Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
saraday

Kansas BOE rewrites definition of science

Recommended Posts

no, it's probably true. evolution is bullshit.

 

judging from how completely STOOPIT some people still are

i think these morons are devolving, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my fav is when people say evolution is "just a theory" :rolleyes:

 

jerry falwell was on some morning show today trying to argue with bill nye about evolution, i almost shit my pants. they had some lame comedian on there as well, i guess to soften the issue, which i thought was pretty fucking lame. god forbid joe television watcher has to watch something serious in the morning and use his fucking brain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest KING BLING
Originally posted by KING BLING+Oct 15 2005, 12:56 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KING BLING - Oct 15 2005, 12:56 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-dowmagik@Oct 15 2005, 09:00 AM

how on earth can a school "ban prayer"? do these schools have mind readers who zoom in on students whose minds are speaking to their god(s)? sounds like an obsurd claim. if your prayer requires the notice of others, it sounds to me like you're doing it for the wrong reasons.

 

I agree...

Though this is the image the psycho right wants you to see - a little blonde haired kid tears from his big puppy dog blue eyes running down his face with jesus looking on in disgust while some liberal lesbian principle with fangs and a tail hits him and rips the bible from his hand - its simply not the case. You can pray in school, hell many schools allow for you to walk right outside the grounds to go to seminary or other religious programs. Its the school itself pushing, or allowing broad proselytizing of religion, that is not allowd. Kids can wear crosses, pray before eating and carry bibles with them - but when you force kids to go to school, its not fair to than force religion upon them and more so it defies the intent of our governmental frame work...

[/b]

 

 

http://www.12ozprophet.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=67176

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone came up with a good creation theory based on Aliens,

I think it should be taught in schools too, just to round out all the

possible angles of being a crackpot.

 

 

the whole fault in the argument...

 

The creationists demand that evolution be PROVED before they will accept it.

Imagine if the evolutionists demanded that same burden of proof on the creationists.

 

 

*addition:

 

we're a lot closer to finding the 'missing link' of evolution

than we are to proving the existance of a creator.

The very nature of faith is that you believe without proof.

With proof, there's no need to have faith. It's tricky that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you'd think, with the genomes sequenced an all

that fucking over 95% similarity would be proof enough

 

....

Evaluation of the reported findings in all these categories indicates that the CMP-sialic hydroxylase mutation is the only one that has so far been shown to result in a global biochemical and structural difference between humans and great apes. Several of the other known genetic dissimilarities deserve more exploration at the functional level. Among the areas of focus for the future should be genes affecting development, mental maturation, reproductive biology, and other aspects of life history.

 

 

The approaches taken should include both going from the genome up to the adaptive potential of the organisms and going from novel adaptive regimes down to the relevant repercussions in the genome. Also, as much as we desire a simple genetic explanation for the human phenomenon, it is much more probable that our evolution occurred in multiple genetic steps, many of which must have left detectable footprints in our genomes. Ultimately, we need to know the exact number of genetic steps, the order in which they occurred, and the temporal, spatial, environmental, and cultural contexts that determined their impact on human evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The often-quoted statement that we share over 98% of our genes with apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans) actually should be put another way. That is, there is more than 95% to 98% similarity between related genes in humans and apes in general. (Just as in the mouse, quite a few genes probably are not common to humans and apes, and these may influence uniquely human or ape traits.)

 

 

Similarities between mouse and human genes range from about 70% to 90%, with an average of 85% similarity but a lot of variation from gene to gene (e.g., some mouse and human gene products are almost identical, while others are nearly unrecognizable as close relatives). Some nucleotide changes are “neutral� and do not yield a significantly altered protein. Others, but probably only a relatively small percentage, would introduce changes that could substantially alter what the protein does.

 

..........................

 

Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

Stefan Lovgren

for National Geographic News

August 31, 2005

 

Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species.

 

"Darwin wasn't just provocative in saying that we descend from the apes—he didn't go far enough," said Frans de Waal, a primate scientist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. "We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament."

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...himp_genes.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest KING BLING

Yeah, thats why I can never rectify religion in my mind. I could even "beleive" in the miracles that are listed in the bible but the old testament seems basicly like mythology. Further, the religious zealots out there who cling to it are more or less doing so because they thrive on the idea of being soldiers for God and less on the idea of helping your fellow man. Evolution in its design would make more sense for a higher being to initiate - its logical and it reflects a value on life with a higher beings long term understanding that death is part of the process. Can any of you religious folks offer feedback on my stance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

god bless the onion. what people need to realize is that evolution is not saying there is no god, in fact evolution has nothing to do with there being a god or not. unfortunatly, since it contradicts christian doctrine many perceive it this way. ugh. i totally understand that this world is shitty, and people find comfort in believing in something, but...i dunno where im going with this...peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that shit from the onion is the best.

 

but bro your right...evolution is theory about "process", the mechanics of how we came to be. People have theorized about evolution for thousands of years. Darwin didn't 'invent" it one day...

