Evolution debate vote

evolution is scientific theory that teaches man came from lower beings and thus prevents children from learning anything to the contrary. this should not be taught in our schools it prevents religion.

mikus wrote:

evolution is scientific theory that teaches man came from lower beings and thus prevents children from learning anything to the contrary. this should not be taught in our schools it prevents religion.

Creationism is the fairy tale story that teaches that man came from dirt and thus prevents children from learning anything to the contrary. This should not be taught in our schools it prevents thinking.

mikus wrote:

evolution is scientific theory that teaches man came from lower beings

What is a "lower being"?(Evolution teaches us that humans and all other living things are descended from common ancestors.)
***

mikus wrote:

...and thus prevents children from learning anything to the contrary. this should not be taught in our schools it prevents religion.

Teaching that geological processes cause volcanoes and earthquakes instead of volcano/earthquake gods "prevents religion". Therefore, we should not teach geology.
Teaching that diseases are caused by biological organisms such as bacteria and viruses instead of evil demons "prevents religion". Therefore, we should not teach medicine.
Teaching that solar eclipses are caused by the Moon passing between the Earth and the Sun instead of by the displeasure of the gods "prevents religion". Therefore, we should not teach astronomy.

mikus wrote:

evolution is scientific theory that teaches man came from lower beings and thus prevents children from learning anything to the contrary. this should not be taught in our schools it prevents religion.

But all of the evidence POINTS to Evolution...

So... we just lie to the kids?

FossilBob wrote:

<quoted text>
But all of the evidence POINTS to Evolution...
So... we just lie to the kids?

Hi FB...

Just got back from Zimmer's talk at TU. Very interesting, even if it only hit some highlights.

A couple of things I had heard nothing about. First was some of the latest advances in abiogenesis studies. They have managed to form lipid spheres with RNA inside and the RNA will self replicate, forming two new spheres. Not exactly life, but certainly headed that way.

The second was that one scientist has synthesized 8 new letters for DNA. During Q&A, I asked if they had managed to code these to any amino acids. The answer is yes. They have managed to code for about 30 amino acids not used by terrestrial life. That was a wow moment for me.

ERV (aka Abbie Smith from OU) was there. I got to talk to her for about 10 min. before the talk. This is the second time I have met her. Interesting girl (well...26 year old). Zimmer even referred one question on viruses to her.

All in all, well worth the trip, even if finding a parking space was tough.

mikus wrote:

evolution is scientific theory that teaches man came from lower beings and thus prevents children from learning anything to the contrary. this should not be taught in our schools it prevents religion.

Lower being??? You've got a d@mned high opinion of yourself, don't you?

As for teaching the truth, what is wrong with that?

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text> Lower being??? You've got a d@mned high opinion of yourself, don't you? As for teaching the truth, what is wrong with that?

dont get mad at me but my version of the truth is the creator made man in his own image and his own likeness now that means adam was a higher being than the animals and he had dominion over all of them.

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi FB...
Just got back from Zimmer's talk at TU. Very interesting, even if it only hit some highlights.
A couple of things I had heard nothing about. First was some of the latest advances in abiogenesis studies. They have managed to form lipid spheres with RNA inside and the RNA will self replicate, forming two new spheres. Not exactly life, but certainly headed that way.
The second was that one scientist has synthesized 8 new letters for DNA. During Q&A, I asked if they had managed to code these to any amino acids. The answer is yes. They have managed to code for about 30 amino acids not used by terrestrial life. That was a wow moment for me.
ERV (aka Abbie Smith from OU) was there. I got to talk to her for about 10 min. before the talk. This is the second time I have met her. Interesting girl (well...26 year old). Zimmer even referred one question on viruses to her.
All in all, well worth the trip, even if finding a parking space was tough.

"Wow" to all of that...

Just so I understand... They have formed new DNA "building blocks" that form new amino acids, neither of which are found in life forms today??? Wow...

The RNA spheres are fascinating! Don't know if they're headed the right way on that, but it sures sounds promising! I wonder what environment could generate such forms (would rift zones work? Or...???)

FossilBob wrote:

<quoted text> "Wow" to all of that... Just so I understand... They have formed new DNA "building blocks" that form new amino acids, neither of which are found in life forms today??? Wow... The RNA spheres are fascinating! Don't know if they're headed the right way on that, but it sures sounds promising! I wonder what environment could generate such forms (would rift zones work? Or...???)

so what are you guys trying to prove.

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text> What is a "lower being"?(Evolution teaches us that humans and all other living things are descended from common ancestors.)*** <quoted text> Teaching that geological processes cause volcanoes and earthquakes instead of volcano/earthquake gods "prevents religion". Therefore, we should not teach geology. Teaching that diseases are caused by biological organisms such as bacteria and viruses instead of evil demons "prevents religion". Therefore, we should not teach medicine. Teaching that solar eclipses are caused by the Moon passing between the Earth and the Sun instead of by the displeasure of the gods "prevents religion". Therefore, we should not teach astronomy.

dont get me wrong i just dont think the government schools should be establihing a religion or preventing its free exercise. i do think private schools should be allowed to teach all theories.

mikus wrote:

<quoted text>so what are you guys trying to prove.

We're not trying to "prove" any one thing...

Science is the search for answers as to how things work, how things happened...

All evidence shows an ancient Earth, with life forms slowly evolving.

Ancient rocks show no life; slightly younger rocks have chemical traces of life; then "simple" cell fossils are found...

Still younger rocks have multicelluar life (Ediacaran Period); then more complex life forms evolved by the beginning of the Cambrian Period.

