Evolution: Anyone care to Fill in the Huge Blank?

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

How many scientists are there? Thousands? 45 isnt really alot...

Or do you mean percent?

That makes more sense. However even though 45% of scientists are Christian you tend to find that around 98% of them support evolution.

yeah I forgot the % sign.
and they probably claim to support evolution only to keep their job. there have been many cases where people got fired for believing in ID or creation and not evolution. many teachers have been fired and many scientists have been dismissed just because of what they believe in.

EC

Great answer 'everyone lies to keep their job'

Hmm i can smell something coming off te back of that cow...

there's nothing in a science book that says a scientist has to believe in evolution. in fact some of the greatest scientists that ever lived believed in creation. newton for example. the reason for this though is that newton lived in the 1600s. back then there was no other alternative. now there is. now there's more of a choice than there ever has been.

the difference between christianity and science is that christianity relies on their creation being true in the biblical sense, yet science does not need to rely on evolution. science was around for 100s and 1000s of years before the theory of evolution was born.

you have some christians who now accept evolution, yet still believe in god. on the other hand you have some christians outright saying evolution cannot be proven and it's completly wrong...weird.

i'm so glad we had darwin, someone to open their mind. i couldn't think how i would cope with going to church every sunday, being force fed miracles by jesus and other mythical propoganda. in no way does evolution control anyone's life, in the way that religion does.

here are some examples of people being for making claims that did not agree with the scientific community.

Columbus- said that the earth was round. everyone said he was crazy and that he was going to fall off of the edge of the earth.

Bruno- was burned at the stake for claiming that the earth was not the center of the universe.

Galileo- was imprisoned for teaching that the earth moved around the sun.

The Wright Brothers- ridiculed for claiming they had a machine that could fly.

Galen- announced the atomic theories but was bitterly opposed.

Vesalius- was denounced as an impostor abd heretic because of his discoveries in the field of human anatomy.

William Harvey- was disgraced as a physician for believing that blood was pumped by the heart through the arteries.

William Roentgen- the discoverer of X-Rays, at first was called a quack and then condemed out of fear that the X-Ray would invade the privacy of the bedroom.

Willliam Jenner- when he first developed the vaccine for smallpox, also was called a quack.

Ignaz Semmelweis- was fired first from Vienna Hospital and then many other hospitals just because he required his staff to wash their hands in between patients.

there are many other examples of people being thought as quack or fraud just becuase they think of something that doesnt quite agree with the scientific community. teachers have been fired just for passing out scientific journals that contradict darwins theory.

Einstein said that nothing could exceed the speed of light. he was wrong.
but at the same time, the more he studied the universe the more he believed in a higher power.


EC

a) don't tell me what rules to follow
b) evolution is a process, not an event
c) care to explain how we got from adam and eve to 6 billion people in just 10,000 years ?

please don't whine, just answer the question

There is a possibility that life originated on another planet and came here on meteorites or comets. It has been proven that bacteria could survive an impact such as this.
Also you dont need a spark to start of life, when an egg is fertilized the process is started when the sperm head enters the egg and a chemical reaction takes place giving off an influx of calcium ions which then starts the process of cell division.
Just because something seems to have been designed by some intelligence doesn't make it so. If for instance one physical constant such as gravity were different then life might not exist or some other form of life might exist. We are here because the universe is the way it is not because of some creator beastie.


G

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
there are many other examples of people being thought as quack or fraud just becuase they think of something that doesnt quite agree with the scientific community. teachers have been fired just for passing out scientific journals that contradict darwins theory.

Strange how most of the examples you gave were people being persecuted from the christian church. You've got it the wrong way around.. evolution is just another thing the church is trying to squash.. darwin belongs at the end of that same list. Those teachers you mentioned would've been passing out bible propaganda.

Einstein said that nothing could exceed the speed of light. he was wrong.

Could you elaborate on this please? [and prove your statement that 45% of todays scientists are creationalists. ]

but at the same time, the more he studied the universe the more he believed in a higher power.

No. He was agnostic.

[edit on 27-8-2005 by riley]

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
here are some examples of people being for making claims that did not agree with the scientific community.

Columbus- said that the earth was round. everyone said he was crazy and that he was going to fall off of the edge of the earth.

Bruno- was burned at the stake for claiming that the earth was not the center of the universe.

Galileo- was imprisoned for teaching that the earth moved around the sun.

The Wright Brothers- ridiculed for claiming they had a machine that could fly.

Galen- announced the atomic theories but was bitterly opposed.

Vesalius- was denounced as an impostor abd heretic because of his discoveries in the field of human anatomy.

William Harvey- was disgraced as a physician for believing that blood was pumped by the heart through the arteries.

William Roentgen- the discoverer of X-Rays, at first was called a quack and then condemed out of fear that the X-Ray would invade the privacy of the bedroom.

