It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientists Boycott Evolution Hearings

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
There is also no DIRECT evidence that I am actually typing at this computer right now. I am merely relaying electrochemical signals being transmitted through my nerves and brain. For all you know, I am actually an artifical intelligence engine always set to 'chaos' mode.


Aha! that is exactly what i suspected all along and now you have confirmed my beliefs. No one listen to this godless mechanical abomination, close your ears and eyes before you are poisoned by it's words!

Seriously though, it would have been so much easier for me to get an A in biology if they took evolution out of the text books. I'm all for this remove evolution from our schools movement
Darwin may have been good at scientific method and all that but he was boring as hell. Maybe he should have added a few saviours and wars to his theory to spice things up a bit because as things stand the bible has him beat in terms of entertainment value. Do you honestly want your children enduring the same level of boredom you had to?

[edit on 15-5-2005 by Trent]




posted on May, 15 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kano

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
Unfortunately,
Many here on ATS seem to either forgotten that evolution is still a theory or else they equate theroy as fact.

Unfortunately,
Many here on ATS are also too ignorant to realise that scientific theories are not just something someone came up with randomly. Everything in science is explained with a Scientific Theory. Google for Scientific Method or something.

Makes those look pretty stupid who attack the idea purely because its known as Evolutionary Theory right?


Thank you so very kindly Kano sir for your critique.
I did not realize that by debating the merits of having an open discussion of not allowing our students the ability to question.
I did not realize that my STUPIDITY and IGNORANCE were so revident.
Ans as such I will forever close my mouth and let the goverment and science and etc reign supreme
I am very familiar to the scientific nmethod as well as the basis of scientific theory, fact, law.
I will now slink away in silence wrapped in my stupidity and ignorance and leave these lofty discussion to those who are obviously my betters
Muttering under my breath.... and i thought this was ignorance denied mumble mumble.....

[edit on 15-5-2005 by kenshiro2012]



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kano
Quite simply, because Evolution is a testable Scientific Theory as defined by the Scientific Method. "Intelligent Design" is nothing of the sort.


Whos scientific method?

www.answersingenesis.org...

The debate works both ways. If you choose to not believe one side, that is a pretty narrow way of thinking. There are accredited scientists on both sides of the issue. Hence "Thoery" comes into play.

And yes, it's a Christian based site. (Where else would creation theory come from)

I'm not looking to go down in flames here. Just wanting to put out some other information on the subject.

The scientist that are boycotting are like snobbish little children. They give me the impression that they are the only ones who are 100% right.

Just because you're educated, that doesn't make you wise.


apc

posted on May, 15 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Evolution does not dictate whether or not there was Creation.

Creationists DO try to dictate whether or not there is evolution.

This is what all the fuss is about. Man-made aspects of Creationism are being threatened by evidence for evolution, and in turn declared to be "lies told to our children."



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   
FINE! You teach GO TO HELL AND YOU DIE!!! Kill everyone who won't give me all the money they have. GO TO HELL AND YOU DIE!!! Kill everyone who won't worship me. GO TO HELL AND YOU DIE!!! Kill everyone who won't give me their PS2/Xbox.

Now, us smart people are gonna go over here and teach science.

Also, fine, you teach bs in science, I'll teach bs in math.

2+2=22! It doesn't equal 4! If you say it does GO TO HELL AND YOU DIE!!! Look, take a 2, put it next to another 2, 22!!! I am right. you are wrong! GO TO HELL AND YOU DIE!!!

Gee, makes snese, right? Hell, I'll become a teacher, move to Kansas, then do nothing and still get paid.
"What? You want me to teach bs? Fine, earth is made out of jello, Jews are evil martians from Venus, and gravity is actually god farting so hard it pushes you into the earth. What? If you are going to teach bs and call it science I can teach bs and call it science."?

Also, are you teaching all creation or just yours?



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by simtek 22

Originally posted by Kano
Quite simply, because Evolution is a testable Scientific Theory as defined by the Scientific Method. "Intelligent Design" is nothing of the sort.


Whos scientific method?

www.answersingenesis.org...

The debate works both ways. If you choose to not believe one side, that is a pretty narrow way of thinking. There are accredited scientists on both sides of the issue. Hence "Thoery" comes into play.



I think this is what apc was getting at.

I read a few articles on that site, and instead on focusing on creationism and making arguments that can stand on their own that only use creationism as their basis, they instead rely on denouncing evolution. That simply is not scientific method. In true scientific method, you actually set out to try and prove yourself wrong, hence the practice of making null hypotheses.

Rarely in an evolution text book, or any evolution article from a reputable source will you find any denouncing of creationism to try and strengthen their own points. The arguments can stand on their own.

Any subject that must rely on belittling another subject to make a point doesn't belong in academia (in my opinion of course).



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   
IF the debate here is whether or not creationism should be taught alongside evolution in a science class, then the answer is outright NO.

