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.

 

One in Eight U.S. Biology Teachers Teaches Creationism

page: 14
4
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Molecular biology has been refuted?
You'd better tell the scientists and researchers who are writing scientifically accepted papers on it. I'm sure they'll just take your word for it.


You say explaining creationism isn't your responsibility but then go on to make a rather definitive statement about where humans came from.

You make this statement with certainty yet provide no evidence to back it up therefore your assertion has no scientific validity. It is simply your opinion.




posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Molecular biology has been refuted?
You'd better tell the scientists and researchers who are writing scientifically accepted papers on it. I'm sure they'll just take your word for it.


You say explaining creationism isn't your responsibility but then go on to make a rather definitive statement about where humans came from.

You make this statement with certainty yet provide no evidence to back it up therefore your assertion has no scientific validity. It is simply your opinion.


Where did I say all of Molecular Biology has been refuted?

Yeah that's right I DIDN'T Nice try but typical.

I did offer the referance read my post.

- Con

[edit on 2-6-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 06:15 AM
link   
Seems like all the so called evidence for evolution pertains to animals but never touches on man. It never explains our chromosomal difference in spite of DNA similarities. How can Darwinists explain the fact that homo-sapiens have 2 less chromosomes than apes? It appears 2 chromosomes actually unexplainabley fused together, which makes no sense from an evolutionary point of view... we should have more - instead of less - if we are "more evolved" from a common ancestor.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Well, that way of thinking is exactly the problem and the root cause why creationists (and religios people in general) exist.

Oversimplification, and the need for it, by the feeble human mind, trying to find meaning or explanation in complex systems with billions of inputs, billions of outputs, a quadrillion parameters for the makeup of life and all other complex things, by simplifying things to zero point understanding.

No matter what the subject, the human mind, because of it inadequacy, fails to comprehend the scale of things and always tries to simplify things to the point where there are people who loose curiosity and loose comprehension and blindly accept fairy tails and stories instead of looking for understanding and knowledge.

We are young and we are a far ways away of true understanding of the universe. Religious people tend to act asif they know all because they have the word of god.

How do you think your god would feel, if he sees a virus like pest infesting a beautiful blue marble he created, over simplifying his majestically infinitely complex creation and acting asif they, next to him, are the most important things in the universe.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


5 posts before yours is evidence of evolution pertaining to man. The very least you could do is read the thread.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 




Originally posted by bigbert81
reply to post by apaulo
 


I don't deny God, but I think we need to realize that we were left much more alone than many religious people think.

You don’t deny God? Then what is the problem? We’re on the same page then, if this is true…

Originally posted by bigbert81
reply to post by apaulo
 


Now, how about taking back that apple pie analogy too? Being as it is completely ridiculous.


“Too”? What else did I take back?
The cheery pie analogy wasn’t that bad, come on. Ridiculous? It wasn’t exactly a spark of genius, but it certainly wasn’t ridiculous. After all, you said that you do not deny God. A creator.

Originally posted by bigbert81

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by bigbert81
 



What is there to take back? Do you also wish to remove da Vinci's name from the Mona Lisa?


Wow, this quote is so ridiculous, it doesn't even deserve an answer.

What a joke.

I would say that it is a fine answer, especially since you do not deny God. I’ve read on this forum that many scientists cannot refute the evidence suggesting evolution, but the real question is “how”. Why is it so hard to say G-O-D?
I’m actually beginning to think there really is something to this theory of evolution … perhaps your father really was a monkey.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by wytworm
 




Originally posted by wytworm
reply to post by apaulo
 




Now, you cannot tell me that THIS was ALL an accident!
It would be easy for me to believe that Leonardo da Vinci bumped his easel and palette, knocking them over on the ground and spilling paint onto a canvas that just so happened to create the Mona Lisa. Come on! I don’t care how many millions of years a blank canvas lays around, it will never produce the Mona Lisa either.


This is a common logical fallacy: I can't imagine it so it cannot be true. Thankfully, reality is not constrained to exist within the limits of our comprehension or our comfort with it. In other words, just because one does not possess the faculty to understand a complex system does not mean that they do not exist. The world does not cease to exist when a child closes their eyes!


Apparently your ability to misconstrue a quote is equal to your incredible imagination to conceive divine accidents. My imagination and the truth are two entirely different subjects altogether. Let me attempt to make a real simple here for you…

A building = a builder
Art = artist
Thanksgiving feast = cook
A creation = Creator

But, you were right about something…The world does not cease to exist when a child closes their eyes! Yet I also add;

The art does not cease to exist when a child closes their eyes!
The building does not cease to exist when a child closes their eyes!
The feast does not cease to exist when a child closes their eyes!

God does not cease to exist when an ATHIEST closes their eyes!



