quote Originally posted by Blacktree: I think BOTH should be taught in schools, so the kids can see both sides of the story. Then, they can choose for themselves which they prefer.

OR they should teach SCIENCE in science class. And then teach world religion in social studies class where we can teach the multitude of religious explanations. Where it belongs. Lets be honest, is religion a science? Then why should we teach unsupproted belief in science class? Just because this country happens to be a Christian majority? WHy not teach that Christ was not the savior in History class so that the children can see both views and choose for themselves. Heck we can even teach them that Christ never even existed. We can teach them that the sun revolves around the Earth to allow then to choose which universe they would like to believe in.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: I went through this with Ken W for a week.

Link please.
Evolution is not a religious belief ?
Naturalistic evolution:
The origin of the universe occurred about 14 billion years ago. The earth coalesced about 4.5 billion years ago. Life subsequently began, probably as bacteria deep in rocks, and has been evolving ever since. The process of evolution has been driven by purely natural forces, without input from a God or a Goddess or multiple deities. Many people have associated this belief system with strong Atheism. Certainly, some scientists who support naturalistic evolution do not believe in a supreme being or beings. But others believe both in evolution and in one or more Gods and/or Goddesses who do not intrude on the outcome of natural forces. Some of the latter are Deists who believe that God created the universe, started it in motion, left the universe, and allowed natural processes to originate life and drive evolution.
Theistic evolution:
Evolution happened just as supporters of naturalistic evolution believe, but it was a tool created, used, and/or controlled by God.

Even some scholars of evolution have changed their minds.
"Many ...believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact' and, therefore, it must be accepted... In recent years, a great many people...having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists."
-- Henry Morris, former evolutionist.

How Can All Those Scientists Be Wrong?
The idea that evolution may be false is a difficult idea for many people to accept, particularly when a lot of well-educated, smart people, and well-respected organizations say it is true. How can it be that so many people are so wrong?

* Most people are taught in school, and from television shows and museums, that evolution explains our universe and all living things, and that evolution is a proven fact. They have not been told about the problems with the theory of evolution, nor have they been given the opportunity to study the concept of "special creation" as a legitimate alternative.
* Much of the confusion around the concept of "evolution" is that this word is commonly used to describe two very different things:
1. Micro-evolution refers to the fact that living things have a built-in variability which allows them to adapt to small changes in the environment. When scientists say that evolution is a proven fact, they mean that micro-evolution is a proven fact. No creation scientist disputes this. Indeed, this ability to adapt would be expected as a part of "good design". Textbook examples of "evolution in action" almost always describe this type of small change, such as the "peppered moth" story, or the development of resistance to pesticides. What is happening in these cases is not the creation of something new, but merely the emphasis of an already existing trait.
2. Macro-evolution refers to the type of change which has created people from hydrogen gas. Evolutionists say that large scale change is possible because we have seen small scale change in action. However, the flaw in this reasoning is that living systems have limits beyond which no further change can take place.
* Some other considerations include:
Much of day to day scientific activity ("practical science") does not directly depend upon evolutionary assumptions, and so progress is made.
Scientific fields of study have become very narrow. A scientist can believe that the evidence for evolution is found in "some other field", even if it is not obviously seen in his own.
Since scientists know that other scientists believe in evolution, they believe it also, even though they may not know much about the details themselves.
Scientists want to have an answer for everything, and so the "best" theory is the accepted theory, regardless of its absolute merits.
Non-naturalistic ideas (like special creation) are regarded as outside the scope of scientific study. Can we equate "what is true" only with "what can be seen and measured"? Is the physical dimension "all there is"? Many scientists have been taught to believe that religious and scientific beliefs are separate things which should be kept separate. However, many of the well-known scientists of the past (such as Louis Pasteur, Issac Newton, and Michael Faraday, among many others) operated with their religious and scientific ideas workin

Conneticutfiero, as you said, your mind is made up. Now you are doing exactly what you said you would never do:

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: I don't make children learn my theory on the universe, I would never even think of it.

Why are you so afraid of religious beliefs ? No one here is arguing to exclude either theory except you.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Why are you so afraid of religious beliefs ? No one here is arguing to exclude either theory except you.

