Good luck Texas.

[Fish]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com:80/badastronomy/2009/03/26/texas-from-saved-to-doomed-in-just-6-hours/


So tomorrow that will go to the final vote on whether it will be added to the standards or not. With such a majority voting to pass it along, it looks like it will pass, and Texas students will get their chance to learn that the Universe is 6000 years old, and when they try to get a job or do anything later in life, they will be routinely laughed at.

And;
http://www.pri.org/science/evolution-education-texas.html

[NealT]

No matter what they pass, the kids are 'street smart' enough to know what the truth is...

That no one really knows for sure and all legislators are idiots.

NealT
(Born and Bred Texan)

[Tchocky]

Looking forward to learning about the Stork in Sex Ed.


Dangerous idiots.

Another problem with this is that Texas is such a big school-book market that publishers will resist going for a Texas Edition (high-larious as that would be), and just press on with the rubbish.

[Kapt Z]

Hey, if they want to have scientific debates on the plausibility of Darwin's theories that's fine. Just don't bring in a literal interpretaion of a 'religious' text as a alternate 'scientific' theory. That's what I have problems with.

[Fincuan]

Oh ffs :haha: Way to go Texas!

Sadly it's probably too early for April fools too...

[GoldenRivet]

Im Texas born and raised and im a current Texas resident and this is the first i have ever heard of it.

however i think clarity is lacking in this fairly one sided "blog" because one could hardly call this hard line news.

if im not mistaken, this woman wants the schools to teach as they have been teaching - however with the small addition that "due to religious reasons there are those out there believe that the earth was created 6,000 years ago"

i dont think any Texas Legislature would vote to approve this as the SOLE curriculum for Texas Students.

however, that wouldnt surprise me entirely.

- this sort of thing is the very reason that Private Schooling is a BOOMING business here in Texas. There are 5 or 6 very nice private schools within a 15 mile radius of my home - all filled to capacity with little over achievers.

we go on and on about kids these days... but there is hope, one of my student pilots is 16 years old. He is in Agriculture club, the Future Farmers of America, he is on the A-B Honor Roll, he is in Band, student council, Athletics, an avid outdoorsman and hunter, and of course is learning to fly airplanes.

Another of my students some years ago was a 17 year old high school student, every day he dressed in khaki pants, with a tucked in collared button up shirt, his writing and speaking skills were very non-typical of an average 17 year old... he had then and still has today a very "common sense" approach to life in general.

wen it comes to students growing up in this world you have to realize... There are those destined for greatness, there are those who become great through hard work, and there are those who are destined to clean up crap and dig ditches all day long.

it has been that way forever... and it will be that way forever more

[Kapt Z]

There are those destined for greatness, there are those who become great through hard work, and there are those who are destined to clean up crap and dig ditches all day long.

it has been that way forever... and it will be that way forever more

Just remember, even the ditch digger is probably the greatest guy in the world .....to his kids.:salute:

[Digital_Trucker]

Just remember, even the ditch digger is probably the greatest guy in the world .....to his kids.:salute:

ANd his parents, too:up:

[Onkel Neal]

...and us owners of future ditches! :shucks:

[GoldenRivet]

absolutely - im not knocking ditch diggers by any means so please dont misunderstand.

Im just saying that there are some candles which burn brighter than others... and there are some knives which are sharper than others.

and you cant focus on the dullest of the dull and say that all of the educational system is to blame.

i look at it this way... if the educational system and the parents are to blame for all of the drop out, teen pregnancy, underachiever kids...

... then who is responsible for all of the over achiever honor society types?

in the end it boils down to the individual :up:

some kids just "want it" more than other kids.

all men may be created equal, but continued equality is not guaranteed to anyone.

[Kapt Z]

absolutely - im not knocking ditch diggers by any means so please dont misunderstand.

Im just saying that there are some candles which burn brighter than others... and there are some knives which are sharper than others.

and you cant focus on the dullest of the dull and say that all of the educational system is to blame.

i look at it this way... if the educational system and the parents are to blame for all of the drop out, teen pregnancy, underachiever kids...

... then who is responsible for all of the over achiever honor society types?

in the end it boils down to the individual :up:

some kids just "want it" more than other kids.

all men may be created equal, but continued equality is not guaranteed to anyone.

Relax GR. I was just needling you.....:D

[GoldenRivet]

needle away :up:

[Rockstar]

Good job Texas for allowing a point of view contrary to Darwins theory.

Darwin did not write a book the titled The Evolution of Species. No he titled it The ORIGIN of Species. Where did they originate from? Frst there is nothing then there is something, where did it come from? Even Dawkins in an interview admitted to intelleigent design. Of course he said we were seeded by aliens who evolved.

When you really look at it it is more than just some soup called chance.

[Tchocky]

Good job Texas for allowing a point of view contrary to Darwins theory.
Just for fun, what does any of this have to do with Darwin?

