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.

 

Professors in Colorado Recieve Death Threats for Teaching Evolution

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 11:28 PM
link   




So WHERE is the "observable events and controlled experiments" that "prove" the theory of evolution. (PSST! If it was "proven", it would now be called the "law of evolultion" and not the "theory of evolution").

"Your Christian philosophies have no business being taught in public school". Where did I say "Christian philosophies" should be taught in public schools? If you think that only Christians don't believe in evolution, you would be mistaken. Speaking of "Christian philosophies", atheists have done a bang-up job of getting all remnants of them removed from public schools over the past 40+ years. And just look at the wonderful progress that the public school system has made since then! LOL

Do you have a problem with any dissent of evolution at all being taught? Should only one side of the theory be taught? Do you have a problem with the SCIENTIFIC weaknesses of the theory being taught?

"But the most intelligent victims of brainwash are usually the hardest to deprogram"

Or maybe the hardest to brainwash in the first place.


I'm no genius, which is a good thing, because it doesn't take one to realize that the universe, earth, humanity is not all some cosmic fluke.




posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GLDNGUN
Wow, where does one even begin with the Christian bash fest here? I think I see how the game is played. One person finds the most extreme example of someone who calls himself a Christian to start a post and then everyone else piles on. Fun!

Now, let's wade our way through some of the muck here...


Now imagine how all the moderate muslims feel? How many times have you stuck up for them when the bash fest was on them? Just remember this instance where the media took a crazy guy, and made him seem like he was the voice of christianity. Then remember, you ain't special, and they do it with every group they can.



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GLDNGUN
LOL. Now, it's REALLY getting deep. I hate to break this to you, but it's called "The Universal LAW of Gravity", NOT the "theory of gravity". Again, gravity is testable and has been tested for thousands of years. And the TESTABLE evidence that backs up evolution is???


you just lost all crediblity right there. Einsteins THEORY of relativity.... come on man. if you are going to talk about science, at least know the basics.



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 11:44 PM
link   



Well, just remember according to Einstein's THEORY, light must not have energy, because it has no mass. Plug zero into the M in E=MC^2 equation, and solve.



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797

MOD EDIT: STOP QUOTING YOURSELF AND STOP QUOTING ENTIRE POSTS

Now imagine how all the moderate muslims feel? How many times have you stuck up for them when the bash fest was on them? ... Then remember, you ain't special, and they do it with every group they can.


Uh, actually, the media bends over backwards for Muslims, because it would be "politically incorrect" to do otherwise. Also, you are comparing apples and oranges. Are there moderate Muslims who oppose terrorism? Absolutely. I wish they would be more vocal in denouncing terrorism. Still, a significant wing of Islam is bent on wiping out all "infidels" at the point of a sword. MILLIONS if not BILLIONS of Muslims support the extremists. Now then, name me a dozen Christians that are in favor of killing professors.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

[edit on 7/19/2007 by Gools]



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Einsteins theory of relativity is a theory. Unless you have some sort of real background in science I really dont even want to debate this. Science, in its current state, being as advanced as it is, is not something two regular people can just discuss. Quantum physics, special relativity, general relativity, and all the little details, are way too much to get into and take way too much time to debate and discuss.

I believe the point you were trying to make is that if their is no mass, there can be no energy. That means that there couldn't be anything, and something can't come from nothing. Of course we, meaning anyone who tries to even remotely keep up with recent science (not that "science" taught in highschool) knows that einsteins theory of relativity and special relativity, though brilliant, do not explain the universe completely. We know that quantum mechanics, which has lead to many brilliant inventions, created on the models of science theories, is also an incomplete model.

We currently do not have the theory that can explain the universe. Einsteins theories and quantum mechanics don't mix, but they both have lead to groundbreaking discoveries as a result of testing these theories. My conclusion? If you can come up with a theory, that not only binds everything into one complete theory, but is also mathematically and physically provable, you will be named the most brilliant man to have ever lived. Until that time where we have one theory which explains everything, without fail, everything else is just a theory.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by GLDNGUN
Uh, actually, the media bends over backwards for Muslims, because it would be "politically incorrect" to do otherwise. Also, you are comparing apples and oranges. Are there moderate Muslims who oppose terrorism? Absolutely. I wish they would be more vocal in denouncing terrorism. Still, a significant wing of Islam is bent on wiping out all "infidels" at the point of a sword. MILLIONS if not BILLIONS of Muslims support the extremists. Now then, name me a dozen Christians that are in favor of killing professors.

