Florida House passes bill ordering 'critical analysis' of evolu...

The House today voted along party lines to require Florida's public school teachers to challenge the theory of evolution, a move that some say could bring religious-based alternatives like creationism to the ... Full Story

Since: Feb 08

Lake Mary, FL

#104 Apr 28, 2008
Joseph N wrote:
this just proves that all of those evolution supporters are so stubborn in their beliefs that they deny any other form of speech, a given right, to others.
To those that slam Chritains: your believes are just as questionable, if not moreso.
If all of you aren't happy with the current leaders, why don't you vote them out? From what it seems, Florida has always seemed to sway Republican, so democrats must be doing something to repel voters.
That's what so many people who are pro-creationism/ID don't understand. Scientists who present evolution aren't stubborn in the sense that being stubborn clasically represents.

Two people can have differing views and when one or both of them will not concede to a comprise to find an alternative middle ground...that is being stubborn.

Concerning science...when one of the two (creationism/ID) won't back down or admit that using only the science that works for them, but not using the science that works against them, most assuredly makes them a non scientific application...we have a real problem. THAT is psuedo-science. JUST enough to get peoples attention, but no follow up.

You have museums, websites, ect. ect. enlisting segments of science to assert a claim that has NEVER been scientifically peer-reviewed...but claims it is a fully accepted scientific alternative. Is that honest or dishonest? I ask you truthfully. It is being hoisted aloft by opinion. And your want of it to be another form of proof (scientifically) coupled with these sites ability to feed you JUST enough so it confirms your want/belief is NOT science. Do you want a electrician rewiring your home who has an opinion of how it should be done...or do you want an electrician who KNOWS what should be done?

I, personally, have never ruled out Intelligent Design...but quite frankly...the proof is in the pudding and they haven't even added the milk yet...let alone opened the box.

I'm trying to think of an analogy that would make better sense to you and all I can come up with is...

...Would you feel comfortable sitting at a table, with a translator who only speaks broken english, to accurately convey your thoughts to those you're speaking to, about any number of matters?

Creationism/Intelligent Design is taking advantage of your believe in God and setting up these imaginary barriers of scientific elitism, adding a dash of Hitler, a sprinkle of supposed intolerance and don't forget to throw in that evolution somehow means there's no God...and guess what? You've got believers in God and Christ fired up...they could really care less if Creationism/ID is actually scientific...because NOW it's percieved as an "us against them"..."good vs. evil"..."God vs. no God"..."Conspiracy vs. Truth."

Instead of them actually doing the scientific leg work...now they can rely on people's fears, angst, anger to have popular opinion MAKE THEM scientific. Is that fair if they're not doing the actual scientific work? If you busted your hind-end to restore the home you live in, but your other half didn't lift a finger...would you be slightly upset if the neighbors dropped by to view the finished product, and your other half jumped in with, "Yup, me and the mrs./mr. here sure worked our tails off on this...looks good, don't it?"...?
Primewonk

Walla Walla, WA

#105 Apr 28, 2008
Joseph N wrote:
this just proves that all of those evolution supporters are so stubborn in their beliefs that they deny any other form of speech, a given right, to others.
No it doesn't. You teach science in science class. You don't teach religious mythology in science class. So far, there is no science behind creationism or it's bastard stepchild ID.

According to your line of thought, it would be perfectly acceptable for a Florida math teacher to teach their class that pi = 3.0 since it says that in your bible. It would perfectly acceptable in a geology class to teach that the earth is flat, since that is in the bible. It would be perfectly acceptable in a biology class to teach that grasshoppers have 4 legs? Am I going too fast for you yet?
Not everyones solution