[FIREWALL]

When did Texas become a state. :haha:

[GoldenRivet]

When did Texas become a state. :haha:

exactly

its a republic! :salute:

[clive bradbury]

Dawkins believes in ID? Er...unsuprisngly...no -

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins

[Rockstar]

In an interview his answer to our exisitence was I.D. HOWEVER he went on to say we may then have been seeded by aliens from another planet and it was they who evolved IAW Darwins theory. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc

Ya now thats science LOL

[UnderseaLcpl]

I don't see any harm in simply presenting the theory to students. If they are so stupid or so devoid of critical thinking skills as to be unable to make a rational choice of which theory(if either) to follow, then no amount of education is going to do them any good anyways. Besides, children are already required to learn about world religions, and the information isn't on any standardized tests.

Of course, we could avoid this whole issue if we had a privatized or semi-privatized education system where schools competed and determined their own curricula.

[Rockstar]

Because a certain theory relies heavily on science to arbitrarliy add zeros to time. Because they say for creatures to evolve it MUST take a gazillion of years right? Even if it were correct evolution science still does not answer where we came from or how 'something' came from 'nothing'. If we were created by I.D. 6,000 years is plausible. We should be able to discuss it , to reason with one another rather than one side calling the other stupid, ignorent, or blind.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Hear hear. I am a proponent of conventional evolutionary theory but it drives me nuts when people try to shut the ID people up.

[Tchocky]

Because a certain theory relies heavily on science to arbitrarliy add zeros to time.

You're saying that the theory of the Big Bang relies on the theory of Evolution?

Even if it were correct evolution science still does not answer where we came from or how 'something' came from 'nothing'
It's not supposed to.

[Gorduz]

"In an interview his answer to our exisitence was I.D. HOWEVER he went on to say we may then have been seeded by aliens from another planet and it was they who evolved IAW Darwins theory. "

could I get the source Rockstar?

Of course the origin of life is still not fully understood, but as written it is not supposed to explain how something came from nothing, but how that something evolves. And evolution happens, experimentalists evolve cells in their laboratories, theorist can easily simulate how a small mutation AND natural selection (an important factor that is often forgotten by ID supporters) can create complex being s like ourself.

[Rockstar]

The theory of evolution is based upon a book called the ORIGIN of Species. How does one explain the ORIGIN of a species?


Source for interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc

[Kapt Z]

Because a certain theory relies heavily on science to arbitrarliy add zeros to time. Because they say for creatures to evolve it MUST take a gazillion of years right? Even if it were correct evolution science still does not answer where we came from or how 'something' came from 'nothing'. If we were created by I.D. 6,000 years is plausible. We should be able to discuss it , to reason with one another rather than one side calling the other stupid, ignorent, or blind.

To paraphrase Joseph Campbell-

"If you could prove the existence of GOD what would be the point of faith?"

Let God remain a mystery of our hearts. If we try to drag him under the microscope I think we'll regret it.

[Gorduz]

You were right that he admits that a sort I.D. can have some merit (a scienentist can not dismiss theories). But so far the evidence for this is not in any way conclusive enough fot it to be considered of as more than an idea, or hypothesis. And in no way is the evidence for I.D. conclusive enough to be taken into textbooks yet.

But when most people talk about I.D. they link the designer to some supernatural being (i.e. God), thats what is wrong. If you support I.D. by some other natural being that we don't know about sure, I'm not a biologist, and if you are then I will listen to your theory with respect. But if the designer is supposed to be a supernatural being, then it has nothing to do with science(perhaps theology).

Now as said I.D. could be considered in some way a hypothesis but until the supporters stop mixing religion(pr. def. beliving in something unprovable) into it, they will not be taken serously by their scientific peers.

and well said Kapt Z

[Rockstar]

(pr. def. beliving in something unprovable) Does anyone here really think aliens know about Darwins theory of the Origin of species? But it still doesn't answer where they came from now does it?

Kapt Z look out the window into space, the oceans, the land, your own body don't you ever wonder how it all came to be?

Myself I believe in the intelligent design of YHVH.


.

[Gorduz]

Your first question has nothing to do with teaching I.D. To the second question: Life probably started by some freak chemical reaction, but there could be other theories as well(As said I'm no biologist). However due to lack of experimental data (digging up million years old single cells are hard) I don't think anyone knows.

I think perhaps you also ask how did it all began (life, universe, etc.). There are theories but in the end the question, of why it happend will have to be answered by religion as it is probably impossible to investigate it scientificly. Most atheists probably answer that that question is irrelevant, most religious scientist probably believes (at least I do) that questions marks the end of sciense and the starting point of faith.

[Fish]

If we were created by I.D. 6,000 years is plausible. We should be able to discuss it
Sure, but you have to scientifically proof it (or at least try it).

Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technique) for investigating phenomena (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon), acquiring new knowledge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge), or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiry) must be based on gathering observable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable), empirical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical) and measurable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure) evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence) subject to specific principles of reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-0) A scientific method consists of the collection of data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data) through observation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation) and experimentation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment), and the formulation and testing of hypotheses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-1)
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_of_science) to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis) as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment) studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research) to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science) that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)) to reduce a biased (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias) interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_data_archiving) and share (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_sharing_(Science)) all data and methodology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodology) so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility) them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_(statistics)) of these data to be established.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

You have to convince geologist, paleontologist, biologist, antropologist, genetics and a whole bunch of other scientist who work with the theory for years.