I guess my self fullfilling prophecy of you providing biased cherry picked sources and information has come to fruition. You may now worship me. I have been proven correct that you would attack evolution instead of prove creation and you are using biased opinion as a mode of attack. Didn't we go through this already.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: Then why should we teach unsupproted belief in science class? WHy not teach that Christ was not the savior in History class so that the children can see both views and choose for themselves.

Again, I think evolution is a fact, to a point. What you are purporting is an unsupported belief. Just as unsupported as is the belief in God.
To teach that Christ is not the savior, we would also have to teach that he was if we want the children to see both views. Not all who go to school go to church.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: OR they should teach SCIENCE in science class. And then teach world religion in social studies class where we can teach the multitude of religious explanations. Where it belongs. Lets be honest, is religion a science? Then why should we teach unsupproted belief in science class?

But of course.

You'll notice I said both should be taught in school, not specifically in science class.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: I guess my self fullfilling prophecy of you providing biased cherry picked sources and information has come to fruition. You may now worship me. I have been proven correct that you would attack evolution instead of prove creation and you are using biased opinion as a mode of attack. Didn't we go through this already.

Hahahahahaha
Worship you? Thanks for your permission.
Biased cherry picked sources. Google Henry Morris.
I did not attack evolution but you are attacking creationism instead of proving ( science ) evolution.

My point, as is the beliefs of others here, is that neither one are proven. Why teach that one is correct without proving it and disallow another theory.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: I guess my self fullfilling prophecy of you providing biased cherry picked sources and information has come to fruition. You may now worship me. I have been proven correct that you would attack evolution instead of prove creation and you are using biased opinion as a mode of attack. Didn't we go through this already.

And your opinion isn't biased? And if this thread isn't about the merits of evolution, what is it about? Do you want all of us to blindly accept the theory of evolution as fact? Intelligent design has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with the acceptance of the possibility that there is merely another being more powerful than us. Why is that so hard to accept? Evolution as a theory is not hard to accept as an idea worth consideration, either. It seems though, that most people consider micro evolution as a basis of proof for macro evolution. If you have studied evolution you also know that that is not true.

What makes evolution so different that it shouldn't be taught in religion class as well? Take it down to its elements and it's an intelligent mechanism that created us and operates to make us better. And if not intelligent, then what? It randomly percieved that eyes or ears would eventually work with great effectiveness and with a definite purpose after several million years?

In the Bible, Old Testament, I believe that the first inhabitants of the Garden of Eden, were Adam and Eve.Nobody else is mentioned.Adam and Eve had two Sons, Cain and Abel.Where did the ensuing inhabitants come from? I am not being facetious, but it is a long time since I read The Bible, and I have always been curious to know the answer.I can only see incest as the source, and that is forbidden ,isn´t it?Is there any explanation, or is it not explained in the Bible?
fierofetish

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: In the Bible, Old Testament, I believe that the first inhabitants of the Garden of Eden, were Adam and Eve.Nobody else is mentioned.Adam and Eve had two Sons, Cain and Abel.Where did the ensuing inhabitants come from? I am not being facetious, but it is a long time since I read The Bible, and I have always been curious to know the answer.I can only see incest as the source, and that is forbidden ,isn´t it?Is there any explanation, or is it not explained in the Bible? fierofetish

I'm not concerned with who does and does not believe in Creationism or Evolution. this thread is about whether or not it will be taught in schools because of the VAST right wing agenda to force God upon those who don't want him. Fear not Conn. Bush has NO plan to force you to say "Under God" when you say the pledge of allegience. Nor does he intend to have a Darwin Book Burning Party. Nor does he plan to try to convince you that 4 billion year old rocks are 6000 years old. So why are you doing this? I'm getting a headache from all this anti-Bush crapola.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: In the Bible, Old Testament, I believe that the first inhabitants of the Garden of Eden, were Adam and Eve.Nobody else is mentioned.Adam and Eve had two Sons, Cain and Abel.Where did the ensuing inhabitants come from? I am not being facetious, but it is a long time since I read The Bible, and I have always been curious to know the answer.I can only see incest as the source, and that is forbidden ,isn´t it?Is there any explanation, or is it not explained in the Bible? fierofetish

Oh Nick ! You did not kill this thread. You flamed it ! In a fair and welcome way to me. I also have wondered this and thought as you did. I have asked and am told, that God did not bore us with details about every man and woman made. That the message is how it was done. The Bible , although a book, is actually a compilation of books. Compiled by religious scholars of the time and not all books may have been included, indeed some were lost.
Oh Nick, this one is going to get hot !