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 08:38 PM
link   
If so they should be fired. Creationism is religion and religion is not to distributed by the government and schools are mandatory government.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   



God does not cease to exist when an ATHIEST closes their eyes!




God does not begin to exist when a believer opens their eyes.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Straight Razor



God does not cease to exist when an ATHIEST closes their eyes!




God does not begin to exist when a believer opens their eyes.


Saul of tarsus would say: "God does not begin to exist until an unbeliever opens their eyes"



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Straight Razor
If so they should be fired. Creationism is religion and religion is not to distributed by the government and schools are mandatory government.


what makes it religion? when you answer that then tell me what religion is it? Their is no Religion called creationism. Their is no church of creationism. Their are no pastors or priests for creationism, their are no prophets for creationism, their is no such thing as a religion of creationism but what you really are afraid of is creationism making the discovery that might support religions claims we were created by a creator and if science finds a way to do that than what the hell do YOU care?

Are you that dead set against the possibility

or do you just afraid

- Con



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


5 posts before yours is evidence of evolution pertaining to man. The very least you could do is read the thread.



what that dead monkey? HA HA HA HA That isn't proof of Jack Squat pal.

- Con



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


The ERV evidence? The DNA evidence? Qualified scientists disagree with you on the dead monkey by the way, you might want to call them and tell them they're wrong at the same time you call those molecular biologists.

I like the way you don't provide any actual refutation of the evidence. Just saying 'that ain't right' is obviously a very effective debating technique and one guaranteed to get your point across.

What makes creationism a religion? Well, saying god created the earth does. Get it?

Still haven't seen any evidence of creationism by the way.....



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 01:30 AM
link   
Well all you smug religious types, step up and prove god to us ignorant evolutionists. I will go out on a limb and state truthfully that evolution is all around us, we have proof. What we don't know is how it works exactly.
This has been said to the nth time by us. Hence evolutionary theory.
The ball is in your court bibleboy/girl's.
Prove to us, without a doubt that there is a "god".
Video would be nice, but a picture or a lock of glistening white hair will do.
It will of course be subject to dna analysis.
If you think I'm joking, I'm not.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee


The ERV evidence? The DNA evidence? Qualified scientists disagree with you on the dead monkey by the way, you might want to call them and tell them they're wrong at the same time you call those molecular biologists.


Are you telling me those Scientist's are saying that dead monkey is unequivocally absolutley the transitional form in our biological family tree are they saying that is a fact ? C'mon guy tell me is that what you are suggesting? Oh I just can't wait to hear this one.

Please tell me they are saying it's true I have to know who makes this statment and why hasn't it been on all the News Channels about this great discovery that nails the Darwinian dimwits to the most outrageuos big fat lie yet please share with us the dead monkey is the transitional form between bipedal man and monkeyman.



The ERV evidence? The DNA evidence?


Yeah and?


I like the way you don't provide any actual refutation of the evidence. Just saying 'that ain't right' is obviously a very effective debating technique and one guaranteed to get your point across.


I said it once and I'll say it again YOU GOT NO EVIDENCE!
all you got is a dead monkey and some desperate scientist making "just so" statments. You call to authority doesn't impress me either as many times as evolutionists have been caught lieing through their teeth pffft.,

I'd rather believe a used car salesman.


What makes creationism a religion? Well, saying god created the earth does. Get it?



Oh? Is that what ID says? show me.



Still haven't seen any evidence of creationism by the way.....


I told you guy, I am not a Scientist and neither are you but if you continue to pass off bunk as proof of macro evolution that even a layman like me can see is nothing but the same old stuff I have seen before and every five years or so evolutionst are revamping the whole theory again trying to catch up with what real science has found out that makes them look like a bunch of keystone cops.

They have changed it so much since I first studied it, it shouldn't even be called Darwininian anything.

Don't forget to give me the Scientist name that finally discovered the missing link and can prove it.

liar

- Con








[edit on 4-6-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 02:05 AM
link   
I'm glad I never had one of those biology teachers, that would have been embarrassing. Religious institutions have the option to build schools of their own and provide the classes as they wish. Just look at the Catholics for example. They should not be allowed to interfere in the curriculum of public schools, because that would defy the separation of church and state.

[edit on 4-6-2008 by laiguana]



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana
I'm glad I never had one of those biology teachers, that would have been embarrassing. Religious institutions have the option to build schools of their own and provide the classes as they wish. Just look at the Catholics for example. They should not be allowed to interfere in the curriculum of public schools, because that would defy the separation of church and state.

[edit on 4-6-2008 by laiguana]

what separation of church and state ?

you mean this?


Where can I find separation of church and state in the constitution?