The age of the earth explained.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5369-OobM4&feature=PlayList&p=DB23537556D7AADB&index=5

[heartc]

But when most people talk about I.D. they link the designer to some supernatural being (i.e. God), thats what is wrong. If you support I.D. by some other natural being that we don't know about sure, I'm not a biologist, and if you are then I will listen to your theory with respect. But if the designer is supposed to be a supernatural being, then it has nothing to do with science(perhaps theology).


Define "natural".

[Sailor Steve]

When you really look at it it is more than just some soup called chance.
When you really look at it? Look at it how? Please explain, using reason.

[Tribesman]

Darwin did not write a book the titled The Evolution of Species. No he titled it The ORIGIN of Species.
:doh:
No he didn't .
Cretinists can't even get something that simple right .

[Digital_Trucker]

:doh:
No he didn't .
Cretinists can't even get something that simple right .

At least Creationists can spell:D

[Stealth Hunter]

(pr. def. beliving in something unprovable) Does anyone here really think aliens know about Darwins theory of the Origin of species?

If they could pull off warp drives, the creation of synthetic life, and also advanced space travel, I'd say they probably have a good idea that life is changing and always has been. They might not call it "evolution", but they'd certainly have some sort of word for it.

But it still doesn't answer where they came from now does it?

No, and it's not supposed to. The Theory of Evolution simply states that life has changed over the aeons to survive the environment. Abiogenesis deals more with the origins of life.

Although, you still have a problem if you believe god created everything: where's the evidence for a god? Which god should we believe in?

If I believed the Bible as fact, then I would also have to believe that everything was created by a magical and invisible sky wizard just 6,000 years ago, man came from dust and woman from that man's rib, our species is filled with problems because a talking snake convinced the duo to eat from a cursed apple tree, and a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father came here to Earth to die for our sins.

Kapt Z look out the window into space, the oceans, the land, your own body don't you ever wonder how it all came to be?

We all do. But if we don't know (scientists and followers of science), we simply say, "We don't know, and we're probably not going to find out any time soon". We don't shout, "WE HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS! <INSERT NAME OF GOD/RELIGION HERE> IS THE ONLY TRUE WAY TO GO! THE <INSERT RELIGIOUS TEXT/BELIEF HERE> IS THE ONLY TRUE BOOK!"

Creationists are essentially trying to overrule what scientists have known for a century now with their own mythology and legends. That's all it comes down to. Hell, we built the modern polio vaccine using evolution and natural selection (along with their principles), but they still deny its existence.

If we start teaching Christian creation, then we had better start teaching Greek creation, Roman creation, Norse creation, Gaelic creation, Egyptian creation, Islamic creation, Jewish creation, Ancient Russian creation, Mayan creation, Aztec creation, Navajo creation, Iroquois creation, Inca creation, and even Easter Island creation.

Myself I believe in the intelligent design of YHVH.

I'll stick with Zeus and the Deities of Olympus, thank you. Though Odin and his friends aren't a bad lot to go with, either.

The thing I always liked more about the Greek gods than any other gods in today's religions is that they lived at a physical place. It was said if you went to the top of Mount Olympus, you could meet Zeus, Hera, Hermes, and all the others and actually see them. With the Christians, Jews, and Muslims, there god is just sort of... there. I mean, he's supposedly all around us, omnipotent and omniscient.

[Stealth Hunter]

At least Creationists can spell:D

You forgot a period there, mate.:up:

[Digital_Trucker]

You forgot a period there, mate.:up:

Pardon me, but isn't :D a punctuation mark?

[Stealth Hunter]

Because a certain theory relies heavily on science to arbitrarliy add zeros to time. Because they say for creatures to evolve it MUST take a gazillion of years right?

It takes time. There is no specific way to calculate it as of yet, however, when trying to determine possible future evolutionary paths (which in its own right is very difficult).

Even if it were correct evolution science still does not answer where we came from or how 'something' came from 'nothing'.

It's not supposed to. Once again, that's dealing more with abiogenesis and the scientific debate of the origins of life, which has nothing to do with evolution.

If we were created by I.D. 6,000 years is plausible.

That's a steep "if" you just used there. If you find evidence for ID, come tell us. If you can confirm something along the lines of ID exists using the scientific method, come tell us.

We should be able to discuss it

Not until you confirm its existence.

, to reason with one another rather than one side calling the other stupid, ignorent, or blind.

It's stupid to think the Earth is 6,000 years old because we know it's not 6,000 years old. The oldest rock on the planet is over 4 billion years old. It's stupid to think snakes can talk because they don't possess vocal chords to begin with. It's stupid to think that a global flood happened because we know from geology no such event ever did occur.

Creationists in general hold stupid beliefs, are ignorant because they are ignoring the facts, and rely on blind faith to back their position in the whole debate and not tangible evidence.

[Stealth Hunter]

Pardon me, but isn't :D a punctuation mark?