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Ahh, it is clear now. Damn Toddster, my apologies for taking the bait. I hope I did not miss a PM from you warning me. It all makes sense to me now.

Yeah if Todd says so, then it must be true.

Here you go Fierofetish, a quick search I did explains why there were other people besides Adam and Eve. You fail to realize that there were other lands besides Eden, such as the land of Nod. Anyway here is the quote from this source: http://www.sajc.or.kr/eng/lifeword/10.htm
10. Why were there so many people before Adam and Eve were created?

If you look into Genesis 4:1-15, Adam lay with his wife Eve to give birth to Cain and Abel, implying there were 4 family members on earth. Now, after Cain had killed Abel, there were only 3 people left on earth. However, after Cain's murder, when God appeared before him, rebuking him, Cain told God that he was worried of being killed by someone who would find him (Genesis 4:15). Then the LORD said to him, "Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. Here, if there were no other people, God would not have given him a mark so that no one who found him would kill him. From this story, it is clear that there were other people besides Adam, Eve, and Cain on earth. In addition, in Genesis 4:16, Cain went out from the LORD'S presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden and Cain lay with his wife. This also provides an additional evidence that there were other people present in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

In Genesis 2:8-9, Before God created men, the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; in the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil", in Genesis 3:1, there was the serpent, in Genesis 2:6, there was a mist from the earth, and in Ezekiel 28:13, "You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: ruby, topaz and emerald, chrysolite, onyx and jasper, sapphire, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared". These are all parables and we need to find their mates in the Scripture.

There is creationism and there is Biblical based creationism.

Question for those who are so admantly opposed to teaching creationism. If I wanted to teach a theory of creationism that said that about 10,000 years ago aliens visited the planet Earth and seeded it with the multitude of various forms of animal and plant life, would you object nearly as strenuously?

The problem with evolution is at the beginning. There is little to dispute that the theroy of natural selection is alive and well and working today. The strong and fit survive and reproduce more strong and fit, the weak wither and die. At least up until the last half century or so. You can NOT, though, produce one shred of evidence to prove that life began from a single cell and diversified into what is in the world today. It has been shown statistically that it's almost impossible for the proper combination of elements to form and produce what is necessary for life to begin WITHOUT INTERVENTION.

Beyond that, even assuming it beat all odds and life did form spontaneously, there is no shred of evidence to show that new species have derived from a common cell beginning.

Regardless of my faith, scientifically, statistically, and evidentiary, there is no basis to support the theory that all life here began with a single miraculous cell. I know where I BELIEVE that intervention was, but that is based on faith. Logic tells me that SOMETHING intervened even if it doesn't agree with my faith. Regardless, there is no doubt that more than evolution was involved.

John Stricker

I have a couple of questions that I'm sure will be ignored:

Is there any scientific evidence other than the mitocondrial DNA pointing to a single female that supports creationism?

Why do you always say both theories should be taught in school? There are a multitude of theories. Evolution, Judeo-Christion creationism, Hindu creationism, Buddist creationism, shamanistic creationism, Greek creationism, etc. Why not teach all of these theories as being equally valid if you are so concerned about children being only taught evolution?

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: I have a couple of questions that I'm sure will be ignored: Is there any scientific evidence other than the mitocondrial DNA pointing to a single female that supports creationism? Why do you always say both theories should be taught in school? There are a multitude of theories. Evolution, Judeo-Christion creationism, Hindu creationism, Buddist creationism, shamanistic creationism, Greek creationism, etc. Why not teach all of these theories as being equally valid if you are so concerned about children being only taught evolution?