Willliam Jenner- when he first developed the vaccine for smallpox, also was called a quack.

Ignaz Semmelweis- was fired first from Vienna Hospital and then many other hospitals just because he required his staff to wash their hands in between patients.

there are many other examples of people being thought as quack or fraud just becuase they think of something that doesnt quite agree with the scientific community.

Einstein said that nothing could exceed the speed of light. he was wrong.
but at the same time, the more he studied the universe the more he believed in a higher power.

never have i heard such nonsense from another fellow ats member. i wouldn't mind knowing where you copied all that, most likely from some useless source on the internet.

you've also got it the wrong way round. it was the christian church that stifled new scientific ways of thinking, just like they did with darwin, and just like they do today.

teachers have been fired just for passing out scientific journals that contradict darwins theory.

remember the motto 'deny ignorance'. you've just 'stated' that teachers are fired for passing out scientific journals that contradict darwin's theory. what teachers? when did this happen? and could you stop posting without having evidence to back up your personal claims.

at my school we barely got anything that showed darwin's theory was right. we brushed over it in one lesson perhaps, and even then it was not in much detail, and that was about it on the scientific front of evolution. if anything i had more religious education lessons about christian topics that i did scientific topics on evolution.

Who mocked the Wroght Brothers? People had been coming close to heavier than air flight for thirty years, it just took the invention of a lighweight petrol engin rather than steam power.

Who told Columbus that the world was flat? If you actually read a book by a real historian you will be amazed to find out theat the Portugese had known for some time that the world was round. The only argument was based on the size of the planet.

Thats two 'facts' off your uncessecary list debunked. In future post things that are relevant to the topic and dont try to avoid the issue of you being caught without a leg to stand on.

Now answer the question about who all these sacked teachers are and where they go.

never have i heard such nonsense from another fellow ats member. i wouldn't mind knowing where you copied all that, most likely from some useless source on the internet.

actually these happen to be things that I know thank you very much. I dont copy things from places unless I have to, and I include the author with it when I do.

No. He was agnostic.

you can be agnostic and still believe in a higher power. I have a friend who is agnostic and believes there is a god, he just doesnt know which one the right one is.

Who told Columbus that the world was flat?

im not sure that someone told him that the earth was flat but many people taught it as a fact at that time and yes he was thought to be crazy because of that belief he had. I learned that in 3rd grade. heck, they even put that in disney movies.

There is a possibility that life originated on another planet and came here on meteorites or comets. It has been proven that bacteria could survive an impact such as this.

if you are refering to the mars meteor that they found, you are forgetting a few other facts. first fact, it wasnt bacteria that was found on the rock it was a crystalized carbon (frozen). and no one knows if anything can survive the vacuum of space, no one knows how long that meteor was in space and no one knows what the bacteria ate [assuming it was a bacteria].

b) evolution is a process, not an event

evolution is both. evolution is both fact and religious. Micro evolution is a fact, all others are religious/theory/never proven.

c) care to explain how we got from adam and eve to 6 billion people in just 10,000 years ?

well if you read the bible, it says that before the flood, people lived to be over 900 years old. you can have a lot of kids in 900 years. people after the flood still lived long enough to have many children. of course the days of men grew shorter but its not impossible to get a population of 6 billion people within 4400 years from a population of 8.
the bigger question is, how do you explain a population of 6 billion people coming from a rock?

at my school we barely got anything that showed darwin's theory was right.

yeah probably because its not right. its a fantacy. he even wrote in his book that he sometimes feels that he had devoted himself to a fantasy. read it.

Now answer the question about who all these sacked teachers are and where they go.

i give you my word, I will get back to you on this, I forget the names of these teachers. but if you for some reason think that I forgot to look them up, remind me and I will get you an answer.

you've also got it the wrong way round. it was the christian church that stifled new scientific ways of thinking, just like they did with darwin, and just like they do today.

uh no. christians have always known that the earth is round. it even says so in the bible. the bible even says that the sun causes the wind. the bible is indeed scientific.

sorry for not answering all your questions, I dont have much time these days, work sucks and my hours suck. hopefully i can eventually get around to answering all of your questions.

EC

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
yeah probably because its not right. its a fantacy. he even wrote in his book that he sometimes feels that he had devoted himself to a fantasy. read it.

that's because when he first had the idea it caused so much controversy, mainly it was the statement that us and apes once shared a common ancestor, it drove him crazy, i think he had breakdowns etc, yet it was only because of the huge implications his work was having. but the reason i was saying about 'i wasn't taught lots about darwin or evolution at school' is that christians seem to think evolution is forced on to you at school, which it is not, as i just said we brushed over it in perhaps one lesson. yet, with religious education we had more christian topics than we did evolution topics in science.

uh no. christians have always known that the earth is round. it even says so in the bible. the bible even says that the sun causes the wind. the bible is indeed scientific.