:hmmm:

We could create an Orwell-esque language using nothing but emoticons.:o

:har:

[Max2147]

If they insist on including ID (Creationism in disguise) in science classes, then they ought to include Evolution in Sunday School. After all, ID/Creationism's scientific merit is no greater than Evolution's religious merit.

For what it's worth, I don't think there's anything about Evolution that denies the existence of God. It's perfectly possible that Evolution occurred under divine oversight or even divine guidance. Evolution only clashes with religion if you insist on taking every word in a religious text literally, but to me that's silly because that implies that God is bound by physical reality.

[Rockstar]

:doh:
No he didn't .
Cretinists can't even get something that simple right .

What was it called then? Last I looked the full name of the book is

The Origin of Species
by Means of Natural Selection,

or


The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

First Edition




by Charles Darwin

[Digital_Trucker]

:hmmm:

We could create an Orwell-esque language using nothing but emoticons.:o

:har:

:salute::yep::yeah::D

[UnderseaLcpl]

If they insist on including ID (Creationism in disguise) in science classes, then they ought to include Evolution in Sunday School. After all, ID/Creationism's scientific merit is no greater than Evolution's religious merit.

For what it's worth, I don't think there's anything about Evolution that denies the existence of God. It's perfectly possible that Evolution occurred under divine oversight or even divine guidance. Evolution only clashes with religion if you insist on taking every word in a religious text literally, but to me that's silly because that implies that God is bound by physical reality.

Who's "They"? Nobody can tell churches what to teach in Sunday School, and our tax dollars don't pay for them.

I'm of a similar opinion about evolution, though. To me it is an even more impressive method of creation. Could be that the universe is a machine designed to produce life, which through evolution produces something else. Or something completely different, who knows?

[GoldenRivet]

:salute::yep::yeah::D

translated... "good one!... you might be onto something, i approve... i know you're just joking though."

[Tribesman]

What was it called then? Last I looked the full name of the book is

See , even with a second attempt you still can't get it right .

At least Creationists can spell
The word I used is correct.
It relates to cretins who wish to challenge scientific theories with heavily edited and mistranslated ancient myths of doubtful provenance .

[Digital_Trucker]

The word I used is correct.
It relates to cretins who wish to challenge scientific theories with heavily edited and mistranslated ancient myths of doubtful provenance .

According to Webster's dictionary, the "word" you used isn't a word.:D

translated... "good one!... you might be onto something, i approve... i know you're just joking though."

Pretty good translation.:up:

[Fish]

Good for you Texas!:yeah:

A final 13-2 vote approved language that will be printed in textbooks beginning in 2011 and remain there for 10 years, CNN affiliate KPRC-TV in Houston reported:
"In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental observation and testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the students."

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/03/27/texas.education.evolution/

[Platapus]

Although it is very unscientific, just simple observation of humans and how they acted through out history and continue to act places serious doubt in my mind about Intelligent Design :D

[Platapus]

And in discussing the writings of Charles Darwin, it is important to separate what was written in "The Origin of the Species" and in "The Decent of Man" as the two works were different, albeit related.

[Sailor Steve]

The problem I have with Creationism is simply this:

Creationists try to dismiss the theory of evolution by pointing out its flaws; and, as with all scientific theory, there are some. The problem is compounded by the fact that there are a lot of people who do treat evolution as though it were a religious belief, and get into shouting matches and arrogant dismissals themselves.

Every real scientist knows that today's pet theory may well be tomorrow's bad joke. It's something they live with. On the other hand, given the acceptance of radiocarbon dating systems and the observed fact of mutation at the cellular level, it's the best theory we have at the moment. If it were to be proven wrong tomorrow, a lot of people would be devastated, but most would say "Okay, how do we explain these phenomena?" and get back to work.

On the other hand, Creationism came about because one man, Bishop James Ussher of the Anglican Church, carefully calculated the date of creation to be 23 October 4004 BC, exactly 4000 years before the accepted date of the birth of Christ. If the Bible is taken literally then this was valid. Most serious biblical scholars today state the belief that parts of the Bible are indeed allegorical, especially the parts that aren't stated to be eyewitness accounts.

But what about Creationism? It is less than theory, relying on a pre-concieved idea (that there is a God, and that he created the universe out of whole cloth), and attempts to apply it to science. This requires the dismissal of any conflicting idea, which is not science, and while Creationists go to great lengths to disprove parts of evolution, the willfully blind themselves to any flaws in their own reasoning.

I once postulated the qestion of what would happen if God appeared to some primitive shepherd and, rather than saying "Write this down as I dictate it" said "Here, let me show you how I did it!"

Big Bang? "And God said 'Let there be light!' And there was light!"

Show him the development of the Earth through the ages? It gets written down as Seven Days.

Just my own ideas, but are they any less valid than anyone else's when speaking of the esoteric? Would proof that evolution is indeed a reality dismiss the possibility that it was all called into being by God? Would the proof of a 'Young Earth' immediately prove that it was created by God?