 

If religious nuts want to argue with scientists, then their beef should be with cosmologists. There the ones trying to figure out who created us...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by RumPuncher@Nov 9 2005, 03:12 PM

we're a lot closer to finding the 'missing link' of evolution

than we are to proving the existance of a creator.

The very nature of faith is that you believe without proof.

With proof, there's no need to have faith. It's tricky that way.

 

well put.

 

for a good laugh browse: http://www.scientificcreationism.org/

 

What do Creation Scientists Believe?

 

Scientists who call themselves "creation scientists" are professionals, typically with advanced degrees from major universities, who are generally involved in the same types of work as the average scientist. The difference is that creation scientists have a "world-view", or "model" for their science which is based on the belief that an intelligent designer ("God") exists who created our universe and the natural things in it. The creation events were one-time events and are not taking place today. A large subset of creation scientists could be called "Biblical creationists", who take the first eleven chapters of the Bible to be real history, including the creation of all things in six 24-hour days, the existence of Adam and Eve as the first man and woman, the unnatural introduction of "death" into the perfect creation because of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, and the occurence of a world-wide flood (Noah's flood) which destroyed most life and greatly affected the processes operating on the earth. Most creation scientists believe that the earth is "young" (on the order of ten thousand years), but this is a secondary issue. Biblical creationists believe that the Bible and true science are in full harmony with each other - there is no need to "check your brain at the door" when entering a church.

 

A major goal of creation science is to point out the weakness of evolutionary theory, because basically there are only two alternatives for how we got here, and if naturalistic processes are incapable of the task, then special creation must be the correct answer. On the positive side, creation scientists are developing alternative models and theories in many areas to help our understanding of how the universe works. It should be noted that much of day to day scientific activity is not heavily influenced by either evolutionary or creation assumptions, but much scientific energy has been wasted over the last century in the search for evolutionary evidences and experimental proofs, which have been unsuccessful so far and will continue to be. How much further might we be in some areas of scientific understanding if a model of special creation had been the working hypothesis?

 

Common misconceptions about the Bible and beliefs of creationists

 

by Ethan Sudman

© copyright 2003

 

1. Creationists tend to be poorly educated.

This argument has several problems. The first being that it's simply untrue; many creationists have attained a very high level of education. Quite a number have received M.D.'s, Ph.D.'s, etc.

 

The second is that this argument is basically an ad hominem ("to the man") attack. This is an invalid form of argument; insults and name-calling should not be mistaken for legitimate, sound reasoning in which the actual argument is attacked rather than the person making the argument.

2. Creationists believe that the whole Bible should be taken literally.

There are parts of the Bible that are clearly not intended to be taken literally. However, in these cases, it is always obvious that that the passage is meant figuratively rather than literally. For example, the parables of Jesus should not be taken literally, but rather as symbolic of truth.

3. The creation account was not meant to be historically accurate; it was just reworked myth, just to make a theological point. In fact, most of the Bible was intended to be symbolic of spiritual truth rather than literal history.

There are a few problems with this statement:

 

* The Bible claims historical accuracy on numerous occations, and many of the passages in the Bible seem to be meant literally. As Ken Ham points out, "...Jesus Christ tells us how to take Genesis, and He quoted it as history." Genesis 2:4 says, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created." [emphasis added]

* In the portions of the Bible that are not meant to be taken literally, it is made obvious in the passage that they are not meant to be taken literally. For example, parables are generally either explicitly identified as parables or it's pretty obvious that Jesus is telling a parable.

* If we can't trust the Bible where it touches on subjects of science or history, where should we start believing it?

* I've never heard anyone say exactly what's meant by "spiritual truth." It seems, though, that, when using the phrase "spiritual truth," the user generally means something along the lines of "something that I know is false but I'm going to use a euphamism for it to make it look like that's not what I'm saying."

 

4. The Bible doesn't claim to be the Word of God.

Anyone who claims this obviously hasn't read the Bible very thoroughly! The Bible very frequently claims to be the Word of God. For example, the New King James Version (NKJV) of the Bible uses the phrase "says the Lord" in eight hundred and fifty five (855) different verses!

 

wow, just wow..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just a reminder that there's still some sane people left in small town america...

 

Evolution Slate Outpolls Rivals

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

Published: November 9, 2005

 

All eight members up for re-election to the Pennsylvania school board that had been sued for introducing the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in biology class were swept out of office yesterday by a slate of challengers who campaigned against the intelligent design policy.

 

Among the losing incumbents on the Dover, Pa., board were two members who testified in favor of the intelligent design policy at a recently concluded federal trial on the Dover policy: the chairwoman, Sheila Harkins, and Alan Bonsell.

 

The election results were a repudiation of the first school district in the nation to order the introduction of intelligent design in a science class curriculum. The policy was the subject of a trial in Federal District Court that ended last Friday. A verdict by Judge John E. Jones III is expected by early January.