Go ahead, I'll wait.


Ok, so what evidence is this backed on again? The millions if not billions that support muslim extremists? There is a good chance that if you can even find such "evidence" it would be from some MEDIA OUTLET saying "we took a poll" which is another way of saying "we asked a very select group of people by 'random' chance". Those things are hogwash, as is the statement "millions if not billions of muslisms support extremists." I garentee you that there is probably a max of 1 to 2 million muslim extremists around the globe out of the one point something billion of them that are alive. Out of the christians, I would bet the same. Why? Well history shows me that christians, just like muslism, have no problem killing in the name of their religion.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797

MOD EDIT: PLEASE STOP QUOTING YOURSELF

you just lost all crediblity right there. Einsteins THEORY of relativity.... come on man. if you are going to talk about science, at least know the basics.


Huh? I'm the one trying to explain the basics here. Funny how I have to drag the evolutionists along kicking and screaming. Yes, Einstein's theory is just that. A theory. If it were a law, it would be called "Einstein's LAW of relativity". It's a theory, not a law. So what's the problem?

But since you brought it up, let's talk about why "evolution" is called a "theory", and not a law. Where is this objective evolution information? What is the scientific method, and does evolution follow it? Basically, the scientific method involves making observations, then predictions, and then experiments to prove or disprove a hypothesis.

Scientists use observations, hypotheses and deductions to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of "theories". Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If a prediction turns out to be correct, the theory survives.

Now, WHERE can the theory of evolution be tested with objective information? Evolution, like all science, is built from a foundation by various ideas. If that base is wrong, the rest of the theory doesn’t matter. At the base of evolution are several main principles.

1. Matter comes from nothing.
2. Non-living material can spontaneously become alive.
3. Species can change from one to another.
4. Explosions produce order.

According to the scientific method, we should have repeatable experiments to prove such things are true.

WHERE IS IT?

I'm sorry, but if you have no repeatable experiments for these ideas, they’re not science. Interesting ideas perhaps, but not science. Debatable? Sure. But not science.

So why do scientists abandon their own method? Perhaps because some desire to explain away God they grasp for anything no matter how ridiculous.

That's my "theory" anyway.


[edit on 7/19/2007 by Gools]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797

MOD EDIT: PLEASE STOP QUOTING YOURSELF AND STOP QUOTING ENTIRE POSTS

Ok, so what evidence is this backed on again? ... just like muslism, have no problem killing in the name of their religion.


I have read that religious scholars put the number at 20% for the number of Muslims that are of the "extreme" variety. That would be a mere 200 million if true. Is this accurate? Nobody knows for sure, so your "guarantee" is hollow and meaningless. How in the world could you "guarantee" such a thing? At least you are willing to admit that it's in the millions.

Now, then, your thinking that there are as many "extreme Christians" is based upon what again?

When did these "Christian extremists" fly airplanes into buildings? Blow up their children in crowded malls?

Again, I'm asking for the names of TWELVE so-called Christians who advocate such activities.

Still waiting...

[edit on 7/19/2007 by Gools]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by GLDNGUN

MOD EDIT: REMOVED LARGE NESTED QUOTE

Huh? I'm the one trying to explain the basics here. Funny how I have to drag the evolutionists along kicking and screaming. Yes, Einstein's theory is just that. A theory. If it were a law, it would be called "Einstein's LAW of relativity". It's a theory, not a law. So what's the problem?


....are you serious? You can pretty much sum up einsteins theory of relativity to einsteins theory of gravity. I'm really not getting into an arguement about science with you if you don't have any clue what you are talking about. When you can say Gravity is a law and Einsteins theory of relativity is a theory in the same thread, you have got to be playing a joke on us.



But since you brought it up, let's talk about why "evolution" is called a "theory", and not a law. Where is this objective evolution information? What is the scientific method, and does evolution follow it? Basically, the scientific method involves making observations, then predictions, and then experiments to prove or disprove a hypothesis.


its called a theory because certain findings have directed us toward the idea that the theory of evolution may possibly be one day a scientific fact. We call creationism a hypothesis because there is no findings that will ever cause creationism to become more then a hypothesis.

Saying evolution is bunk because you can't remake it in real life is like saying you can't prove 9/11 went down from planes because you can't recreate it in real life. We will probably never figure out the theory to the hair, and we will never figure it out intentionally. We will most likely figure out most of the theory by accidential piecing together, using logic and information already avalible to us.