In both cases the answer is "No". Evolution is an attempt by scientists to explain what they see. They don't insist the Earth is billions of years old just because their ideas require it. Carbon-dating is accepted as reasonbly reliable. Creationists take evolution as a direct challenge to their most cherished beliefs, and for them to not feel threatened by it they feel they have to disprove it.

Creationism is an attempt to force science to adapt to a pre-concieved idea, one which has its own flaws when looked at with scientific means.

Science is discovery. What is discovered needs to be explained. Natural evolution is one such explanation. So is the idea of direct creation by God. One does not preclude the other. But the idea of dismissing natural explanations by insisting that much of what scientists believe is wrong requires more science, and the idea that the universe had a supernatural beginning is one that cannot be proven, and is therefore outside the realm of science.

It may be true, but trying to prove it with half-science is a desparate grasp at something that cannot be grasped. The Christian's faith, and even salvation, don't depend on believing in the Seven Days, or The Flood, or anything else. They only depend on the Atonement.

[Biggles]

The Christian's faith, and even salvation, don't depend on believing in the Seven Days, or The Flood, or anything else. They only depend on the Atonement.

Oh if just everyone thought like this... Kudos to you mate, some very good points in that post!:salute:

BTW, honest question, does Texas count into the so called "Bible-Belt"?

[Tribesman]

According to Webster's dictionary, the "word" you used isn't a word.
Try a different dictionary

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cretinist

[mookiemookie]

BTW, honest question, does Texas count into the so called "Bible-Belt"?

It does indeed.

And Steve, great points. My opposition to intelligent design or creationism (whatever they want to call it) being in a science textbook is that it's not science. You can't apply the scientific method to it, so therefore it has no place being mentioned in an academic discussion of science. There's no lab test to prove or disprove the existence of God.

[Digital_Trucker]

Try a different dictionary

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cretinist

I'm not a big fan of ebonics, I'll just stick to official words:D

@Steve Couldn't have said it better if I'd worked on it for a week.:up:

[antikristuseke]

The problem I have with Creationism is simply this:

Creationists try to dismiss the theory of evolution by pointing out its flaws; and, as with all scientific theory, there are some. The problem is compounded by the fact that there are a lot of people who do treat evolution as though it were a religious belief, and get into shouting matches and arrogant dismissals themselves.

Every real scientist knows that today's pet theory may well be tomorrow's bad joke. It's something they live with. On the other hand, given the acceptance of radiocarbon dating systems and the observed fact of mutation at the cellular level, it's the best theory we have at the moment. If it were to be proven wrong tomorrow, a lot of people would be devastated, but most would say "Okay, how do we explain these phenomena?" and get back to work.

On the other hand, Creationism came about because one man, Bishop James Ussher of the Anglican Church, carefully calculated the date of creation to be 23 October 4004 BC, exactly 4000 years before the accepted date of the birth of Christ. If the Bible is taken literally then this was valid. Most serious biblical scholars today state the belief that parts of the Bible are indeed allegorical, especially the parts that aren't stated to be eyewitness accounts.

But what about Creationism? It is less than theory, relying on a pre-concieved idea (that there is a God, and that he created the universe out of whole cloth), and attempts to apply it to science. This requires the dismissal of any conflicting idea, which is not science, and while Creationists go to great lengths to disprove parts of evolution, the willfully blind themselves to any flaws in their own reasoning.

I once postulated the qestion of what would happen if God appeared to some primitive shepherd and, rather than saying "Write this down as I dictate it" said "Here, let me show you how I did it!"

Big Bang? "And God said 'Let there be light!' And there was light!"

Show him the development of the Earth through the ages? It gets written down as Seven Days.

Just my own ideas, but are they any less valid than anyone else's when speaking of the esoteric? Would proof that evolution is indeed a reality dismiss the possibility that it was all called into being by God? Would the proof of a 'Young Earth' immediately prove that it was created by God?

In both cases the answer is "No". Evolution is an attempt by scientists to explain what they see. They don't insist the Earth is billions of years old just because their ideas require it. Carbon-dating is accepted as reasonbly reliable. Creationists take evolution as a direct challenge to their most cherished beliefs, and for them to not feel threatened by it they feel they have to disprove it.

Creationism is an attempt to force science to adapt to a pre-concieved idea, one which has its own flaws when looked at with scientific means.

Science is discovery. What is discovered needs to be explained. Natural evolution is one such explanation. So is the idea of direct creation by God. One does not preclude the other. But the idea of dismissing natural explanations by insisting that much of what scientists believe is wrong requires more science, and the idea that the universe had a supernatural beginning is one that cannot be proven, and is therefore outside the realm of science.

It may be true, but trying to prove it with half-science is a desparate grasp at something that cannot be grasped. The Christian's faith, and even salvation, don't depend on believing in the Seven Days, or The Flood, or anything else. They only depend on the Atonement.

Agreed, but with a small correction. Radiocarbon dating is only good for about 60,000 years. The age of the Earth is determined by other readiological dating methods which show that age to be 4.55. The Moon has allso been dated to the age of 4.5 billion years. Anyway, this is the MINIMUM age of the Earth.
More information on radiometric dating methods can be found here: http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html

[Schroeder]

The Moon has allso been dated to the age of 4.5 billion years. Anyway, this is the MINIMUM age of the Earth.


