It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 04:29 AM
And one last thing. The giraffe bit, give it up. There was reason to believe it in nature. Darwin observed other smaller animals competing for foot sources on the lower part of the trees. THAT is why he came to such a conclusion. The same reason they came to another conclusion about mating. Observation in nature, coupled with our understanding of how genetics work, lead us to this theory.

Its taking two events, connection them, and observing them. If you see a 10 foot long neck beat a 6 foot long neck for a mate 9/10 times, genetics says 10 foot long neck will produce many money 10 foot long necks then the 6 foot long necks will. The food source idea became obsolete when we realized that the females neck is an average of 2 feet shorter. That doesn't make sense if food source was the reason for longer necks. Now on the other hand, males competing for mates makes perfect sense. It explains why the females neck is shorter, it explains why the males necks are longer, it explains genetically why it would occur over time, and a longer neck does produce other desirable advantages. Food sources being one. Preditor awareness being another. Overall, longer necks benefitted the animal, but mating may have been the key. Will we prove this 100%, probably not for some time, but it is possible.

Its a great deal more possible proving that then saying god put them here, case closed.

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 08:26 AM

Originally posted by GLDNGUN

Hadn't seen that before, but Mr. Garrison's argument does make about as much scientific sense as evolution.

Wow, are you 3?

Do you mean like "creation"?

I don't understand how a log cabin is built, but does that mean they aren't? If I'm walking through the woods and come upon a nice big log cabin, should I assume that it was "built" by "intelligent design" even though I wouldn't know how to build one? Or should I assume that a bunch of trees in the forest fell on each other and landed in such a formation as to make the cabin, and thus NO intelligent design involved?

See, if your stupid, you would say,"well, god must have put it here."
If you had half a brain, you would investigate and find out more about the cabin instead of accepting"well, god did it".

No, you see, creation was " thought up" because uneducated people couldn't understand why certain things happened so they said the big invisible man in the sky did it.

Honestly, if your to stupid to understand a freaking Lincoln log, than you are worth no more of my time. That does explain a lot about you though.

I have also come to a conclusion. I will no longer argue about religion, politics or abortion. People like you will always come up with arguments that make ZERO sense, and try to pass it off as the truth. Uneducated and willingly ignorant people like you are the reason this country is going down the tubes.

[edit on 19-7-2007 by Tiloke]

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 08:32 AM

Originally posted by GLDNGUN
Now then, name me a dozen Christians that are in favor of killing professors.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

How about the Westboro baptist church. They are in favor of killing just about anyone who believes other that them. I believe there are at least 12 of them.

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 08:43 AM

Originally posted by GLDNGUN

That's all warm and cuddly, but we're talking about TODAY. 2007. Right now, Muslim extremists are a much bigger danger to the world than "Christian extremists."

Really. because if I'm not mistaken thousands and thousands of people have died and millions displaced in the last 4 years alone due to a war that our President (the Christian) was directed by God to start.

That has affected me a lot more than any muslim hatred has.

My advice to you would be quit while your behind.

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 08:49 AM

Originally posted by GLDNGUN

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.

man, posts like this really piss me off cause people always gloss over other posts that address stuff like this.

SCIENCE(not like religion) is about learning.
i will put it in dumb ass terms as that is what i am. i am not a scholar or a scientist, just a guy with too much time on his hands that reads every damn thing.

ok, so as of todaym july 19th at 9:45 in the am, there is 'no record of a giraffe with a shorter neck'....i agree with that. here is where you have to use a little logic.
how do we know that they won't find that very evidence tomorrow, on friday at noon?
should we stop looking, testing, experimenting cause we don't have the evidence/answers now?
it's called learning dude....we can NEVER stop.

this is my problem with the religious folk/followers

"lol at giraffes growing longer necks...there is no record of that"
what total crud.
in late 02 we had no idea there was a hobit people that lived more than 18k year ago on the island of flores....we know that now though. found out in mid 03...changed everything. we LEARNED...

can you not see this

the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

^^^i think that can be applied here.

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 09:05 AM

Originally posted by GLDNGUN
Thanks again for reinforcing my point. Yes, you can breed all sorts of dogs and get all sorts of wonderful varieties and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM WILL BE A DOG. Not a cat, not a skunk, not a bear.

I don't think you understand basic biology. I posted this in another thread responding to the exact same argument, so I'll just quote myself from there.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Originally posted by pjslug
Yes, exactly, but birds will mutate into other birds. Where is the fossil evidence to substantiate the claim that one species mutated into an entirely different species?

I don't think you understand biological classification of species. Here's a basic rundown. Within life, you have a categorical breakdown of every species, and it looks something like this.


Lets take the example of the pigeon. It's classification would be

Animalia (Animals)
Chordata (having a spinal chord)
Aves (Bird)
Columbiformes (a more specific type of bird)
Columbidae (including doves and pigeons)
Patagioenas (Specifically new world pigeons)
Columba livia domestica (Domestic Pigeon)

You are correct that you would never see a bird/pig because birds and pigs are an entirely different class within the phylum chordata (way up the line). However, you might find pigeons mutating slightly to form different types of pigeons. These branches could continue on to form drastic differences over periods of millions of years.

