", "when I was dealing with this crap", or "at that point in time", and it would have meant the same thing.
so how much of a reach is it to think of the use of the word 'day' in Genesis, and use the definition that is closer to "age" instead of the one that means 24-hours.
so in the first age God created the heavens and the earth.
in the second age the firmament divides the water.
all the way to the seventh age where he finishes up his work and takes a break. I don't see where that effects Gods message in any significant way.
I find this argument tired and over done. there is so much for both sides to agree on with this subject, but do we ever talk about that?
NO, instead we have years and years of argument, law, court orders, and in extreme cases violence over an issue that has no effect on the message the Bible presents and would likely have been avoided if some pencil pusher had chosen a different word while translating a text.
just my 2 cents (OK, looking back at that wall of text, it's more like a buck-50)
Interesting read and makes some very good points.
-
Originally posted by rpm
That's a toughy, since the amoeba is a single celled organism. ;)
formed from protiens IIRC....I've done a lot of drinking since high school science.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
All this is easy. There is no guarantee of 'seperation' of church and state. There is only a guarantee of that the state will not endorse any one religion. Atheism IS a religion. By excluding the statement that evolution is only a theory and that there might be other explanations of the creation of the world as we know it, the government is favoring atheism and is violating the constitution.
The ruling is unconstitutional and should be overturned.
Atheism is not a religion.
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
1 the service and worship of God or the supernatural
Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Main Entry: de·i·ty
Pronunciation: 'dE-&-tE, 'dA-
Function: noun
1 a god or goddess
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
formed from protiens IIRC....I've done a lot of drinking since high school science.
Like I said...that's a toughy!
-
Originally posted by rpm
Atheism is not a religion.
Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
By your own definition it is.
-
You either don't or refuse to understand that it is the antithesis of religion.
-
The blatant exclusion of religion by the government is in itself a violation of the constitution if recognizing a religoin is.
-
Try comprehending the definition.
-
I did, I was wrong.
But I restated my original post.
Why is that wrong?
-
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I think the italizised portion is just as important as the rest.
Again, I haven't been to church in years.
-
Originally posted by JB73
wulfie, you missed a few threads started by me, don't let me down now but not calling everythign i post retarded
As much as you'd hope I would, I don't post to your threads. As a matter of fact, I don't think I've even replied to you more than twice.
-SW
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
but lets hit the high-points -I'll focus mainly on creation. mostly because I know it better and I won't have to read up on any of Darwin's work (this is helpful because, besides him being a very weird dude, I find his writing boring and very tedious, so I'll avoid it because I can)
if you are looking for a modern version of evolution, read richard dawkins. he has written some very good things regarding evolution and natural selection.
people pin it on darwin, but many people were writing about it during his time.
dawkins is an example of modern theory on the matter.
i think that it is safe to say that darwin was to evolution what freud was to psychoanalysis....both of which are as much akin to
thier fields as henry ford might be to space travel.
ok. i exaggerate. but you get the point.
:)
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
I think the italizised portion is just as important as the rest.
Again, I haven't been to church in years.
Yes but omiting a sticker froma book disclaiming the "theory of evolution" as being only a theory is not in any way prohibiting the exercise of religion.
Now if you go on to say that prohibiting teaching the theory of creation I will agree with you.
the stickers are pretty silly actually.
Evolution is not an absolute fact. Just as Creation is not an absolute fact
That is why it is called a "theory" to begin with
-
capt. apathy,
with all respect to your train of thought, which is more then most people in this treat, do you suppose that this sort of open interpretation applies to all portions of the bible and religious dogma or to whichever ones we find to "need fixin" at a given time ?
I personally have a big logical problem with people "interpreting" the bible, because depending on will and skill of the person doing the interpretation, you can draw any conclusion, just to suit your desired result.
Which makes the book meaningless.
Recently i read and article about virginity in relation to catholic tradition. There was this girl who would only have oral and anal sex but not vaginal, before the marriage, because THAT would be a sin.
See the sillyness ?
:D
-
Originally posted by rpm
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
1 the service and worship of God or the supernatural
Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
rpm you are confusing Christianity with Religion.
if there is to be TRUE seperation then it has to be equal on all grounds.
there are religions like the defination says that believe we came from UFO's and the planet evolved...
one could say teaching evolution in a school is an endorsment of that religion,
-
If I understand this correctly... the judges are saying that anything that sheds doubt on any aspect of the theory of evolution should be banned from the halls of learning?
lazs
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
You are telling me that it is not a proven possibility to "seed" life on a planet? To purposely transport and seed life elsewhere...that it has never happened....but life crawling out of a primordial ooze makes sense...no wonder our education system is in a shambles.
I should be more specific.
The creationist belief (not theory, but belief) that the earth is only 6,000 years old, that fosil records are being missinterpreted, and that humans did not evolve and adapt from previous primate-like beings is in no way provable and is not supported by anything that is provable.