United States

#106 Apr 28, 2008
Man has been genetically trace to a single woman, arbitarily called "Eve" by scientist.
Every major developmental phase of evolution was described in writing 3000 years ago, universe creation, "big bang" included.
Darwin himself nods upward multiple times in the closing of his book,(he must have been asking forgiveness).
I am 50 years old, learned as many have learned, heard that "science" should be taught, not "God."
The more I learn of science, the more I believe that they are proving that God exist!
It was once said by someone notable, the existance of God interfers with my self-gratification. Not a direct quote by close enough.
The majority of "sci-fi" evolution things I see on television have been refuted, decages ago, typically from the "source" on his or her death bed as be false to aquire financial gain.
We all turn to "God" when the lights grow dim, and all of you will too.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#107 Apr 28, 2008
Wavy Gravy wrote:
<quoted text>
The fast that it has endured 150 years does NOT make it correct.
Truth is not determined by a show of hands.
Few want the truth, it is more important to protect their own position.
Even if that position is wrong.
The FACT that the theory of evolution has survived 150 years of very rigorous testing IS a pretty good indication that the theory of evolution is on the right track.
Joseph N

Hollywood, FL

#108 Apr 28, 2008
Robert: your comment only asserts the harassment I get for my beliefs. why on earth would you call my belief an "idiotic faiytale"? I share the same belief as millions of other people. As a christain, my initial allegiance is to the word of God and then to any other instituation that is in accord to what God teaches. My beliefs have stood the test of 2000 years. God does not me to defend Him; he's done it for longer than I've known.

TheGavin: I do agree with the fact that humans change over time, but from what I've read in biology textbooks, humans are descandents of animals, and this strongly contradicts God's creation of man. I am all for supporting the sciences, especcially when we can better ourselves with research, but Darwin's 'Origin of Species' is only collective data, and from what I know, that's only a piece of the puzzle.

PrimeWonk: The Bible states that the world is round by refering to the characteristics of a sphere: Isaiah 40:22; Job 26:7. I wonder, do you still stick with that 'Big Bang' theory?
Not everyones solution

United States

#109 Apr 28, 2008
How do you respond to Darwin writing "breathes life into" in his closing of the book. Seems a little coincidental don't you think? Have you even read the book?
The world is flat, period! Your next cruise line trip will prove that huh?(lasted about 2000 years, Eyptians calculated the circumference of the world in the "BC."
Not everyones solution

United States

#110 Apr 28, 2008
Joe,
Thanks for the opportunity, The "big bang" is nothing more than, "let there be light." Hope this helps.

Since: Feb 08

Lake Mary, FL

#111 Apr 28, 2008
Not everyones solution wrote:
Man has been genetically trace to a single woman, arbitarily called "Eve" by scientist.
Every major developmental phase of evolution was described in writing 3000 years ago, universe creation, "big bang" included.
Darwin himself nods upward multiple times in the closing of his book,(he must have been asking forgiveness).
I am 50 years old, learned as many have learned, heard that "science" should be taught, not "God."
The more I learn of science, the more I believe that they are proving that God exist!
It was once said by someone notable, the existance of God interfers with my self-gratification. Not a direct quote by close enough.
The majority of "sci-fi" evolution things I see on television have been refuted, decages ago, typically from the "source" on his or her death bed as be false to aquire financial gain.
We all turn to "God" when the lights grow dim, and all of you will too.
You're falling for the same tripe that every creation and ID site wants you too. That science excludes God. Science is the enemy of the church. Science will be the death of religion.

Are there not churches? Don't people meet in homes for bible study? Evangelical events at auditoriums all around the world? Church Fairs? Revivals? Church Outings? Television programming? Popular Publication? Influence politics? Lobbyists? Congresspersons? Senators? I'm failing to see where religion is so down trodden and repressed. You do a real disservice to the christians of the roman era who had to hide in caves to practice their belief.

School is secular, it's as simple as that. Secular means no religion can be instituted or prefered over others within a classroom setting. You can pray in school, you just cannot do it to be inclusive of all individuals that may not believe as you do.