Scientists use observations, hypotheses and deductions to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of "theories". Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If a prediction turns out to be correct, the theory survives.

Now, WHERE can the theory of evolution be tested with objective information? Evolution, like all science, is built from a foundation by various ideas. If that base is wrong, the rest of the theory doesn’t matter. At the base of evolution are several main principles.


before you even list them, wrong again. The basic theories our entire understanding of physics has come from thus far, matters very much. Many of the technologies you see today are a result of theories that are incorrect or incomplete. In fact, ALL technology you see today is a result of incomplete/incorrect physics. Just because it is incorrect or incomplete doesn't mean it doesn't have fact in it. Just because it wasn't 100% right, does not mean its 100% wrong either.



1. Matter comes from nothing.


*sigh* I'm not going to explain quantum mechanics to you. If you want answers, learn the stuff. Save some money and take some college courses on it.



2. Non-living material can spontaneously become alive.


Do you know what the difference between alive and non living is?



3. Species can change from one to another.


*sigh* I am not going to argue science with some one who knows nothing about science. If you want to argue why science is wrong, learn what science teaches first.

Thomas Jefferson kept a Koran on himself. He wasn't a muslim, he just went under the idea know your enemies. If science is your enemy, or counterpart for better terms, learn it so you can better show why it is wrong.



4. Explosions produce order.


not sure what you mean by this.



According to the scientific method, we should have repeatable experiments to prove such things are true.


Repeatable experiments is required to prove facts. If I show mathematical calculations, previous findings, and logicall information to connect things together, I have a theory, before any experiment is even done. If I say "I think...blah blah blah" then I have a hypothesis. I didn't have any previous information to make the connection, any mathematical ideas to cause me to come to this conclusion.



WHERE IS IT?


being worked on. Which I am ok with. Science takes time, and has taken 100's of years to come to where it has come. It will probably take 100's more before we find THE theory, then find a way to prove that theory.



I'm sorry, but if you have no repeatable experiments for these ideas, they’re not science. Interesting ideas perhaps, but not science. Debatable? Sure. But not science.

So why do scientists abandon their own method? Perhaps because some desire to explain away God they grasp for anything no matter how ridiculous.

That's my "theory" anyway.


Yes they are science, because they follow the scientific method. They are not facts, and I have yet to go to a school classroom where they are taught as such. Big Bang, definately taught as a theory in highschool. Evolution, definately taught as a theory. Some of the lesser known theories in science are taught and said to have shown why they are wrong. If it's proven wrong, they say so. If its theory, they say so. I have yet to see a biology class room teach evolution as though it is a fact, and I dare some one to show me a recording of one that does.

[edit on 7/19/2007 by Gools]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by GLDNGUN
I have read that religious scholars put the number at 20% for the number of Muslims that are of the "extreme" variety.


good for them, but worthless. Religious scholars opinion means nothing in this context. If I want the history of a religion, Ill go to a religious scholar. A religious scholars opinion of how many extremists there are is as fact worthy as my word or yours.


That would be a mere 200 million if true. Is this accurate? Nobody knows for sure, so your "guarantee" is hollow and meaningless. How in the world could you "guarantee" such a thing? At least you are willing to admit that it's in the millions.


as is yours and the religious scholars estimate. Its a game of my word against yours, and no one wins. Willing to admit? Like it was some dirty secret everyone is trying to hide. Every religion has extremists. The fact that Islam and Chistianity has numbers in the billions is why I say millions for both. 1 million is a very small number compared to 1 billion. I honesty believe that for every 1 billion people there are probably 1 million people crazy enough to do something violent in the name of peace...if you understand how illogical that is, congradulations because...they don't.



Now, then, your thinking that there are as many "extreme Christians" is based upon what again?


Numbers, and thats it. There are more then 1 billion christians, so there is a good chance that at least 1-2% of them are crazy enough to do something violent in the name of religion.



When did these "Christian extremists" fly airplanes into buildings? Blow up their children in crowded malls?


O so you mean just because they haven't gone any crusades in recent times that suddenly there are no christian extremists anymore? I do remember learning about christians burning constantinople(sp?) to the ground. Killing thousand and thousands of people for no real reason at all. It was in the name of religion. Fact is, there are extremist christians out there. They may not be actively attacking and crusading right now, but that doesn't mean they aren't around willing to do so. You think islamic terrorism would be big if they didn't have those crazy leaders brainwashing them to act on these illogical arguements?