For example, long long ago as reptiles were changing slightly, there was a branch that went off to form early mammals, while the rest of the reptiles stayed as reptiles. The reptiles that stayed as familiar reptiles (over a period of millions more years (grammar?)) started to look more and more like birds, while the mammalian branch was already well on it's way to forming pigs.

Does that make sense? If not, which parts are confusing. Maybe I can clarify a bit for you.

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 09:58 AM

Originally posted by theindependentjournal

Bottom line is that most schools in America ar teaching KNOWN LIES concerning evolution

What are the lies about evolution that they are teaching? I mean, if you are upset about those lies what about all the historic lies and inaccuracies that still plague kids history books. What about the Christian religion painting Jesus white, why aren't their lawsuits over that?

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 11:32 AM
So would someone kindly remind me of the difference between religious fanatics again?

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 12:10 PM
Look Up falcarius utahensis , its is the missing link between when a Raptor type Dinosaur became a Herbivore. Clear PROOF of evolution. of course you can say well they made it up or some other nonsensical argument. But this is actually fact. Personally I don't think you give God enough credit. What would be harder and more creative leading to life even God couldn't think up, waving the magic wand and life appears or to create a set of laws and rules and circumstances that if this happens, then that happens etc leading us to the diversity of life you see on this planet.

Can you at least acknowledge, that pigeons, doves, etc are related and have a common ancestor, or did god come up with different sub species as well? I guess God could be that creative, but it seems like evolution is a much more creative way to manage life. What about Elephants, and Mammoths ? Same sub species or God said we needs a hairy one and a non hairy one? Do you see where your argument falls apart?

For the record I believe in God, But I believe he/she/it does not control our daily lives, is something we really can't imagine. Maybe set things in motion, which caused a Multiverse, and the big bang, He a real good computer programmer, just uses an organic computer lol

[edit on 19-7-2007 by ShiftTrio]

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 12:32 PM

What are the odds of a bunch of trees forming into a log cabin ALL BY THEMSELVES?

How much more complex is the universe than a log cabin?

This is the one commonality I have seen of all who promote creationism... they make the mistake of assuming it all fell into place in a short period of time.

No, nature didn't suddenly decide "Hey, lets just drop a load of molecules into this configuration"... it began with single, very simple amino-acids.
If you know how amino-acids work, they are highly adaptable, and can react and conform to their environment. It's the chemistry of it that started it.

And it took MILLIONS of years to get where we are now...

The log cabin analogy is just a convenient way for Creationists to avoid the concept of MILLIONS of years of adaptations.

It's as though Creationists want a simple answer, so they chose to believe "god did it"... instead of actually studying the subject matter, and actually observing how it acts.

We have many current examples of evolution in action. Fruit flies are the easiest and quickest way to see how an animal can adapt to it's environment through altering their own structure.

We also have a sub-section of human starting. A family in the Asian continent has almost completely de-evolved their collarbones. This allows them a greater movement of the arms. The collar bone was originally a supporting structure to allow us greater support while on all fours.

Then there's the separate human races themselves. Each ethnic group has a common physical alteration that makes them better suited to their environment. Through pigment, height, natural strength, etc. Each group has evolved to suit their environment.

Dogs aswell, and cats. There are so many different evolved variations. Again, each one adapted to their environment. All of which come from the same common ancestor, as their dna is still closely matched enough that they can inter-breed.

In fact, every species on the earth has variants that have come from evolving to better suit their environment and defend against predators, etc.

Our immune system continues to evolve, as do the viruses that attack us.
You can develop an immunity to a virus as you age,
do you seriously think that 'god' reached down, dissassembled you, then built you with a new design?

I know why you chose creationism. I understand completely... but just because I understand why people chose creationism, doesnt mean it's correct.

Simply put, creationists simply cannot envision millions of years of small adaptations leading up to today. So they want an explanation that can fit in a few mere moments.

The real clincher, is that No matter what evidence you provide to a creationist, it cannot change his mind. If he is almost convinced of evolution, he will shrug it off as a test of his faith, and return to ignorance again.

The refusal to accept fact over belief, is just one of the 'wonderful' things religion has weighed us down with.

It is called blind faith for a reason.

[edit on 19-7-2007 by johnsky]

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 12:46 PM

This is the one commonality I have seen of all who promote creationism... they make the mistake of assuming it all fell into place in a short period of time.

No, nature didn't suddenly decide "Hey, lets just drop a load of molecules into this configuration"... it took MILLIONS of years to get where we are now...

Are you saying that it took millions of years for some people to evolve to this level of stupidity? Oh God thats depressing.

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 12:54 PM
lol, unfortunately, yes.

Another good point, if we we're all created (and created equally apparently) then wouldn't we all have comparable intellects?

I know firstly that many creationists do not support the 'created equally' bit, but for those who do believe that everyone is born equal... why then are there mentally handicapped people? Why then are some born dead?