I'd be interested in seeing death bed confessionals actually, got a link?
EADGBE

Bozeman, MT

#114 Apr 28, 2008
Joseph N wrote:
...The Bible states that the world is round by refering to the characteristics of a sphere: Isaiah 40:22; Job 26:7. I wonder, do you still stick with that 'Big Bang' theory?
Isaiah 40:22...The use of chuwg (circle) rather than duwr (ball,sphere) as found in Isiah 22:18. A circle is flat and round but still flat, not spherical. Numerous verses make similar references to a flat earth, Matt 4:8, Daniel 4:10-11, etc.

Job 26:7...Job 9:6, 1 Samuel 2:8, Psalms 75:3, etc. Numerous verses refer to the earth not freely suspended in space but supported by "pillars" (even within the same book).
EADGBE

Bozeman, MT

#115 Apr 28, 2008
Not everyones solution wrote:
How do you respond to Darwin writing "breathes life into" in his closing of the book....
Easy, Darwin believed that God created the first life forms, after which, all other species, including humans, evolved. Nowadays, this belief is referred to as Theistic Evolution, like Francis Collins...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_ (geneticist)
Yeah Right

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#116 Apr 28, 2008
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
You're completely confusing the term "theory". The reason why neither AI nor Evolution are theories is that they are facts - physical, observable things. When people say "Theory of Evolution", it doesn't mean that evolution itself is a theory (which, as has already been pointed out, is the highest level of certainty in science). Evolution is a fact. The theory OF evolution is our explanation of how the factual phenomenon of evolution occurs (i.e., through mechanisms like natural selection, genetic drift, etc.). Gravity, for example, is a real, observable phenomenon. Developing a Theory of Gravity doesn't make gravity itself theoretical, it just means that one has developed a comprehensive explanation of how gravity works that stands up to scrutiny. Now, if you have an idea of HOW AI works, that could be a Theory of AI, but AI itself can never be a theory.
A.I. hasn't been mentioned as a theory, A.I. has been mentioned as an analogy of our existence by "Yep".

I understand his point of view, if we create a new life form, how different are we from being cretaed by a higher life form than us?

But then again, A.I. may ultimately be a much more intelligent life form than us. What makes us higher would be the fact that we would be the creators.

Level 1

Since: May 07

Indianapolis, IN

#117 Apr 28, 2008
TheGavin wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what so many people who are pro-creationism/ID don't understand. Scientists who present evolution aren't stubborn in the sense that being stubborn clasically represents.
Two people can have differing views and when one or both of them will not concede to a comprise to find an alternative middle ground...that is being stubborn.
Concerning science...when one of the two (creationism/ID) won't back down or admit that using only the science that works for them, but not using the science that works against them, most assuredly makes them a non scientific application...we have a real problem. THAT is psuedo-science. JUST enough to get peoples attention, but no follow up.
You have museums, websites, ect. ect. enlisting segments of science to assert a claim that has NEVER been scientifically peer-reviewed...but claims it is a fully accepted scientific alternative. Is that honest or dishonest? I ask you truthfully. It is being hoisted aloft by opinion. And your want of it to be another form of proof (scientifically) coupled with these sites ability to feed you JUST enough so it confirms your want/belief is NOT science. Do you want a electrician rewiring your home who has an opinion of how it should be done...or do you want an electrician who KNOWS what should be done?
I, personally, have never ruled out Intelligent Design...but quite frankly...the proof is in the pudding and they haven't even added the milk yet...let alone opened the box.
I'm trying to think of an analogy that would make better sense to you and all I can come up with is...
...Would you feel comfortable sitting at a table, with a translator who only speaks broken english, to accurately convey your thoughts to those you're speaking to, about any number of matters?
Creationism/Intelligent Design is taking advantage of your believe in God and setting up these imaginary barriers of scientific elitism, adding a dash of Hitler, a sprinkle of supposed intolerance and don't forget to throw in that evolution somehow means there's no God...and guess what? You've got believers in God and Christ fired up...they could really care less if Creationism/ID is actually scientific...because NOW it's percieved as an "us against them"..."good vs. evil"..."God vs. no God"..."Conspiracy vs. Truth."
Instead of them actually doing the scientific leg work...now they can rely on people's fears, angst, anger to have popular opinion MAKE THEM scientific. Is that fair if they're not doing the actual scientific work? If you busted your hind-end to restore the home you live in, but your other half didn't lift a finger...would you be slightly upset if the neighbors dropped by to view the finished product, and your other half jumped in with, "Yup, me and the mrs./mr. here sure worked our tails off on this...looks good, don't it?"...?
This is one of the best-written posts I have ever read in the evo threads. Phenomenally well stated Gavin.