How can you possibly put creationism on the same page? You cant just reference children to the bible when they ask about evolution. "How did the whale come to be?"...."OH....go look in the bible.....GOD created it on the 4th day..." What kind of answer is that? Its not really an answer, is it? At least evolution, and granted it might not be right, is a much better answer than some bible verse with absolutely no falsifiability. You cant test and predict how a whale came to be strictly from bible verses, can you? It seems to me that if we put creationsim into science text books the kids really wont be learning anything, except for cliches like "Oh...GOD created it"

How are kids suppose to get smarter if the answer is always going to be "GOD created it"???? At least with evolution they can question it.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   
James the Lesser,
I am surprised that the mods have not at least warned you in on the blatant attack on religion. Your posting (of which this last is a copy paste of an earlier one) serves only one purpose and that is to incite an emotional response and thus create instead a discussion / debate, you are aiming for hate.
I have not critized your beliefs or the lack of. yet you openly attack another religion. Do you have anything real anything of substance to offer other than your HATE!

I have sugested many many times (yes you have responded to many) so that you know what I have attempted to champion is that the teachers should at least respond to the students questions not fear them as you demonstrate so well.
The teachers should at the very least respond and inform the students what is wrong with the question, why it is wrong, etc. Not fell that answering a question is confrontational.
Your attacks against religion and those who have a faith do nothing to support your arguments (or the lack thereof). In fact they actually detract from what intelligence might lie in your postings.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Maybe the subject of where we came from, can be taught in a philosophical class, or maybe a creative writing one. Put a few theories out there and say, "Do you agree with the above theories or variations of them? If not, why not? If you have another angle, what is it? Support your theory with logical argument."
This might stimulate the imagination and promote creativity. It also might offer new insights not thought of before.

I think schools would be better teaching children how to think for themselves rather than ram a load of "facts" down their throats. My schooling was a disaster because it was just that. I remember A-level biology. The message to 17 year olds was, "Learn this big fat textbook of biological facts. I know they are out of any possible conceptual and contextual situation that any 17 year old could have, but hey, receite this and you could go to a top university and later be a well-paid employee." You know, the old carrot and stick technique. (It worked for the minority, who were called swots)
I said, "Yes sir, right away sir." but I never did very well at it because I couldn't relate to any of it.

In a nutshell, schooling was passionless. It certainly didn't invoke any passion in me, therefore it was boring and dead. That's why uncontextualised facts are boring. Young people aren't contributing to the team, to the project (whether it's building a house or whatever) that makes them feel valued, validated and respected. They are taught to be competitive by fact rota learning. This is an individual exercise. It also creates narrow-mindedness because when they have finished their textbook learning education, they have not been taught to think for themselves out of the box and also they are competing against others with the same education and so the incentive to receite better than the other is even greater.

This, I believe, has contributed to the dogmatism of today in many areas of science. If a very intelligent, but not scientifcally educated person critizes their theories (taught as facts), they are ignored. Maybe the contester is wrong, maybe not, but objectivity is lost as a result.

Just my 2 cents of observation from my point of view.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   
labasta, you have seen exactly what I have said and have been trying to get across. Unfortunately, some see the word religion and then go off the deep-end right JTL?



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   
So, are these the kinds of things they will teach?


objective.jesussave.us...

I especially have to point out the middle school 2nd place winner:




"Women Were Designed For Homemaking"

Jonathan Goode (grade 7) applied findings from many fields of science to support his conclusion that God designed women for homemaking: physics shows that women have a lower center of gravity than men, making them more suited to carrying groceries and laundry baskets; biology shows that women were designed to carry un-born babies in their wombs and to feed born babies milk, making them the natural choice for child rearing; social sciences show that the wages for women workers are lower than for normal workers, meaning that they are unable to work as well and thus earn equal pay; and exegetics shows that God created Eve as a companion for Adam, not as a co-worker.


[edit on 15-5-2005 by Hajduk]



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
IF the debate here is whether or not creationism should be taught alongside evolution in a science class, then the answer is outright NO.


I am a creationist and I agree, creationism should not be taught in a science class. The difference between operational and historical science should be taught in science class though.


How can you possibly put creationism on the same page? You cant just reference children to the bible when they ask about evolution.


I guess it depends on what specifically they are asking about. If they are asking about the General Theory of Evolution (GTE) defined by Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’ I would refer them to the Bible which directly refuted the GTE.


"How did the whale come to be?"...."OH....go look in the bible.....GOD created it on the 4th day..." What kind of answer is that?


Clearly that would be the wrong answer. Whales were created on the 5th day. "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. " Genesis 1:21-23



Its not really an answer, is it?


Are you suggesting that even if that is what really happened that it is not a good answer?


At least evolution, and granted it might not be right, is a much better answer than some bible verse with absolutely no falsifiability.


I would think that a 1st hand account is better than speculation especially if that account comes directly from our creator.


You cant test and predict how a whale came to be strictly from bible verses, can you?


That is correct. Events that can not be observed and repeated are outside of the realm of operational science.


It seems to me that if we put creationsim into science text books the kids really wont be learning anything, except for cliches like "Oh...GOD created it"



Yes, it would be a shame to teach the truth when a lie suits our immediate wants so much better.




How are kids suppose to get smarter if the answer is always going to be "GOD created it"????


Belief in God gives a solid foundation for knowledge. With that foundation ones growth is unlimited.