Although most people believe the words "separation of church and state" are actually in the U.S. Constitution, the words cannot be found there. Rather, they are words penned by Thomas Jefferson in a letter which explains the First Amendment of the Constitution or at least Jefferson’s view of it. The actual words in the First Amendment of the Constitution read as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . ."

“Wall of separation between church and state”—History of phrase
In the fall of 1801, the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association sent Jefferson a written address congratulating him on his election. In his reply on January 1, 1802, Jefferson penned these now famous words:

“. . .I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
According to the Library of Congress, in 1802 presidential replies to public addresses were prime vehicles for the expression and dissemination of partisan views. Such replies were carefully drafted with a view toward advancing the writer’s political agenda.

We know that Jefferson went through at least two drafts of his reply. The first draft was reviewed by two Republican Cabinet members from New England, including Attorney General Levi Lincoln. In a cover note to Levi Lincoln, Jefferson revealed that he hoped to accomplish two things in the reply. One was to condemn any alliance between church and state. His views on this subject were generally those of his political party, the Republicans of the time, and well known from his previous writings. They were in direct opposition to the views of the Federalist party. Jefferson also told Levi Lincoln that he saw the reply as an opportunity to explain why he did not proclaim fasts and thanksgivings as his presidential predecessors had. However, sentences in his original draft specifically referring to fasts and thanksgivings were deleted on advice from Levi Lincoln that they would offend New England Republicans for whom the proclamation of various fasts and thanksgivings was respected tradition.

A Massachusetts newspaper printed Jefferson’s in 1802. It was then forgotten for 50 years until it was re-published in an edition of Jefferson’s writings in 1853 and reprinted in 1868 and 1871.

Use by the U.S. Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court highlighted the phrase “wall of separation” in 1878 by declaring in Reynolds v. U.S. “that it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment.” Since that time, the phrase has become common in American jurisprudence.

Controversy over use
The use of the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” has been controversial, even among members of the Supreme Court. In 1962, Justice Potter Stewart wrote that jurisprudence is not "aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the 'wall of separation,' a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution." In 1985, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist called Jefferson’s phrase misleading, stating "unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years." Many Americans believe that relying on a vague metaphor penned by a partisan politician who was not present when the Constitution was written, rather than the words of the Constitution as drafted in compromise by people of varying political views and ratified by the states, is grossly inappropriate and allows the courts to declare unconstitutional many practices which are not actually unconstitutional.

www.allabouthistory.org...


- Con





[edit on 4-6-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
I said it once and I'll say it again YOU GOT NO EVIDENCE!
all you got is a dead monkey and some desperate scientist making "just so" statments. You call to authority doesn't impress me either as many times as evolutionists have been caught lieing through their teeth pffft.,


We have plenty of evidence, much of which has been posted in this thread. The fact you don't understand it and discount it doesn't make it go away.


I told you guy, I am not a Scientist and neither are you but if you continue to pass off bunk as proof of macro evolution that even a layman like me can see is nothing but the same old stuff I have seen before and every five years or so evolutionst are revamping the whole theory again trying to catch up with what real science has found out that makes them look like a bunch of keystone cops.


Sure about that?


You still haven't refuted any of the evidence shown (even as a 'layman' :lol
, just saying 'no that's not true' isn't a refutation.

I'll take your inability to produce even the smallest shred of evidence in favour of creationism to mean that you have none. So, we have one scientific explanation with plenty of evidence to back it up and then we have creationism, a philosophy with no evidence behind it at all. That is why creationism should not be taught in a science class.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by morthn1waytoskinacat
Well all you smug religious types, step up and prove god to us ignorant evolutionists. I will go out on a limb and state truthfully that evolution is all around us, we have proof. What we don't know is how it works exactly.
This has been said to the nth time by us. Hence evolutionary theory.
The ball is in your court bibleboy/girl's.
Prove to us, without a doubt that there is a "god".
Video would be nice, but a picture or a lock of glistening white hair will do.
It will of course be subject to dna analysis.
If you think I'm joking, I'm not.


Pal, you are ten times more religious than I am…
As for proof… oh my! Don’t even get me started. I can’t open your eyes; that’s your choice.

Maybe I should start a thread titled, “Artists do not exist.” I know, I know… and I agree that would be real stupid. Almost as stupid as debating with people on the existence of God.

Well all you smug atheist types, step up and prove God doesn’t exist to us ignorant believers. I will go out on a limb and state truthfully that God is all around us, we have proof. What we don't know is how you can’t see Him, too.


[edit on 4-6-2008 by apaulo]



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by apaulo
 


Totally agreed, Bro.
God shows himself to those who humble themselves and ASK him.
If we could show people pictures, it wouldn't be enough for them to accept they're not perfect and they need Jesus.

A lot of it has to do with ego, sadly.

[edit on 4-6-2008 by Clearskies]




top topics



 
4
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join