Again, I'm asking for the names of TWELVE so-called Christians who advocate such activities.

Still waiting...


Pope Urban II
King Louis VII
Pope Gregory VIII
Pope Innocent III

I could go on and on through time of the countless leaders in christianity who proclaimed crusades and advocaded the deaths of non christian people around the world. My point is, just because they don't have a leader actively calling for crusades, doesn't mean they won't act when one does. Muslim extremists, for a great deal, only act because they have leaders to follow right now. People in general will take steps such as murder only when a leader calls for them to do so.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Everyone, please calm down with this subject...

I understand that religion is a heated topic, but you don't want to end up looking like this guy who issued the threats, do you?

Let's all study this in an objectionable manor, people of science, that won't be hard for you...

[edit on 19-7-2007 by johnsky]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 01:02 AM
link   
You only have to read a few posts on this thread to see that people were taught that evolution is "fact".

So, you want an example of public school biology class cirriculum trying to "put one over" on students? Okay, here you go...

One popular biology textbook used in public schools is "Inquiry Into Life" by Sylvia Mader, published by McGraw-Hill Ryerson. On page 529 are diagrams of giraffes and says "Early giraffes probably had necks of various lengths. Natural selection due to competition led to survival of the longer-necked giraffes and their offspring. Eventually, only long-necked giraffes survived the competition."

Gee, shouldn't students be taught to distinguish between fact and speculation? NO fossil evidence has ever been unearthed showing giraffes with shorter necks.

Critical thinkers should be asking, "Why are these diagrams included in Mader's book, if the empirical evidence doesn't support a Darwinian view of giraffes? Is this good science?"

Again, there's not a single transitional form between the so-called short-necked "giraffe" and the modern long-necked giraffe.

Of course, that's just the tip of the iceberg.

But this can't be true. The government and media wouldn't try to get us to believe in a bunch of lies. Would they?

"Darwinian theory is the creation myth of our culture. It's the officially sponsored, government financed creation myth that the public is supposed to believe in, and that creates the evolutionary scientists as the priesthood...So we have the priesthood of naturalism, which has great cultural authority, and of course has to protect its mystery that gives it that authority--that's why they're so vicious towards critics."

--Phillip Johnson, on the PBS television documentary "In the Beginning: The Creationist Controversy" (May 30-31, 1995)



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 01:12 AM
link   




wow...do you know ANYTHING about this topic at ALL? Ok lets start with the basics. We have genetics. Genetics deals with Genes. Genes determine what we are. The hair we have, color eyes, length of our necks. Now you have mutations. Mutations can occur for various reasons. Mutations, which are observable in nature, can be recessive genes. These genes sometimes become the dominate gene, and that animal/person displays that gene. Somewhere along the lines, giraffes had offspring with longer necks, because of genetic mutation. This mutation was beneficial, and allowed the giraffe to have an advantage over other animals of its species. Because of this, it lived longer to produce. Over LONG periods of time, the recessive gene becomes more dominate because the animals with the gene are more prone to produce the same genetic make up in its offspring.

They didn't just one day change. It took many many years. It took time for the long neck gene to replace the others. Sometimes, it doesnt take as long, in instance where the food supply may run out for the shorter necked animals, where the longer neck animals could still reach food. These circumstances are how new speicies are born.


Edit: If the explaination is a bit off, I appologize. It is 2 in the morning, I tried to sum it up as quick and accurate as possible, and Im dealing with a severe case of poison ivy so Im not completely focused. Thank you.


[edit on 19-7-2007 by grimreaper797]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 01:20 AM
link   


I could go on and on through time of the countless leaders in christianity who proclaimed crusades and advocaded the deaths of non christian people around the world. My point is, just because they don't have a leader actively calling for crusades, doesn't mean they won't act when one does. Muslim extremists, for a great deal, only act because they have leaders to follow right now. People in general will take steps such as murder only when a leader calls for them to do so.


In other words, you can't name even 12 current "Christian extremists" to compare to current Muslim extremists, while at the same time admitting that there are indeed "millions" of Muslim extremists. And you wonder why comparing the two is apples and oranges?

But you just know that "Christian extremists" are millions of ticking timebombs, just waiting for a leader to come along and give them their killing orders which they will dutifully carry out because, well, you just know. And, hey, they have a history of doing some killing, so history will simply repeat itself, right?