On the other hand, it is entirely possible that the "seeding" of life occured; that the appearance of the raw ingredients and the event that "sparked" life were divine. The theory of evolution does not yet adequately explain this nor is it likely ever to.
My own religious convictions do not stem from naively clinging to a belief that flies in the face of all scientific evidence. They come from unsterstanding that there are places where science simply fails us and that even hard core atheist scientists are often amazed at the sheer elegance and awsome beauty of our universe.
But, it took the Catholic church 350 years to absolve Galileo and admit that the earth does, indeed, revolve around the sun (doing so a mere 23 years after we landed a man on the moon using science established by Galileo). Why should evolution be any different?
-
Originally posted by fd ski
capt. apathy,
with all respect to your train of thought, which is more then most people in this treat, do you suppose that this sort of open interpretation applies to all portions of the bible and religious dogma or to whichever ones we find to "need fixin" at a given time ?
I personally have a big logical problem with people "interpreting" the bible, because depending on will and skill of the person doing the interpretation, you can draw any conclusion, just to suit your desired result.
Which makes the book meaningless.
Recently i read and article about virginity in relation to catholic tradition. There was this girl who would only have oral and anal sex but not vaginal, before the marriage, because THAT would be a sin.
See the sillyness ?
:D
interpretations are useful, different points of view help widen your perspective. the trick is to not let any persons (or church hierarchy) interpretation over-ride your own. read for yourself, and think for yourself. listen to what others say and consider their opinion but don't give any mans interpretation more weight than your own.
my main point is we were gifted with important information, and instead of focusing on that we tend to spend all of our time arguing over some nit-picky little piece of the text and avoid the bigger issue.
more often than not I've found that the majority of people who are overly focused on the literal word instead of the big picture are either trying to avoid dealing with a message that makes them uncomfortable, or they are pushing some kind of agenda other than a better understanding of Gods word.
it's not hard to picture how this argument could have started.
the Catholic Church (who tends to be the most public in their efforts to interpret the Bible for us, and occasionally come up with rules that I am hard pressed to find reference to in scripture) has never been big on new ideas. they see (or at least have in the past) new knowledge as dangerous, a threat to Christianity, or a threat to the power the church controls here on earth.
at various points in history the idea of a spherical planet, gravity, or the earth orbiting the sun could have got you in a bit of trouble.
so the theory of evolution gets batted around and the church sees it as a threat and condemns it. but the only real problem with the theory is the conflict with the word 'day', so thats all they can really focus on.
instead of pointing out that they seem to be missing the bigger point, the scientists get suckered into the time frame argument and start parading around evidence that supports their position of a more lengthy time span.
the end result is it breaks down into a us vs them argument where nobody really listens but just keeps stating that they are right and the other side is full of crap.
there is a lot of relevant info that gets completely overlooked while we argue back and forth about a small discrepancy that is based on what definition of the word 'day' you choose to use.
the creation passage not only tells us where we come from, it shows how the earth came to be and if you are paying attention you'll see the stages that progressed until we were created. for me, one message I get from this is our dependence on all of the things created before us. how everything from our solar system to the plants and animals on this earth are the foundation that we are built on, and if we screw them up we'll likely suffer for it.
we argue about a word interpretation and completely blow off the fact that the theory of evolution confirms through science what God told us in Genesis.
it also raises the question as to how that information got into the Bible several thousand years before science brought us the theory of evolution. how would an atheist explain that? Lucky guess?
-
Originally posted by JB73
rpm you are confusing Christianity with Religion.
if there is to be TRUE seperation then it has to be equal on all grounds.
there are religions like the defination says that believe we came from UFO's and the planet evolved...
one could say teaching evolution in a school is an endorsment of that religion,
Nowhere in the constitition does it mention a "seperation of church and state"
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Nowhere in the constitition does it mention a "seperation of church and state"
What do you think "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." means?
-
What I don't get is--who said "The Creator" didn't create evolution?
Jeez you guys argue about everything lol
NwBie
-
Originally posted by Sandman
What do you think "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." means?
Its meaning and its original intended meaning is that the governmentis will not have an "Establishment of Religion"
Meaning a specific religion.
What they were trying to prevent was having an "establishment" ruled by a specific religion such as was the case with Englands Church of England.
Meaning you couldnt have a say "Church of the United States" be the ruling power.
The word "Establishment" is what is getting misinterpreted
-
Originally posted by Nwbie
What I don't get is--who said "The Creator" didn't create evolution?
Jeez you guys argue about everything lol
NwBie
That is the most plausable theory IMHO. Who says God's day is 24 hours long?
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
All this is easy. There is no guarantee of 'seperation' of church and state. There is only a guarantee of that the state will not endorse any one religion. Atheism IS a religion. By excluding the statement that evolution is only a theory and that there might be other explanations of the creation of the world as we know it, the government is favoring atheism and is violating the constitution.