“Dor sho gha!”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Iowa City, IA

#118 Apr 28, 2008
Not everyones solution wrote:
Man has been genetically trace to a single woman, arbitarily called "Eve" by scientist.
Every major developmental phase of evolution was described in writing 3000 years ago, universe creation, "big bang" included.
Darwin himself nods upward multiple times in the closing of his book,(he must have been asking forgiveness).
I am 50 years old, learned as many have learned, heard that "science" should be taught, not "God."
The more I learn of science, the more I believe that they are proving that God exist!
It was once said by someone notable, the existance of God interfers with my self-gratification. Not a direct quote by close enough.
The majority of "sci-fi" evolution things I see on television have been refuted, decages ago, typically from the "source" on his or her death bed as be false to aquire financial gain.
We all turn to "God" when the lights grow dim, and all of you will too.
FAIL
Robert

West Palm Beach, FL

#119 Apr 28, 2008
Joseph N wrote:
Robert: your comment only asserts the harassment I get for my beliefs. why on earth would you call my belief an "idiotic faiytale"? I share the same belief as millions of other people. As a christain, my initial allegiance is to the word of God and then to any other instituation that is in accord to what God teaches. My beliefs have stood the test of 2000 years. God does not me to defend Him; he's done it for longer than I've known.
Just as you have a right to your opinion, and a right to voice it, I have mine as well. I think fundamentalist religious beliefs of ALL types are idiotic fairy tales, and I think fundamentalists are idiots. They don't even follow the teachings of their own God. Instead they try to use the most ridiculous of their "beliefs" to attack anyone unwilling to submit to their view of the world. But the fact that I have that view, and a right to voice it, is hardly "harassment", because, unlike you and your ilk, I don't try to force my way into the venues for the expression of your beliefs to make you listen to mine. If you want to believe idiotic fairy tales, then feel free. Build ridiculous Crystal Cathedrals, gather yourselves together, and babble on about whatever ridiculous thing you want. But keep your superstitious ignorance out the science classroom. If your beliefs can't stand up to scientific facts, then it's time for them to die, not take down the rest of us in their pathetic attempts to deny truth in order to continue.

Just because other people believe what you believe, that doesn't validate your beliefs, and it doesn't mean that they're not "idiotic fairy tales". Even if everyone in the world believes in an idiotic fairy tale, it doesn't make it any less of one. A group of ignorant people are no less ignorant than any ignorant individual, no matter how large the group. Truth and reality are not subject to majority approval. And your beliefs have withstood nothing, because, as the fanatics are trying to do now, they simply deny any idea that might threaten them. It's not scientists who are afraid of scrutiny - they've already scrutinized their ideas and simply don't want to waste another 150 years repeating it all for those too stupid to go to class and learn about it. It's religious fundamentalism that can't tolerate scrutiny, and so must attack truth using every method it can, no matter how dishonest.