Over the next 300 million years, vertebrates (fish first, then amphibians and reptiles, in that order) evolved, and show up as fossils, with transitional forms (half-fish\half-amphibian).

Only later do Mammals and Dinosaurs\Birds show up...both offshoots of reptile (with transitional forms!)...

This is the history shown by the rocks; add to that an immense amount of biological data showing how DNA mutates, how genes are expressed, how natural selection sorts out, and how ERVs "track" organism's "family history".

No one "invented" any of this, there was no "end point" that folks were trying to reach (other than "understanding"); it's just what we found when we looked!

mikus wrote:

<quoted text>dont get me wrong i just dont think the government schools should be establihing a religion or preventing its free exercise. i do think private schools should be allowed to teach all theories.

You DO have to watch out for the proper use of the word "theory"; "Theories" are well-supported by a vast amount of data; they are NOT "guesses"!

There IS no other "theory" concerning this subject. For example... what evidence supports young-Earth creationism?

Darwin wrote:
"Though no evidence worth anything has as yet, in my opinion, been advanced in favour of a living thing being developed from inorganic matter, yet I cannot avoid believing the possibility of this will be proved some day in accordance with the law of continuity (see Francis Darwin, 1903, 2:171)."

Ha ha hah ah hahaha ha! Oh! Ha haha! Ahhhh, ha ha! Oh!

Harold Blum said:
“That life was ‘spontaneously generated’ from non-living matter at some time in the very remote past, and that this process has not been repeated for a long time are two ba-sic tenets accepted by the great majority of biologists”(1957, p. 251)."

At the 1959 Darwin Centennial Convocation at the University of Chicago, participant Hans Gaffron said:
“It is the general climate of thought which has created an unshakable belief among biochemists that evolution of life from inanimate matter is a matter of course”(1960, 1:46)."

"Harlow Shapley:
“The assumption that life originated from non-living matter must be made by the modern scientist if he believes that the question ‘What is life?’ belongs in the natural sciences at all”(1960, 3:75, emp. added)."

Fairy tale. Rare. Precious. Ah, the scientific mind. Please read me another fairy tale, grandpa.

Howell wrote:

Darwin wrote:
"Though no evidence worth anything has as yet, in my opinion, been advanced in favour of a living thing being developed from inorganic matter, yet I cannot avoid believing the possibility of this will be proved some day in accordance with the law of continuity (see Francis Darwin, 1903, 2:171)."
Ha ha hah ah hahaha ha! Oh! Ha haha! Ahhhh, ha ha! Oh!
Harold Blum said:
“That life was ‘spontaneously generated’ from non-living matter at some time in the very remote past, and that this process has not been repeated for a long time are two ba-sic tenets accepted by the great majority of biologists”(1957, p. 251)."
At the 1959 Darwin Centennial Convocation at the University of Chicago, participant Hans Gaffron said:
“It is the general climate of thought which has created an unshakable belief among biochemists that evolution of life from inanimate matter is a matter of course”(1960, 1:46)."
"Harlow Shapley:
“The assumption that life originated from non-living matter must be made by the modern scientist if he believes that the question ‘What is life?’ belongs in the natural sciences at all”(1960, 3:75, emp. added)."
Fairy tale. Rare. Precious. Ah, the scientific mind. Please read me another fairy tale, grandpa.

Same nonsense he posted several other places...

Probably a 12-year old.

Fossil Bob wrote:

<quoted text> You DO have to watch out for the proper use of the word "theory"; "Theories" are well-supported by a vast amount of data; they are NOT "guesses"! There IS no other "theory" concerning this subject. For example... what evidence supports young-Earth creationism?

i have a rock found three years ago that has a picture uf a bearded man in it also it pictures a figure with a halo and a purple robe for real this is a ky agat

FossilBob wrote:

<quoted text>
"Wow" to all of that...
Just so I understand... They have formed new DNA "building blocks" that form new amino acids, neither of which are found in life forms today??? Wow...

As I understand it, that is what he was saying. Cool stuff. He said there may be medical applications coming from the new proteins they were forming from the "unused" amino acids.

FossilBob wrote:

The RNA spheres are fascinating! Don't know if they're headed the right way on that, but it sures sounds promising! I wonder what environment could generate such forms (would rift zones work? Or...???)

One other new piece of info I forgot to mention...they are working on genetically engineering E. coli to target cancer cells, invade them, then self destruct destroying the cancer cell as well. More cool stuff.

mikus wrote:

<quoted text>dont get me wrong i just dont think the government schools should be establihing a religion or preventing its free exercise. i do think private schools should be allowed to teach all theories.

This may be our only answer.

Ramada wrote:

<quoted text>This may be our only answer.

By all means, if you want to pay your private money to send your children to a private school where they will receive a sub-par education - you are absolutely welcome to do so.

Those of us with children who we want to see thrive will welcome the removal of your kids from the over burdened system.

This is a win-win situation, assuming of course that your childs failure in life is a "win" for you.

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

...One other new piece of info I forgot to mention...they are working on genetically engineering E. coli to target cancer cells, invade them, then self destruct destroying the cancer cell as well. More cool stuff.

Sounds like a cruise missle:)

mikus wrote:

<quoted text>so what are you guys trying to prove.

That it takes more than a regurgitated book of fairy tales to convince INTELLECTUALS that magic fairies created everything...got it?!? You're still playing with the ist Edition if the FUndy Playbook...I suggest you update your information..we've learned just a li'l bit about science and nature since the Bronze Age..sadly, YOU have not learned ANY of it!