The ruling is unconstitutional and should be overturned.
Sorry,
Atheism is not a religion. IIRC, we atheists are not out to make organized religious organisations pay taxes and force them to teach evolutionism, let alone elimination of creationism in their private schools and Sunday schools.
Some of you Christian types have been trying to force your religion on to us as well as non-Christians for ages.
Two samples:
1) Forced prayer in schools.
2) Elimination of evolution/forced teaching of creationism in public schools.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
What do you think "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." means?
Wouldn't it be nice if this didn't have to boil down to a church vs. state issue? Which at it's heart it isn't.
It's an issue of whether or not we are going to teach our children honest to goodness science. Putting a disclaimer on a science text that somehow leads a student to believe that true science is not based on fact, when it really is, is harmfull to kids developing critical thinking skills and is ultimately detrimental to our economy.
It's unfortunate that in order to teach science as science we have to fall back on the 4th amendment and the public school system.
Then we sit around and lament why it is that Korean, Chineese, and Indian nationals are taking all the top spots in our elite institutions of higher ed.
-
Hehe I live in the county that this is going on in. It's bible belt BS. Every now and again in the south they try to ban a few books from the libraries and keep evolution out of textbooks. Wish they would at least act like they live in the 21st century.
-
does it matter what century we live in?
in my mind corrupt morals and ideals are timeless.
sodomy is not named after sodom by coincidence
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Nwbie
What I don't get is--who said "The Creator" didn't create evolution?
Jeez you guys argue about everything lol
NwBie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rpm
That is the most plausable theory IMHO. Who says God's day is 24 hours long?
Oh my goodness, RPM and I agree on something
-
Originally posted by rpm
That is the most plausible theory IMHO. Who says God's day is 24 hours long?
exactly the point I was trying to make earlier in this thread. it was about half way through the 7 days before orbits and rotation stabilized. how do you measure the time before earth was on a reliable schedule of orbit and spin?
myself I just choose to use the meaning for day that is closer to an age, era, or point of time, instead of the time it takes the little hand to go around twice.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
What do you think "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." means?
It means congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.....Now you tell me when at any time in the history of this country, congress has ever attempted to PASS A LAW establishing a religion. This was part of the constitution to prevent congress from establishing only one legal church such as the "Church of England". That is why the second part goes on to read "or to prohibit the free excercise".
-
I happen to agree with the verdict, even though the fact is that Church and State are not seperated.
School is a place to go to learn what the scientific community believes. Church is a place to go to learn what the religious community believes.
-
Originally posted by Nwbie
Jeez you guys argue about everything lol
NwBie
take you this long to figure that out?
-
Schools should teach that god magic is just as real science.
-
Open and look into an empty drawer and your mind will go blank.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Atheism is not a religion.
In legal terms, it is... its one of the reasons the Pledge is on its way out and is not required to be spoken in its entirety.
Both sides of the religious debate make me sick; both sides want their own way and are willing to throw as much time, money, and frivilous lawsuits at it until they do.
Don't we have enough to worry about besides petty differences?
-
Originally posted by Delirium
In legal terms, it is... its one of the reasons the Pledge is on its way out and is not required to be spoken in its entirety.
Both sides of the religious debate make me sick; both sides want their own way and are willing to throw as much time, money, and frivilous lawsuits at it until they do.
Don't we have enough to worry about besides petty differences?
most of what we worry about are just that.
-
Only in Georgia would we have to have a stupid sticker to tell you the Theory of evolution is a theory. Doesnt THEORY in front of evolution spell it out? I have lived in the north and the south and I will tell you this kind of pointless taxpayer money wasting junk is common down here. Seems like every other week someone wants to put the 10 commandments on a judges bench or ban huck finn from libraries and out come the lawsuits. I never understand why people try to subliminaly force their opinions on others. Some of the most "god-faring" people are the same ones who want to force their points of views and ways of life on others and if they dont like it then they are evil or hate god or something.
To me this just shows that religion is losing the fight against science, again, and will eventually have to change what it believes in order to not be contradicted by science. Much like when it was discovered that the earth was not the center of the universe.
sorry for ranting lol
-
Spontaneous Generation was once once considered a 'scientific fact'.
The only fact that true scientists ascribe to is that everything is a theory. There are no such things as 'scientific facts', just current beliefs that are either reinforced or later discounted.
The problem I have with the evolutionary theory (and it still is considered a theory) is that there is a group of people that look at it as more dogmatic and as such not up for debate. The same thing was reversed 180 years ago when Darwin came up with his theory of evolution. It was a big scandal and wasn't even considered by many of the great scientific minds of Darwin's time.
Saying it is a theory should have been written in the science book, not as an add on sticker. Everything is a theory, supported or disproved but never a 'fact'.