Steve, for my part, I am not trying to further one theory over another. As far as proof supporting creationism, I was not even aware of the scientific evidence you cited. I have never tried to prove it to anyone. I consider myself a christian due to my innermost beliefs yet could be easily be thought of as otherwise. I question the Bible as it is just a compilation of books written by man and interpreted by man very differently. My belief in creationism may be best illustrated by a question I asked earlier. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Either way, one had to be created or whatever was the first thing to evolve had to be created
Also, I do not care what they teach in science as long as it is correct. Science should be taught to further the science of science just as auto mechanics should be taught to further auto mechanics. How a Fiero was created, ie designers, factory tooling, location, has much to do with fixing one. Teach all theories of the origins of life or teach none. Why does any theory on the origins matter as far as science is concerned. I do not think you will find one creationist who does not believe in evolution.
For one to ignore your questions would be bias. Bias has nothing to do with science.
my two cents is all

The problem is we don't compleatly understand where earth's big "G" comes from.
" G" gravity

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: Why do you always say both theories should be taught in school? There are a multitude of theories. Evolution, Judeo-Christion creationism, Hindu creationism, Buddist creationism, shamanistic creationism, Greek creationism, etc. Why not teach all of these theories as being equally valid if you are so concerned about children being only taught evolution?

bingo!

some folks like to assume that theirs is the one true religion, hence no other valid interpretation can exist. there aren't enough native americans or hindus or buddhists in the US to seriously threaten that view, but that pesky science which gives us hokey stuff like computers, antibiotics and light bulbs just won't go away.

There's this little document that was written a few years back by what liberals would call "angry white men".....thse guys actually believed in a creator!

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitles them...."

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights , that among these....."

"We therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in general congress, assembled, appealing to the supreme judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions.."

"And for the support of this declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence we pledge each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor..."

[This message has been edited by trailboss (edited 11-14-2004).]

Obviously the declaration of independence should never be posted or taught in our schools!
How dare them refer to a creator in an official government document!

This is a very intrusting converation. Here's more.

Evolution can not posiblity happen due to the 2nd law of therodyamics.

From: Deductive Quantum therodyamics in a critical review of therodyamics.
There is no record experiments in history of science that contradicts the second law of
therodyamics or its corollaries.

Mater in it self is not creative, so how can mater make anything living?

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Bush has NO plan to force you to say "Under God" when you say the pledge of allegience.

Like the "One nation under God" paid for Bush Cheney '04 billboard sign on the highway near Lansing.

"useless, useless."
- john wilkes booth

post # 3 in thread. bye, have fun y'all.

[This message has been edited by lurker (edited 11-14-2004).]

quote Originally posted by alienfiero: Mater in it self is not creative, so how can mater make anything living?

I see. Perhaps you could give us a brief rendition, in your own words, what that means?

even if you DO belive in evolution, where does it start? yeah, belive the big bang theroy, but how did that start? so there was matter at the begining, but how did it get there. i still have yet to see someone get past that question. somhow it all had to get "started." and evolution can't get past that

Joel

quote Originally posted by JohnnyK: I see. Perhaps you could give us a brief rendition, in your own words, what that means?

quote Originally posted by alienfiero: Matter in it self is not creative, so how can matter make anything living?

There you go JohnnyK

It is possible that evolution is God's master plan, this is how I always thought about it. In the bible somewhere it says their are many things we don't know that will be revealed latter.

This has nothing to do with evolution vs creation but I just heard Rev. Jerry Falwell the chairman of a Faith and Values Coalition formed on the momentum of the election said this morning on CSPAN "That people should not vote Republican or Democrat for President but to vote for the candidate that is more aligned as a Christian."

With this kind of thinking it won't be long before people find out they won't be hired for a job or public office on their qualifications but whether or not they they profess their religion as Christian.

quote Originally posted by Tigger: Like the "One nation under God" paid for Bush Cheney '04 billboard sign on the highway near Lansing.

And were you FORCED to say it?

case closed.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: I'm not concerned with who does and does not believe in Creationism or Evolution. this thread is about whether or not it will be taught in schools because of the VAST right wing agenda to force God upon those who don't want him. Fear not Conn. Bush has NO plan to force you to say "Under God" when you say the pledge of allegience. Nor does he intend to have a Darwin Book Burning Party. Nor does he plan to try to convince you that 4 billion year old rocks are 6000 years old. So why are you doing this? I'm getting a headache from all this anti-Bush crapola.

Bush is a creationist of course he believes rocks are 6,000 years old! You better believe every single person he buts in his cabinet is a christian!

quote Originally posted by cliffw: There you go JohnnyK

I'd like to hear him explain what it means, is what I meant.

quote Originally posted by alienfiero: This is a very intrusting converation. Here's more. Evolution can not posiblity happen due to the 2nd law of therodyamics. From: Deductive Quantum therodyamics in a critical review of therodyamics. There is no record experiments in history of science that contradicts the second law of therodyamics or its corollaries. Mater in it self is not creative, so how can mater make anything living?