Could be because the moon was once part of the earth. (or so it is believed... by scientists) :salute:

[Stealth Hunter]

Could be because the moon was once part of the earth. (or so it is believed... by scientists) :salute:

Could very well be the case. It more than likely was formed when Earth was still molten. Something had to collide with us, however.

[Tribesman]

Radiocarbon dating is only good for about 60,000 years.
That means radiocarbon dating is perfect for the job, after all as everyting is only 6000 years old at the most radiocarbon dating will still cover everything for the next 54,000 years to come .

[antikristuseke]

Tribesman, I hope you are joking. It is nigh on impossible to tell when someone is pretending to be a cretionist.

[Tribesman]

It is nigh on impossible to tell when someone is pretending to be a cretionist.
Yep , cretinists are often so crazy its hard to tell if they are being serious
Take Jack Chick for example, serious or spoof ?
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1051/1051_01.asp
What about these fruits ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfv-Qn1M58I&feature=related
Are they serious or a comedy duo ?
Though I think my favourite must be that Kent Hovind muppet where he shows children a picture of a chimp and asks if it looks like their grandfather because the evilutionists say your grandaddy was a monkey .

[Stealth Hunter]

Chick's Publications has been around for since 1961, publishing this kind of stuff time and time again. Given this and some of the stuff his website says, he's definitely a real fundamentalist (or he's been hosting one of history's greatest spoofs for the past four -soon to be five- decades). Really, he should have been shut down by now for misrepresenting and slandering some of history's greatest scientists, including Albert Einstein, Francis Crick and his associate James Watson, Carl Sagan, and Karl Popper.

And that video, Tribesman, is not at all shocking of that asshat Ray Comfort. Sadly, Kirk Cameron was indoctrinated into their ranks as an adolescent.

Look at what them and their ilk put the children through:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xKDKq_PPbk

Sickening... just sickening...:nope:

[Tribesman]

Look at what them and their ilk put the children through:

The thing is , look at what they want to put all children through by teaching their crap as science in school .

[Sailor Steve]

Agreed, but with a small correction. Radiocarbon dating is only good for about 60,000 years. The age of the Earth is determined by other readiological dating methods which show that age to be 4.55. The Moon has allso been dated to the age of 4.5 billion years. Anyway, this is the MINIMUM age of the Earth.
More information on radiometric dating methods can be found here: http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html
I knew there were other methods, but I didn't know for certain what they were.

Thanks for the update.

[Stealth Hunter]

Anyone else here like to submit and read quotes on Fundies Say the Darndest Things? Here's a link:

http://www.fstdt.com/

This is a goodie:

Various other strange things happened during the inauguration and subsequent activities. We must remember that before Obama came along, Ted Kennedy was known as the most liberal, left-wing senator of all time. Kennedy collapsed in a seizure and then revived later at a hospital. In the world of the occult, this is a common occurrence when evil spirits leave one person and enter into another.

-Pastor David J. Meyer; Last Trumpet Ministries

:har:

[AngusJS]

Darwin did not write a book the titled The Evolution of Species. No he titled it The ORIGIN of Species. Where did they originate from?
Yeah, the origin of species, i.e. the genesis of differentiation in organisms, not organisms in general. How does this differentiation take place? Evolution, as has been shown time and time again.

Evolutions makes so much sense, it's almost a truism - organisms with advantageous mutations will tend to outperform organisms which lack them. If it didn't pose so many problems for religion, it would be accepted as any other scientific theory.

Frst there is nothing then there is something, where did it come from?Noone knows, including you. Science can take you back 13.7 billion years to fractions of a second after the Big Bang. Beyond that, you can either admit that you don't know, or you can stick to Bronze Age myths.

BTW, where did god come from? What created it? Or has it been conveniently decreed eternal?

When you really look at it it is more than just some soup called chance.Actually, an indifferent universe governed by chance seems to fit the evidence much better than one created by an intervening deity.

[Stealth Hunter]

Hail Zeus!:salute:

[FIREWALL]

Im Texas born and raised and im a current Texas resident and this is the first i have ever heard of it.

however i think clarity is lacking in this fairly one sided "blog" because one could hardly call this hard line news.

if im not mistaken, this woman wants the schools to teach as they have been teaching - however with the small addition that "due to religious reasons there are those out there believe that the earth was created 6,000 years ago"

i dont think any Texas Legislature would vote to approve this as the SOLE curriculum for Texas Students.

however, that wouldnt surprise me entirely.

- this sort of thing is the very reason that Private Schooling is a BOOMING business here in Texas. There are 5 or 6 very nice private schools within a 15 mile radius of my home - all filled to capacity with little over achievers.

we go on and on about kids these days... but there is hope, one of my student pilots is 16 years old. He is in Agriculture club, the Future Farmers of America, he is on the A-B Honor Roll, he is in Band, student council, Athletics, an avid outdoorsman and hunter, and of course is learning to fly airplanes.