Okay, using that logic, I guess the millions of people who don't like Christians are also "ticking timebombs, just waiting for a leader to come along and give them their killing orders which they will dutifully carry out." I mean, Christians have been hunted down, enslaved, tortured, fed to the lions, killed, etc. for 2000+ years now.

So, why aren't you warning us all about the dangers of "anti-Christian extremism"???

Hmmm???



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 01:23 AM
link   
findarticles.com...

something that is also a proposed theory. It is a theory because it is an idea, backed with logic, that makes a connection with two events that have occured in nature causing this theory. This theory is a theory because necking is witnessed in nature. It's a known event amoung these animals to engage in this practice to win a mate.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797

wow...do you know ANYTHING about this topic at ALL?


Am I supposed to feel inferior and/or insignificant every time you say something along those lines? 'Cuz I got to tell you, it's not working. Additionally, it makes it appear you are blowing smoke instead of making a logical case.


Originally posted by grimreaper797

Ok lets start with the basics. We have genetics. Genetics deals with Genes. Genes determine what we are. The hair we have, color eyes, length of our necks. Now you have mutations. Mutations can occur for various reasons. Mutations, which are observable in nature, can be recessive genes. These genes sometimes become the dominate gene, and that animal/person displays that gene. Somewhere along the lines, giraffes had offspring with longer necks, because of genetic mutation. This mutation was beneficial, and allowed the giraffe to have an advantage over other animals of its species. Because of this, it lived longer to produce. Over LONG periods of time, the recessive gene becomes more dominate because the animals with the gene are more prone to produce the same genetic make up in its offspring.

They didn't just one day change. It took many many years. It took time for the long neck gene to replace the others. Sometimes, it doesnt take as long, in instance where the food supply may run out for the shorter necked animals, where the longer neck animals could still reach food. These circumstances are how new speicies are born.


Uh huh. That was a lovely explanation but did nothing to address WHY the whole giraffe story is laughable. Let me repeat myself...

NO fossil evidence has ever been unearthed showing giraffes with shorter necks.

I'll restate it again as I did in the previous post:

There's not a single transitional form between the so-called short-necked "giraffe" and the modern long-necked giraffe.

Now you are doing nothing but repeating the same mistake as the text book did. You are repeating a theory for these giraffes that has ABSOLUTELY NOT A SINGLE BASIS IN FACT. There is NO scientific evidence to support your (and the text book's) "theory". NOT ONE. NONE.

I'm not sure how I can make that any clearer to an expert such as yourself.

Even ardent evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould had commented on the "indefensible" and "entirely speculative" use of the giraffe to show students Darwin's theory in action:

"No data from giraffes then existed to support one theory of causes over another, and none exist now, " said Gould. "...the spotty evidence gives no insight into how the long-necked modern species arose. ... The standard story, in fact, is both fatuous and unsupported"
(Stephen Jay Gould, May 1996, "The Tallest Tale," Natural History, Vol. 105 No. 5, pp. 18-23, 54-57).

Hmmm. I guess maybe you're one of those guys who believes everything they were taught in public, government-funded schools. Oh well.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by GLDNGUN

In other words, you can't name even 12 current "Christian extremists" to compare to current Muslim extremists, while at the same time admitting that there are indeed "millions" of Muslim extremists. And you wonder why comparing the two is apples and oranges?


I can't name you 12 current muslim extremists either. Why? because I don't feel extremists deserve any sort of rememberance. But you want to say "because christians are not actively engaging in violence, there must be many less violent christian extremists." That is a statement that encourages people around you to think you don't have a train of thought.



But you just know that "Christian extremists" are millions of ticking timebombs, just waiting for a leader to come along and give them their killing orders which they will dutifully carry out because, well, you just know. And, hey, they have a history of doing some killing, so history will simply repeat itself, right?


60-70 years ago before israel came into existance, we would be saying the same thing about muslim extremists. For the most part they were just fighting eachother in holy wars, much like irsh were fighting eachother over protestants and such. When israel came along and moved in next store to them, they started to fight them. America backed israel, so we were also enemies. Now they are muslim extremists. Just because chritians aren't currently engaging in violent activities in the name of religion doesnt mean it won't happen, because it has certainly happened before.

60-70 years ago, history told us muslims would act in violence not because of their religion but because of their history. You can bet the same goes for christians. I don't think they will be extremists because of their religion, but because of their history. Some people will use any excuse to go to war. Any group in the billions has a couple million that are crazy enough statistically. Not polls, just statistics. if you have 100 people, I would bet 1 person has anti social personality disorder. Not because I honestly know for a fact one has it, but because statistically 1-2% of the population has it.