Life is hard. But it's harder if you don't know how the material world works!

the second law of thermodyamics [ note the spelling]
1 heat flows from a hot body to a cold one
2 one cannot convert heat totaly to usefull work
3 every isolated system becomes disordered over time

#3 is the one thumpers jump on BUT

man is not an isolated system
man is ALIVE
while alive he grows
and learns
when he dies he rots
so he does become disordered in the end

One finds the entropy of the total system to be increasing over time, although the entropy of an individual subsystem may be decreasing. This is also relevant in the discussion of human evolution; by itself, the progression from simple organisms to complex human beings seems to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. However, one must in this remember that the human evolution chain is not an isolated system, and that one must include at least the earth and its environment in the total system. The entropy of this total system is then seen to increase over time, allowing for the fact that the human component of this system may be becoming more ordered.

from the national academy of science

Is evolution a fact or a theory?

The theory of evolution explains how life on Earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 11-14-2004).]

quote Originally posted by ray b: the second law of thermodyamics [ note the spelling] 1 heat flows from a hot body to a cold one 2 one cannot convert heat totaly to usefull work 3 every isolated system becomes disordered over time

I have a problem with #2

quote Originally posted by ray b: from the national academy of science Is evolution a fact or a theory? The theory of evolution explains how life on Earth has changed.

I am thinking evolutuon as how it is being disscused here by the proponents of same has more to do with how life started rather than how it has changed. I am not seeing any creationists argueing evolution does not exist.

quote Originally posted by ray b: Life is hard. But it's harder if you don't know how the material world works! the second law of thermodyamics [ note the spelling] 1 heat flows from a hot body to a cold one 2 one cannot convert heat totaly to usefull work 3 every isolated system becomes disordered over time #3 is the one thumpers jump on BUT man is not an isolated system man is ALIVE while alive he grows and learns when he dies he rots so he does become disordered in the end One finds the entropy of the total system to be increasing over time, although the entropy of an individual subsystem may be decreasing. This is also relevant in the discussion of human evolution; by itself, the progression from simple organisms to complex human beings seems to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. However, one must in this remember that the human evolution chain is not an isolated system, and that one must include at least the earth and its environment in the total system. The entropy of this total system is then seen to increase over time, allowing for the fact that the human component of this system may be becoming more ordered. from the national academy of science Is evolution a fact or a theory? The theory of evolution explains how life on Earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world. Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.

That's all dependant on how you define the system. A more complex system will not spontaneously spring out of a less complex system without some form of activation energy.

Your analogy of the entropy of a subset increasing while the entropy of the whole decreases is accurate, as far as it goes, but it's incomplete.
Something still has to drive the entropy increase of the subset. Just as water doesn't run uphill, energy doesn't come from no where. Man is not an isolated system, but man IS a subset of the larger system. For man to exist, according to evolution, there must have been a time when man didn't exist, and somehow the energy to create or evolve a human from a lesser organism was added to the subset.

This is where science and theology cross: "where does this activation energy come from?"

I'm glad you have all the answers, ray. Truly remarkable since the greatest minds in science are never so close minded as to assume they have all the answers and there can be no other possible answer. But you have them all beat. All the scientific community need do from now on is just ask ray b, because he knows. Congratulations to you.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 11-14-2004).]

quote Originally posted by Toddster: And were you FORCED to say it? case closed.

Look, I never said Bush was forcing anybody to say anything, you brought that up. If he put up billboards with nothing else on it but the words "One nation under God paid for Bush Cheney '04" one might think he's forcing that on people or used it to get votes on a totally irrelevant reason that has nothing to do with his abilities to run the country.

You can not have a ascending power of order in a desending power of order universe. Second law.

Now I've seen it all. The world must be ending. Cats and dogs, living together. rayb correcting somebody else's spelling. I'd have loved to read all of ray's post, but it's just going to have to wait until I can compose myself from laughing so hard.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by ray b: Life is hard. But it's harder if you don't know how the material world works! the second law of thermodyamics [ note the spelling]