Another of my students some years ago was a 17 year old high school student, every day he dressed in khaki pants, with a tucked in collared button up shirt, his writing and speaking skills were very non-typical of an average 17 year old... he had then and still has today a very "common sense" approach to life in general.

wen it comes to students growing up in this world you have to realize... There are those destined for greatness, there are those who become great through hard work, and there are those who are destined to clean up crap and dig ditches all day long.

it has been that way forever... and it will be that way forever more

Sadly here in So Cal our private and religious schools are booming to capacity because, Public schools are Dangerous.

When I went to school (public) they were a safe haven.

[Stealth Hunter]

Kids, please pause for Muslim Rebecca
who'd like to kneel and pray to Mecca.
Now be quiet while Hare Krishna Jay
intones his mantra in class today.

Let us give time to Mormon Rod
who's ready to become a god.
Catholic kids around the nation
will get their transubstantiation.

Please pause while little Buddhist Kate
takes some time to meditate.
Whoops, looks like our own Shinto Lester
wants to worship his ancestor.

And our little Hindu Ivana
thanks Ganesh for her Nirvana.
And a Scientologist named Peter
would like some time on his E-meter.

OK, kids. You've given voice
to the gods all of your choice.
For the lesson today, I'm going to tell
about long divis. . .oops, there's the bell.

Indeed the parents would object
from kids' prayers that are not "correct".
Because Christian kids will be liable
to find ideas not in the Bible.

Then we'd see the sour grapes
of those theocratic apes
who want to loudly voice the prayers
of any religion, as long as it's theirs.

by Rich Goranson


I just got it in an email, and I lol'd so hard.

[mookiemookie]

Anyone else here like to submit and read quotes on Fundies Say the Darndest Things? Here's a link:

http://www.fstdt.com/

This is a goodie:

Various other strange things happened during the inauguration and subsequent activities. We must remember that before Obama came along, Ted Kennedy was known as the most liberal, left-wing senator of all time. Kennedy collapsed in a seizure and then revived later at a hospital. In the world of the occult, this is a common occurrence when evil spirits leave one person and enter into another.

-Pastor David J. Meyer; Last Trumpet Ministries

:har:

Three guys read aloud quotes from fundamentalist Christian forums: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO9IPoAdct8 :haha:

[Bewolf]

Considering we are all nothing more then stardust in various forms anyways (literally), the question where life comes from is odd to begin with. First of all, the only ppl making life into something special, that consider water, nature, the sun, themselves and the animals as something special, is ourselves. There is no universal marker somewhere in space stating "hey, here ye go to earth. SPECIAL PLACE CAUSE PPL LIVE THERE!" A random comet going our way could very well and fast put an end to it anyways.

Thus I do not know what life actually means. We could very well just be ordinary object matter organized to perform different tasks to provide required chemical elements and reactions. In fact, we just may be a chemical reaction that went nuts and overdrive in it's complexity. Accidents (though that term is way to emotional as well) happen. Sure, chances for that are so incredible low. Nevertheless, the universe is huge, and there is a theory that says, everything that is possible to happen, "will" eventually happen. That life as we call it developed only after the universe was 6 - 8 billion years of age already makes one wonder.

All purely speculative and not a better explaination then anybody else's, but only humans waste so much of their short and valuable life time on such issues utterly unimportant for life at hand. We are born, we die, we have in average 70 years on this planet. These 70 years are, by what we know as fact, all we have. Wasting this time by discussing, fighting and killing over the question what exactly created us is so bullocks to begin with that this reason alone is all I need as proof that no higher life form could have created us, at least not one that was by it's senses.

For what it is worth we are able to love, to admire, to be idealists coming up with grand ideas to improve our life and become a better person. We also come with darker colors, greed, hate, igorance. But even these have their sense in life, they all make sense upon looking at how life, not just for humanity, works. And has humans are so different, all these tendencies come with stronger or lesser packages. Those that break the barrier of average are either called "good" or "evil", "brilliant" or "stupid". The list goes on.

And be it as it is, I am just thankful that I am alive, I am capable of admiring without asking for reasons and enjoying life for what it is, a short spark of greatness within a dark and cold universe. And that is the human talking in me. ;)

[AngusJS]

Climate change is a lie. This I know, for the Bible tells me so... at least according to John Shimkus (R) on the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7h08RDYA5E&feature=related

:nope:

[NeonSamurai]

Anyone else here like to submit and read quotes on Fundies Say the Darndest Things? Here's a link:

http://www.fstdt.com/

Wow some those quotes can either be absurdly funny, or deeply disturbing (the kill/torture/experiment on all non believers/atheists quotes in particular). Having religion isn't necessarily a bad thing, but one certainly can take it way too far.

[Stealth Hunter]

Wow some those quotes can either be absurdly funny, or deeply disturbing (the kill/torture/experiment on all non believers/atheists quotes in particular). Having religion isn't necessarily a bad thing, but one certainly can take it way too far.

Did you see some of them by the guy OriginalBigWhite? Listen to this:

For one thing I would just have to look at Dawkins, Hitchens, PZ and Harris as the High-Priest of Sciencism and here you have three of the most arrogant vicious hate-filled human beings you could ever pick from on this planet.