As I said before, if anyone here thinks their religious beliefs can stand up to the kind of scrutiny that Evolutionary Theory successfully has for decades, James Randy, right here in Fort Lauderdale, will give you a million dollars if you can demonstrate it under scientific conditions. He's had that standing offer for years, and despite issuing many public challenges to lots of nationally known advocates of supernatural claptrap, he's never had to pay up yet. Come on, if you really believe it, why not go for the big bucks?
Robert

West Palm Beach, FL

#120 Apr 28, 2008
By the way, it's not science that attacked religion, and it's not scientists who are harassing christians - you got it backwards. Science is just trying to discover the workings of the natural world, and scientists are just trying to contribute to science. It's religion, feeling threatened when it's myths become more and more unbelievable to educated people, that has attacked science, and it's christians who have harassed scientists trying to contribute to the knowledge of mankind. No one is trying to force christians, or any other religious group, to accept scientific facts into their belief system. It's christians who are trying to force scientists to accept their particular perverted religion into science. Keep your religion out of our science, and we'll keep our science out of your religion
Joseph N

Hollywood, FL

#121 Apr 28, 2008
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
Just as you have a right to your opinion, and a right to voice it, I have mine as well. I think fundamentalist religious beliefs of ALL types are idiotic fairy tales, and I think fundamentalists are idiots. They don't even follow the teachings of their own God. Instead they try to use the most ridiculous of their "beliefs" to attack anyone unwilling to submit to their view of the world. But the fact that I have that view, and a right to voice it, is hardly "harassment", because, unlike you and your ilk, I don't try to force my way into the venues for the expression of your beliefs to make you listen to mine. If you want to believe idiotic fairy tales, then feel free. Build ridiculous Crystal Cathedrals, gather yourselves together, and babble on about whatever ridiculous thing you want. But keep your superstitious ignorance out the science classroom. If your beliefs can't stand up to scientific facts, then it's time for them to die, not take down the rest of us in their pathetic attempts to deny truth in order to continue.
Just because other people believe what you believe, that doesn't validate your beliefs, and it doesn't mean that they're not "idiotic fairy tales". Even if everyone in the world believes in an idiotic fairy tale, it doesn't make it any less of one. A group of ignorant people are no less ignorant than any ignorant individual, no matter how large the group. Truth and reality are not subject to majority approval. And your beliefs have withstood nothing, because, as the fanatics are trying to do now, they simply deny any idea that might threaten them. It's not scientists who are afraid of scrutiny - they've already scrutinized their ideas and simply don't want to waste another 150 years repeating it all for those too stupid to go to class and learn about it. It's religious fundamentalism that can't tolerate scrutiny, and so must attack truth using every method it can, no matter how dishonest.
As I said before, if anyone here thinks their religious beliefs can stand up to the kind of scrutiny that Evolutionary Theory successfully has for decades, James Randy, right here in Fort Lauderdale, will give you a million dollars if you can demonstrate it under scientific conditions. He's had that standing offer for years, and despite issuing many public challenges to lots of nationally known advocates of supernatural claptrap, he's never had to pay up yet. Come on, if you really believe it, why not go for the big bucks?
would you please explain the existance of the first organic cell that sparked life?

would you please explain the existance of the earth?

would you please explain the infinite number of mutations that led to the infinte characteristics of the human race?

one million is up for the grabs.... you see, I can make my own claims, my own offers, all on my own terf.

just like I said before, its the science field that is stubborn, not the religious field. You won't even allow ID into the classrooms, because then that will lead to the acknowledgement of some sort of God, something you ultimately deny.

Like previous post say, you can't seperate God and science, because without God, science leads to nowhere. God is the Truth that science seeks to root out, something that is IMPOSSIBLE!
Navel

Steubenville, OH

#122 Apr 28, 2008
Good wrote:
<quoted text>
And as for the Harry Potter comment, please check out the website and follow the links to the CHURCH of WICCA (spelling ?), which is a federally recognized religion!
Spoken just like someone who's never cracked open a Potter novel and knows absolutely nothing about Wicca. The magic in the Potter novels is FICTIONAL. It bears little to no resemblance to the real religion that Wiccans and other Pagans practice. Heck, the characters celebrate Christian holidays! Knee-jerk reactions trying to link Potter fictions with a real-world religious organization reveal more about the ignorance of the poster than the actual contents of Rowling's novels. If you want to read a truly disturbing children's book, try ALICE IN WONDERLAND. It's like an acid trip in print...
Yeah Right