1)the bible is not scientific. it's laughable when christians try and claim so.
2)the bible states in one verse, ''the four corners of the earth'', of which a spherical earth does not have. hence, the bible cannot state the earth was spherical if they describe it as having corners. why did they say four corners? because they thought the earth was flat!

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
yeah I forgot the % sign.
and they probably claim to support evolution only to keep their job.

This is entirely and completely false.

there have been many cases where people got fired for believing in ID or creation and not evolution.

Bull#.

many teachers have been fired and many scientists have been dismissed just because of what they believe in.

Bull#. Teachers may have been let go for breaking the law and instructing students in their religion during class times, but they haven't been fired simply for beleiving in creationism.


The only people that require acceptance of religious dogma on this issue are the creationists, groups like AIG and such require that members accept their creationist religion and that they only publish papers that support creationism.

but at the same time, the more he studied the universe the more he believed in a higher power.

The 'god' of einstein is absolutely nothing like the god of any religion, let aloe creationism. Einstein was in no way a creationist. The man was so brilliant and such a respected star that apparently creationists, recognizing the emptiness of their own position, have to try to make him out to be one of them in order to bring some respectability to their idea.

and yes he was thought to be crazy because of that belief he had

Please site the papers that support this claim. People didn't think that he was insane, everyone who had any education at the time realized that the earth was round, the greeks had figured that out thousands of years before columbus, and demonstrated it with scientific experiment, evidence,and methology. What people disagreed upon was how big the earth was, columbus thought it was significantly smaller than they thought it was, and thus the space between one end of asia (europe) and the other (indo-china) was crossable.

I learned that in 3rd grade. heck, they even put that in disney movies.

I can't imagine why you think what they say in 3rd grade and in disney movies has anything to do with the real world.

Micro evolution is a fact, all others are religious/theory/never proven.

Again, macro-evolution has been observed. Evolution is a science, not a religion.

he even wrote in his book that he sometimes feels that he had devoted himself to a fantasy. read it.

I suggest that you read his book, rather than listen to the misquotes and misrepresentations of irreligious charlatans like Kent Hovind. Darwin did not recant his theory on his death bed, he did not state that it was immpossible for evolution to occur, and when he did say things like 'this might seem hard to beleive', he followed it up with stuf flike 'but if you look at this and this, you will see that it makes perfect sense and is in accord with the evidence'.

uh no. christians have always known that the earth is round. it even says so in the bible.

The bible says nothing of the sort. The closest it ever gets to this is a few passages where the earth is refered to as being round. A dinner plate is round. A basket ball is round. A wad of dirt can be made to be round. The rest of the bible indicates that its understand is that the earth is flat, the heavens, for example, are suspended above the earth below like the top of a tent, other places refer to it as a vault, and jesus goes to a very high location and can see everything on earth, all immpossible with a ball. Not only is the bible not scientific, it wasn't even up to date with the science of its own time. As I noted above, it was the greeks who, not merely thought that the earth was a ball, but actually demonstrated it with a scientific methology.


[edit on 29-8-2005 by Nygdan]

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

Who told Columbus that the world was flat?

im not sure that someone told him that the earth was flat but many people taught it as a fact at that time and yes he was thought to be crazy because of that belief he had. I learned that in 3rd grade. heck, they even put that in disney movies.

EC

Hmmm, it's in Disney movies, eh? Well then let me just consult with Grandmother Willow and Pinnochio and I'll get back with you.

Harte

Bull#. Teachers may have been let go for breaking the law and instructing students in their religion during class times, but they haven't been fired simply for beleiving in creationism.

its not against the law to teach creation, it is against the law to require it, but its not against the law to teach it at all.. if you want me to look that up too. i will, just give me some time. I have a real job and dont have much time to discuss things on this forum much anymore.

EC

.
A very well-written article entirely refutes creationism.
Excerpts:

"To formulate a competing hypothesis, you have to get down in the trenches and offer details that have testable implications. So far, intelligent design proponents have conveniently sidestepped that requirement, claiming that they have no specifics in mind about who or what the intelligent designer might be...

"It's worth pointing out that there are plenty of substantive scientific controversies in biology that are not yet in the textbooks or the classrooms. The scientific participants in these arguments vie for acceptance among the relevant expert communities in peer-reviewed journals, and the writers and editors of textbooks grapple with judgments about which findings have risen to the level of acceptance - not yet truth - to make them worth serious consideration by undergraduates and high school students.

"SO get in line, intelligent designers. Get in line behind the hypothesis that life started on Mars and was blown here by a cosmic impact. Get in line behind the aquatic ape hypothesis, the gestural origin of language hypothesis and the theory that singing came before language, to mention just a few of the enticing hypotheses that are actively defended but still insufficiently supported by hard facts...