Okay, using that logic, I guess the millions of people who don't like Christians are also "ticking timebombs, just waiting for a leader to come along and give them their killing orders which they will dutifully carry out." I mean, Christians have been hunted down, enslaved, tortured, fed to the lions, killed, etc. for 2000+ years now.


well the jewish people have you beat on the "I was a scape goat" front, I can tell you that for sure. Almost every group, at one point or another, gets mistreated and screwed over for being that group. Genocides, crusades, etc. happen to almost ALL groups, of ALL religions, from ALL races, because at the end of the day, crazy leaders will try to manipulate whoever they can to fight for what they want them to fight for.

You think rawanda had the problem they had since the dawn of time? No, some people made up a difference between the people, divided them, and used it to their benefit. Thats what it came down to. The leaders, the ignorant who fell for the leaders manipulation, and the people who didn't paid for it. Thats all it is. You have people who manipulate the weak, and lead them to violence. Then you have the strong who avoid the manipulation, and get attacked as a result. In the case of religion, no one is wrong or right. The strong group isnt the group following a specific religion, but avoiding violence. No religion that I can think of meets that standard.



So, why aren't you warning us all about the dangers of "anti-Christian extremism"???

Hmmm???

I warn everyone about the dangers of anti-let live ideas. I could care less if you agree with muslims or jews. I could care less if they agree with you. What I do care about is that we all care about the idea that everyone deserves the chance to live life. I do care about anyone who says "this group is more prone to become violent" because its bull. Every group is prone to become violent, and the amount violent grows with the amount of people affiliated with such groups.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
findarticles.com...

something that is also a proposed theory. It is a theory because it is an idea, backed with logic, that makes a connection with two events that have occured in nature causing this theory. This theory is a theory because necking is witnessed in nature. It's a known event amoung these animals to engage in this practice to win a mate.


So, this guy wants to junk Darwin's theory as well? Well, that's a good start.

I have a theory of my own concerning giraffes. It goes like this:

EVERY time, and I mean EVERY SINGLE time a female giraffe gives birth, it will be to ANOTHER giraffe. It won't be a deer, a hippo, a zebra, or a leopard, but amazingly another giraffe!

This is based upon the theory that God created man and animals to have offspring "of their own kind". Boy am I glad that "theory" is reinforced EVERY time a human or animal gives birth. Can you imagine what a warped place earth would be if every creature born were some sort of mutation between some undetermined species and some other undetermined species? Man, what a mess that would be!



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 01:58 AM
link   


www.scq.ubc.ca...

Many researchers now suggest that the primary function of giraffe neck length is not for reaching leaves on tall trees, but for male combat (“necking”), or for spotting predators, or for shedding heat through increased skin surface area. All of these functions “have been viewed by prominent scientists as a chief reason for the evolution of the long necks” (Gould 56f.). Darwin himself (202) alludes to some of these as alternate possibilities.


If you want to debate the fact our school systems use out of date text books, you will get no debate here. I took a food science class that used a book made from 1971. That was in 2003. We were using a book which was printing information 32 years old. In the second week I stopped taking the class seriously because everytime we read I was bringing in papers made in scientific journals within the past 10 years disproving what the text book said. The teacher did not want to hear it.

If anything, we are debating the fact public schools can't provide up to date information. Providing our kids with ideas that have been disproven for over a decade is something that is horribly wrong with out educational system. Im all for stopping lies, but evolution isn't a lie. Some of the conclusions made may very well be wrong, and we do our best to figure out which are wrong, but we aren't going to treat evolution as a "known lie" because everything doesnt add up perfectly yet.

As for the fossils, its hard to say just yet. We know way too little to come to any conclusions. There are living species around the world that we don't even know of yet? We don't even know whats alive, let alone where it came from. Science has a long way to go, that much is agreed upon. You want to come to conclusions based on information that isn't avalible yet.

Do I know what the giraffe evolved from? No, but let me ask you, do you know how many different species of ants there are? No you don't, and nobody does because there is a good chance there are some living that are undiscovered. Just because we haven't found it yet doesn't mean it may not be there. When we have enough information gathered that shows evolution simply doesn't work, we will stop teaching it as a theory.

Right now, we don't have enough information to say one way or the other.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join