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#123 Apr 28, 2008
Bud wrote:
<quoted text>
Our SCIENTIFIC theory has already endured 150 years of criticism, testing, and refinement. There is no competing scientific theory, period. It has been publicly debated to death already. Your side lost. All that is going on now is the other side trying to shake you out of your delusion, but so many are like you and prefer to live in ignorance.
The answer to the question you posed lies in education. Get educated - it's not just for secular liberals you know. If you really understood the science behind evolution, you wouldn't have to ask such a stupid question.
Science explains it. Are you afraid to look it up, and maybe learn something?
I am glad my children are smarter then the fairy tales taught in churches, temples, and mosques. They donít believe in people walking across water, or changing water into wine, or Casper, Tooth Fairy, or talking bunnies. It is sad that I may be in a minority, but it feels good looking down on such lamb like morons, that can be lead on a leash into war, or to hate someone for their skin color as preached in White churches, or how Jews killed a fictitious being in the past. These stories were written by people that felt if you ate meat that sat out for a month and died, GOD must be angry. DUH
Navel

Steubenville, OH

#124 Apr 28, 2008
Joseph N wrote:
<quoted text>
would you please explain the existance of the first organic cell that sparked life?
would you please explain the existance of the earth?
would you please explain the infinite number of mutations that led to the infinte characteristics of the human race?
one million is up for the grabs.... you see, I can make my own claims, my own offers, all on my own terf.
just like I said before, its the science field that is stubborn, not the religious field. You won't even allow ID into the classrooms, because then that will lead to the acknowledgement of some sort of God, something you ultimately deny.
Like previous post say, you can't seperate God and science, because without God, science leads to nowhere. God is the Truth that science seeks to root out, something that is IMPOSSIBLE!
Oy vey! Here we go again with a homework list of red herrings based on the faulty premise that what we don't know (yet) constitutes automatic "proof" that God exists (i.e., the "God of the gaps" notion again, insulting to both God and to science). Evolution/science and belief in God are NOT incompatible unless you're a Biblical literalist, in which case your need to try to force science to fit your preconceived notions of how God works is understandable but no less misguided. Millions of people have no trouble believing in God AND acknowledging the truth of evolution, yet these folks are always conveniently left out of ID proponents' arguments against evolution (another "inconvenient truth?"). Why is that, exactly? And you're right - you can make all the claims you want, but until you've got the scientific data to back them up, please don't keep trying to pass them off as "science."
Joseph N

Hollywood, FL

#125 Apr 28, 2008
Navel wrote:
<quoted text>
Oy vey! Here we go again with a homework list of red herrings based on the faulty premise that what we don't know (yet) constitutes automatic "proof" that God exists (i.e., the "God of the gaps" notion again, insulting to both God and to science). Evolution/science and belief in God are NOT incompatible unless you're a Biblical literalist, in which case your need to try to force science to fit your preconceived notions of how God works is understandable but no less misguided. Millions of people have no trouble believing in God AND acknowledging the truth of evolution, yet these folks are always conveniently left out of ID proponents' arguments against evolution (another "inconvenient truth?"). Why is that, exactly? And you're right - you can make all the claims you want, but until you've got the scientific data to back them up, please don't keep trying to pass them off as "science."
you still didnt answer my questions.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 19 min reporterreport 116,611
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 22 min Zog Has-fallen 507
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 33 min Mugwump 173,697
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr Chimney1 137,094
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) 10 hr Kong_ 62
There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for ... 12 hr thewordofme 166
New review critical of "Origins" 18 hr Kong_ 3
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••