-
the only constant I've seen, that could be atributed to a solid scientific fact is that-
1. every day we continue to learn about our world.
2. every day we learn the exact same thing that we learned yesterday.
3. what we learn each day is- 'what we thought we knew the day before is wrong'
-
You know why there are not such heated debates over the scientific theory of gravity, or atomic theory…?
eskimo
-
"Atheism is not a religion."
Really?
An Atheist believes what he does based solely on faith. An Atheist cannot prove his claim (no god) any more the the followers of any given mainstream religion can.
It might not be a legal religion, but it isn't exactly "nothing", either.
There are Atheist organizations which are determined to eradicate all trace of normal religion from our daily lives, just as some religious extremists seek to impose their way of life upon everybody.
One side is no better than the other.
J_A_B
-
Except for my side.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
You know why there are not such heated debates over the scientific theory of gravity, or atomic theory…?
eskimo
Werd.
But there used to be. Remember Galileo was imprisoned because he contradicted scripture when he said that the earth orbits the sun.
Religion should stick to dealing with the question of why things are created. A religion that deals with the question of how things are created is mythology.
If we stop teaching and demonstrating bilogical evolution to our children then we better start teaching them mandarin chinese.
-
Pretty sure most "atheists" I've met, AFAIR, or still know are really just agnostic.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
"Atheism is not a religion."
Really?
An Atheist believes what he does based solely on faith. An Atheist cannot prove his claim (no god) any more the the followers of any given mainstream religion can.
It might not be a legal religion, but it isn't exactly "nothing", either.
There are Atheist organizations which are determined to eradicate all trace of normal religion from our daily lives, just as some religious extremists seek to impose their way of life upon everybody.
One side is no better than the other.
J_A_B
Not even close. Weak argument labeling Atheism as a religion. It is the attempt of the religious right to still introduce Creationism/remove Evolution as a public school subject. It has been the religions that have imposed on those not religious or of those of different beliefs.
1) We don't have houses of worship.
2) We do not worship a supreme being.
3) We don't force you to not believe in God, we're just protecting our rights from the religious imposing their views on us.
4) We don't go around trying to force religions to teach evolution in their schools.
5) We don't go around trying to increase our "flock."
Is it your belief that people of faith in your God is so tenuous that you fear your religion's influence not being everywhere will somehow make people lose their faith?
-
"Is it your belief that people of faith in your God "
Don't call it "my" God, buddy. I'm more or less agnostic. I don't know the answers to the meaning of life and don't pretend to know. I can see the loony things both sides say with mostly an unbiased opinion.
I consider Atheists religious. That's my own opinion and not necessarily legal fact. I don't like activist Atheists any more than I like fundamentalist Christians. I believe both factions would legislate their ideas into law if given half a chance.
Fortunately they mostly cancel each other out.
J_A_B
-
I think Capt. Apathy and Nwbie are headed in the right direction here.
As far as the stickers in the books go... I really don't care. Kids are capable of making their own decisions. They are free to ignore plausible explanations supported by evidence should they so choose.
Oh - and the bit about how we can't prove that Caesar or Tut existed has got to be the saddest argument I've ever heard in my entire life. No offense.
-
Originally posted by wklink
The only fact that true scientists ascribe to is that everything is a theory. There are no such things as 'scientific facts', just current beliefs that are either reinforced or later discounted.
The problem I have with the evolutionary theory (and it still is considered a theory) is that there is a group of people that look at it as more dogmatic and as such not up for debate.
Saying it is a theory should have been written in the science book, not as an add on sticker. Everything is a theory, supported or disproved but never a 'fact'.
Wrong.
This type of misunderstanding is the crux of the problem and that so many people do not understand the basic precepts of science is why we need to do a better job of teaching it.
There are scientific laws. These are hard facts that are indisputably true. The speed of light. The laws of thermodynamics. Newtons laws of physics. Facts.
Then there are scientific hypotheses. These are explanations of something that have yet to be well supported, may be disputed and may be proven false.
Finally, we have scientific theories. A theory is an explanation of a complex system that is accepted as true by the scientific community because it is supported by established laws and provable facts.
Examples: The theory of special relativity, the theory of quantum mechanics, the theory of evolution. All accepted as true and are used everyday to improve our lives.
It is not the hypothesis of evolution. It is the theory of evolution. It is supported by thousands of provable facts and is accepted as true by any legitimate scientist.
Because evolution is such a complex system, there may be details that are refined over time as our knowledge and understanding improve. But as a scientific theory, evolution is accepted as true by science.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
What is the alternative to evolution?
The alternative is Entropy. Darwin had it backwards. We started out as highly ordered beings, and we are decending into the primordial ooze.
You want absolute proof?
200 years ago we had Mozart and Bach. Today we have minizzle fizzle.
Although Hank did try to reverse the trend...