But what about YEC people?
Would there be some test or way to see what would happen if the whole West was run by YEC people.
Yes.
Because it happens for millennial amounts of time. What the heck lets say 1,400 years ballpark then.
During that time Young Earth Creationists invented the Modern Scientific Method and Modern Democracy, Modern Medicine and pretty much developed the most advanced civilization going.
It wasn't till around the 19th century (so really just last week relatively speaking) that anyone ever heard of this sort of 'Theistic Evolutionism' or anyone trying to be 'Old Earth Creationists' or these sorts of things.

So yeah, we did just fine when everyone was YEC and we will do just fine in the future when everyone is YEC again.

Another:

Andy: Surely if it's "observed fact of life" and "very obvious and well known" you must have SOME scientific articles that back up your claims?

OBW: So you admit you cannot prove there are no articles verifying this?

Andy: I now have to go through EVERY scientific journal ever published (should probably add every honours and doctorate thesis in there too) just to prove that your baseless assertions DON'T have journal articles to support them?

OBW: Yes, until you do then my claim wins by default since you cannot prove they 'dont exist' or haven't in some past time.

I commented that:

I assert that our fates are ruled by mystical purple elves living under a garden shed in the Andromeda Galaxy. Your task, OBW, is to explore every part of the Andromeda Galaxy in which there might be a garden shed in order to disprove my assertion. Otherwise, my assertion is true by default.

[NeonSamurai]

Didn't see him specifically. He is just using poor forms of argumentation and fallacious reasoning. What i found deeply disturbing were comments like this..

What do the other human persons here think ?

No doubt someone will object, saying something obviously ridiculous like, but atheists are persons.

But clearly this is mistaken because anybody without a well developed belief in God is obviously not a full human person.

What could be more obvious than that ?

How many full human persons do you know without a well developed belief in God. Obviously none, because if they were full human person they would have a well developed belief in God.

Now some people might object to killing atheists for there (and obviously it is there and not thier as they are not whos but whats ) organs but think of all the full human persons that would benifit from the organs and the medical research that could be done on these non-persons.

How could anybody object, they are not human persons and if you think we should not kill them then that is just because of out dated ideas and because they must really just want people to suffer. For shame on you !

So what do people think ?

Should we kill these atheist human non-persons for the benifit of fully human persons ?

Jason

Then there are the more amusing ones

<on the sunject of a Bible printing company>

Yes, that is a great company. I bought one of their large print version (old eyes... what can I say?).

The only thing I don't like about them is they sell foreign language versions of the KJB. I don't think that's right. We know the only true translation is the 1600's version in English.

It's too risky for anybody to translate that into other languages. Mistakes can creep in... and that can lead to heresy. True Christians should only read English.

leyenda

When I read stuff like this I really don't get how these people can consider themselves either a) Christian and/or b) more intelligent then moss growing on a rock. So many of them are utterly ignoring the most basic of Christian teaching (love thy neighbor, do unto others, judge not, etc) and/or are so ignorant its frightening

[Stealth Hunter]

Didn't see him specifically. He is just using poor forms of argumentation and fallacious reasoning. What i found deeply disturbing were comments like this..

Jason's comment is very disturbing. I hope that he was joking or was a troll, because otherwise, that guy has some serious problems.

When I read stuff like this I really don't get how these people can consider themselves either a) Christian and/or b) more intelligent then moss growing on a rock. So many of them are utterly ignoring the most basic of Christian teaching (love thy neighbor, do unto others, judge not, etc) and/or are so ignorant its frightening

Amen.:)

[Schroeder]

When I read stuff like this I really don't get how these people can consider themselves either a) Christian and/or b) more intelligent then moss growing on a rock. So many of them are utterly ignoring the most basic of Christian teaching (love thy neighbor, do unto others, judge not, etc) and/or are so ignorant its frightening
I think that is also one of the reasons why so many people have turned their back on religion.:timeout:

[Stealth Hunter]

I think that is also one of the reasons why so many people have turned their back on religion.:timeout:

Let alone one that's as old as the Bronze Age.:haha:

[jazzabilly]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwooM4yhiiY

And the most appropriate oxymoron of the topic is:

Religous education.

[NeonSamurai]

I saw a lot of comments though on that site about killing, torturing, burning alive, etc all unbelievers and even fellow Christians who didn't meet this person's standards.

Ah well so it goes I guess. Not exactly a new concept. Any exclusive religion will tend to foster this kind of feeling in people. As after all if my religion is the only true religion, then everyone else must be wrong, and by being wrong they also must be dumb as they don't see the truth in my religion, the only true religion. It gets especially ironic when the core religion splinters off into many slightly different versions, each proclaiming itself the only true faith and hating all the other splinters. That is how Christians (and other exclusive religions that splintered) end up hating each other, even though they supposedly all have the same core beliefs.

[Stealth Hunter]

This is a great video about the stupidity of Kent Hovind, AiG, and the implausibility of Noah's Ark:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY&feature=channel_page