"For now, though, the theory they are promoting is exactly what George Gilder, a long-time affiliate of the Discovery Institute, has said it is: "Intelligent design itself does not have any content.""

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
its not against the law to teach creation, it is against the law to require it, but its not against the law to teach it at all.. if you want me to look that up too. i will, just give me some time. I have a real job and dont have much time to discuss things on this forum much anymore.

EC

but if the teacher is trying to influence pupils and force their 'own' beliefs on them rather than 'teaching' them, then that may not be against the law, but goes against the code of conduct within a school and the teacher is likely to be warned or sacked. it's shame you got a job because the little arguement that you did put up against evolution, which was very flawed, usually made up of hearsay, will be missed.

EC.
I'm pretty sure that teachers are not allowed to teach religion without parents permission. You said that these teachers got sacked because they were handing out 'scientific journals' that contradict darwins theory. Are you about to tell us that they were NOT handing out pamphlets with bible references? Teaching 'creationalism' is teaching RELIGION not science. They deserved to get sacked.

[edit on 30-8-2005 by riley]

Originally posted by riley
I do think it is illegal to teach religion [creation] in a US public school [without parental consent] so yes I would appreciate it if you could verify it's not.

and so it should be illegal. why should a child of muslim, hindu, buddist background be 'forced' to learn about christianity at school and vice versa. in religious education lessons in england we didn't ever learn the actual beliefs, such as god created the universe, or jesus performed miracles, but more the teachings of different religious, and to learn to accept other religions to tolerate them etc. however, the 'illegal' manner of teaching christianity without a parent's consent, means that they are teaching that god made the universe, god made us, jesus performed miracles, which i think you should not have to learn about that at school. it's neither the time nor place.

you may say 'so why isn't science illegal to teach in schools'? well the difference is, is that science doesn't focus just on evolution, there are so many other parts of science. now if you are from a religious background and have strong beliefs about doing science at school i'm certain you do not have to do it...there are other options. however, by not doing science i believe you will be dumber for doing so. science has a lot to offer, all religious people need to do is to ignore their prejudice views that are getting in the way.

Riley,
EC is correct that there is no law to ban the teaching of creationism in public schools.

A state/district/school CAN'T ban the teaching of evolution.
The 1968 Supreme Court decision, Epperson v Arkansas, struck down antievolution laws such as that under which John T. Scopes was tried in 1925 in Tennessee. Noting that antievolution laws were passed because they offended certain religious views, the court wrote,
... the First Amendment does not permit the state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma... ...the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them.

National Center for Science Education

I do not agree that ID or creation in of themselves should be taught in class but that they should at least be discussed (introduced) as an alternate theory (hate to use that word ) and point the students to the library / parents / religious leader to learn more.

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by riley
I do think it is illegal to teach religion [creation] in a US public school [without parental consent] so yes I would appreciate it if you could verify it's not.

and so it should be illegal. why should a child of muslim, hindu, buddist background be 'forced' to learn about christianity at school and vice versa.

You caught me on an edit.. I got confused as they are already introducing religion via ID into public [secular] schools so that must mean it's not illegal [though highly unethical].. which made my post speculative. I thought religion and state were suppose to be seperate? If this is the case why would teachers get sacked? Can buddhism/wikka be taught to christian kids then?

however, the 'illegal' manner of teaching christianity without a parent's consent, means that they are teaching that god made the universe, god made us, jesus performed miracles, which i think you should not have to learn about that at school. it's neither the time nor place.

They have been using every legal loophole available it seems. Obviously they've got their claws in the fda [morning after pill] and somehow managed to convince some of the public that evolution is in question in the scientific community when it's not [alternative 'theory' ready].. thus creating media attention which brings doubt into the scientific community via frauds like drdino spreading propaganda.

you may say 'so why isn't science illegal to teach in schools'? well the difference is, is that science doesn't focus just on evolution, there are so many other parts of science. now if you are from a religious background and have strong beliefs about doing science at school i'm certain you do not have to do it...there are other options. however, by not doing science i believe you will be dumber for doing so. science has a lot to offer, all religious people need to do is to ignore their prejudice views that are getting in the way.

Science used like a cheap hoar just to convert.. they are not interested in science but for this agenda. Hopefully it won't take much for science to catch up on the research time wasted fighting fundies.

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
Riley,
EC is correct that there is no law to ban the teaching of creationism in public schools.

What about religion specifically?

... the First Amendment does not permit the state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma... ...the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them.

Yet it is showing bias towards christianity now?

I do not agree that ID or creation in of themselves should be taught in class but that they should at least be discussed (introduced) as an alternate theory (hate to use that word ) and point the students to the library / parents / religious leader to learn more.

I've got no problem with it being taught on request by parents.. it's important for kids to understand other cultures.. but they should not be taught in science. Religion in religion class. Teaching ID vs evolution would be like teaching poetry in maths.