And if you follow the belief the other way around...
If you are born incomplete, how are we supposed to treat them as an equal?
Am I supposed to feed, clothe, and give a job to a dead baby?

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 01:12 PM
Here's a fun link for those interested.

It's a tree that allows you to narrow down species starting at kingdom all the way down to individual species. No pictures though, just scientific names.

Just thought I'd throw it out there.

[edit on 19-7-2007 by Rasobasi420]

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 02:12 PM
So, This guy is on the run now? Thats pretty weak if he'll make a threat and not stick around to back it up. But really, It makes a lot more scene to teach any scientific theory in a science class than it does to teach a religious idea. It is a science class right? Be pretty funny if was math.

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 02:15 PM
Now ya know I am no athiest. I believe that there is, for a lack of a better word for it a "God" or an intelligence or a consciousness behind the universe and that creation is unfolding according to its own patterns, of which we may or may not have a lot to do with. Where I differ from the creationists is that #1 I understand the nature of metaphor and understand that to attempt to take matters spiritual literally is to rob them of the depth and richness that the subject requires. And, #2 I am not obsessively attached to one doctrine or teaching, I am not threatened by evolution, nor do I feel my faith to be either. I see the richness and complexity of the universe, and yes including evolution as a positive thing displaying the wonderful artristy of Praxis, thought in action and in the face of such awe inspiring grace can only agree with Rilke..."It is breathtaking just to be here." I pity those who are so constrained of mind, spirit and creativity that they fail to understand that it is this ancient beauty that the most evident proof and that it does not need their petty constraints to prop it up.

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 02:26 PM
dewd makes a good point.
aside from all of our points, theology does not belong in a science class.
it does not get much simpler than that....
want your kid to learn about the teachings of the good book? well then, take them to where they study/teach the good book.

wonder where that could be....hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 04:25 PM

Originally posted by WinoBot
What about the Christian religion painting Jesus white, why aren't their lawsuits over that?

Good point...No one lives 30-something years in the Middle East & stays white (I got this one from the comedian Red Fox over a decade ago).

What of Adam & Eve? Wasn't the Garden of Eden supposed to have been in the Middle East? Why are they depicted as being white? Another lawsuit, anyone?

According to the confirmations in the Dead Sea Scrolls (at Qumran, along the shore of the Dead Sea, just a few miles south of Jerico & one day's walk southeast of Jerusalem), the Hebrew Judaism was undergoing a lot of problems...A lot of religious splits with interpretations over the Judaic creed; This is where the Pharisees, Sarducees, Essenes & many others came from.
The Dead Sea scrolls predates many passages in the modern Bibles (most notably Psalms) & indicate a strong reflection of the Essene creed...
It's nearly certain that John the Baptist stayed there for some time & quite probable that Jesus could have at least visited there (After all, John the Baptist performed the Baptism of Jesus a mere three miles from Qumran). There's no direct evidence that Jesus was ever at Qumran, but most of Jesus' ministry came from Essene Doctrine; He certainly had plenty of opportunity to visit.

Guess what this means? Christianity did not come as a "new" religion full-blown with Jesus as its start! It developed from the Essene creed which resulted as a "split" from contemporary Judaism! Jesus didn't preach the strict Essene creed, but this is the creed that his ministry most-closely reflected. In my Source, when Jonas Greenfield (of the Hebrew University) was asked if the Dead Sea Scrolls were Essene, or at least Essenic, he replied: "Well, Essenoid."

My Source? "The Mystery & Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls," by Hershel Shanks. Go ahead & look up his qualifications for yourselves...

Even so, did Jesus preach for hate & bloodlust? No, the ministry of Jesus preached love & brotherhood. Does Korn sound like a real Christian now? Korn obviously obesesses on hate, it's just that he uses religion as his "focus" to justify his own hatred & intolerence.

It's certain that the ATS policies & T&C's don't tolerate the spouting of hate & intolerence between Members, so...Let's keep it on track people.

[edit on 19-7-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 04:31 PM
Whether or not you believe in evolution, the REAL question is:

"Should people be able to send threats and death threats to someone who is teaching an approved course for an institution?"

This would apply to a (for example) professor getting death threats for teaching a course on Catholic saints or a teaching evolution or teaching physics or teaching a particular political viewpoint -- something that the institution they teach at has approved and sanctioned.

Something that the public is aware they teach.

Something that is not against the law of the country or the state or the city.

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 04:37 PM
Since religious fundamentalist decided to wag a war against The terrors of science more and more the spread of their deceiving believes over science seems to be well accepted by the few that wants to perpetuate ignorance.

Pity. BTW grover, you are so right.

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 09:41 PM

Originally posted by grimreaper797
hmm, except for the fact that your theory can never become anything more then speculation. Evolution has the chance to be proven, yours never will.

That may be your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it, but that's all it is.

Nothing intelligent made nature, because nature itself is just a matter of balance, nothing more.

And if you believe that, where do you think that "balance" came from? Another "cosmic fluke"?

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in