At least with evolution they can question it.


I agree, questioning everything is good.

Steve



[edit on 5/15/0505 by sntx]



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   
But thats just it! "God created it." How? "He just did." But how did he get that power? "He already had it." How? "Shut up before I hang/burn/drown you."(acceptable means of killing people in the bible)

And again, just your version or all the others? What makes yours more right? Because you killed more people? Because you raped more children? What makes your version more right then the Greek/Roman or the Norse version? WHat makes your version more right then the Aztec or Hindu version? Because you said so? Sorry, let me explain something...

Science is based on fact, reality, and not head up bum. Religon is based on kill anyone who disagrees, kill anyone who disagrees, and head up bum. Remember the Dark Ages? Remember the Inquisitions? Remember the witch trials? Remember the crusades? Remember the genocdie of the Indians? Look at what happens to ANYONE who doesn't bow down before your BS.(belief system). Killed. All of them.

Since bible thumpers put up links to www.athiestsaregonnaeatyourbabies!.com and www.scienceiswrongevilsatan.com I will post something that is based in reality/fact.

www.evilbible.com...


Urn

posted on May, 15 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by simtek 22
Hajduk, APC, you're missing the point of the debate here, you present good information in support of evolution, but the thread has to deal with putting 2 different theories into school text books. Nothing you have presented has shown me why both theories can't be taught together in a public school.


what's the other theory? thats the whole problem, there is no other theory, at least not a scientifc one.....evolution is the only scientific theory we have on the subject, therefore the only theory that can possably be taught...

creationism/inteligent design aren't scientific theories.....teaching them in science class would be completely ludicrous....

the only possable answer for any question on a test would be "god dunnit"
what the hell kinda answer is that??

[edit on 15-5-2005 by Urn]



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Urn! PERFECT IDEA! Hell, when I go to college I'll use that! "A train heads to Chicago from Cinncinatti at 75kmh, another train from Detroit heading to Chicago going 100kmh is going to intercede with Train A 10 minutes before Chicago, if both leave at 5pm, what time will they collide?" God Did It.

A WOw, how did you know the answer? Yopu are the only one to get it right!

2+2=? GOD!

Lincoln was assassinated in what year? GOD!

ANother A! Good job kid.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 06:12 PM
link   
I ask again (humbly and out of the back and forth of this useless debate)...what does it matter whether the flora and fauna on this world was created or evolved? It is either a Deities' work in progress or just dumb luck.

A work in progress is evolution...since the only constant in the universe is change, how can things NOT evolve?

If it was created through intelligent design by the God of your choice, then the method of this creation Is the science some of you are freaking out over. Science is the understanding of how things are, is it not?

The reality is just that we're awful custodians and the threat is that we are the perpetrators our own demise.

I don't care who's right or wrong in this thread...if we can't be respectful of the world that gives us life, then we deserve to become the hummus for whatever life exists after we're all gone.



[edit on 15-5-2005 by masqua]



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 06:44 PM
link   
I am a believer, and my question is: How much time do high school science students actually spend on 'evolutionary theory' its been awhile for me, but i don't remember it being such a big deal.

I agree with kenshiro that the science teachers should not have a problem answering a students questions, i believe most probably would. If teachers are saying we refuse to even talk about any other theories, then and only then do we have a problem.

As has been said previously, evolutionism does not say there is no GOD, it simply tries to explain the world we live in. Right or wrong it is, IMO, currently the best theory we have. As a creationist or ID proponent the burden of proof is on us to show our theory is the correct one, and we are not there yet.......again IMHO.

As to Jamesthelesser:

"Shut up before I hang/burn/drown you."(acceptable means of killing people in the bible)

And again, just your version or all the others? What makes yours more right? Because you killed more people? Because you raped more children?


How ridiculous and sensationalistic can you get, i've read many of your posts, and you seem to have a problem with respectable behavior and seem to be unable to make intelligent points with regard to the debate. Your point 'which creationist theory should we teach' makes sense, in christianity alone there are several. But the immature and mocking way you present your views is laughable, and i also wonder how you haven't been warned for your behavour, you need to grow up kid..again IMHO.


If you've read any of my posts you know i believe in intelligent design, but i don't feel it is worthy of classroom teaching yet(in place of ET)...and a honest teacher should be willing to have the discussion with his/her students. Again as always seems to be the case the extremes are leading the debate.....the creationists who want it taught instead of evolution and the evolutionists who degrade anyone with a contrary view...ala Jamesthelesser.

(edit)guess that's what they mean when they say: "don't feed the trolls"(see post below):-(

[edit on 15-5-2005 by Rren]



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   
www.evilbible.com...
www.evilbible.com...
www.evilbible.com...
www.evilbible.com...



Crusades (1095-1291)
Estimated totals:
Wertham: 1,000,000
users.erols.com...

www.bibletopics.com...

This is Spanish Inquisition stuff.

How loving and peaceful.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
I am very familiar to the scientific nmethod as well as the basis of scientific theory, fact, law.

Apparently not. Let me quote the relevant paragraph for you.

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 08:42 PM
link   
niiice kano...

that last sentence in that paragraph was GREAT...





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join