 

"I think voters were tired of the trial, they were tired of intelligent design, they were tired of everything that this school board brought about," said Bernadette Reinking, who was among the winners.

 

The election will not alter the facts on which the judge must decide the case. But if the intelligent design policy is defeated in court, the new school board could refuse to pursue an appeal. It could also withdraw the policy, a step that many challengers said they intended to take.

 

"We are all for it being discussed, but we do not want to see it in biology class," said Judy McIlvaine, a member of the winning slate. "It is not a science."

 

The vote counts were close, but of the 16 candidates the one with the fewest votes was Mr. Bonsell, the driving force behind the intelligent design policy. Testimony at the trial revealed that Mr. Bonsell had initially insisted that creationism get equal time in the classroom with evolution.

 

One incumbent, James Cashman, said he would contest the vote because a voting machine in one precinct recorded no votes for him, while others recorded hundreds.

 

He said that school spending and a new teacher contract, not intelligent design, were the determining issues. "We ran a very conservative school board, and obviously there are people who want to see more money spent," he said.

 

One board member, Heather Geesey, was not up for re-election.

 

The school board voted in October 2004 to require ninth grade biology students to hear a brief statement at the start of the semester saying that there were "gaps" in the theory of evolution, that intelligent design was an alternative and that students could learn more about it by reading a textbook "Of Pandas and People," available in the high school library.

 

The board was sued by 11 Dover parents who contended that intelligent design was religious creationism in new packaging, and that the board was trying to impose its religion on students. The parents were represented by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and a private law firm, Pepper Hamilton LLP.

 

Next Article in National (5 of 20) >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by RumPuncher@Nov 9 2005, 08:12 PM

If someone came up with a good creation theory based on Aliens,

I think it should be taught in schools too, just to round out all the

possible angles of being a crackpot.

 

 

the whole fault in the argument...

 

The creationists demand that evolution be PROVED before they will accept it.

Imagine if the evolutionists demanded that same burden of proof on the creationists.

 

 

*addition:

 

we're a lot closer to finding the 'missing link' of evolution

than we are to proving the existance of a creator.

The very nature of faith is that you believe without proof.

With proof, there's no need to have faith. It's tricky that way.

 

you need proof? How about your eyes and your ears and your heart and lungs. What about the perfect atmosphere to harbor life , i.e: EARTH. The planet that , if it were to be a mile closer to the sun we would burn to death , or a mile further away we would freeze? What about photosynthesis and gravity? How about the fact that you are breathing RIGHT NOW! Don't you give thanks?? How ungrateful can you be to not even acknowledge the creator, when he placed within your soul a natural inclination toward him? The same way the tree grows toward the sun. have you ever noticed the way a tall tree grows straight upward toward it's source of nourishment ? The sun? And how the tree that's blocked by bigger trees and doesnt receive sunlight grows hunched over and twisted , like swamp trees? Well, thats the metaphor of a beleiver , who receives and accepts guidance , he grows straight, Upright , tall and strong, while the one who is blocked from guidance grows to be twisted and hunched over, weak.

The proof is all around you Rumpuncher, the proof is everything, thats the irony, LOL , youre looking for proof, but the proof is everything. Amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by KING BLING@Nov 9 2005, 08:39 PM

Yeah, thats why I can never rectify religion in my mind. I could even "beleive" in the miracles that are listed in the bible but the old testament seems basicly like mythology. Further, the religious zealots out there who cling to it are more or less doing so because they thrive on the idea of being soldiers for God and less on the idea of helping your fellow man. Evolution in its design would make more sense for a higher being to initiate - its logical and it reflects a value on life with a higher beings long term understanding that death is part of the process. Can any of you religious folks offer feedback on my stance?

 

I wouldn't use the bible as a measuring stick because for one, It was translated from Aramaic to hebrew and then to greek and then to latin and then to english. It's amazing how christians beleive in their faith based upon this book , when any old Joe could have added whatever he wanted into it since they are depending on 5th generation translations from 5 different languages. Not to mention that Aramaic is'nt even a living breathing language anymore, Now why would God reveal a book to mankind and tell them to follow it until the end of time, then the very language that it was revealed in was not spoken anymore?

I actually (as a "religious" person) beleive in evolution, Not human evolution from Apes.....

 

A muslim scholar was once asked about this beleif that humans evolved from apes. He responded by saying "whover beleives that his ancestors are Apes deserves to be a descendent of monkeys" Then he said " we seek refuge in Allah from whatever hit their brains"

 

Anyway, some species of plants and animals are known to evolve from one species to another sub species , for example, I can definately accept that,

 

Al-Anbiya - 21:30

Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (Al-Anbiya 21:30)

 

what does that verse from the Quran mean to you?

 

to me it means the origin of every living thing is in water.

Doesn't science say this also?

 

What about the heavens and the earth being united together then they were parted?

 

Doesn't that sound like the big bang? From what I know of the big bang theory it says that all matter was condensed together and then it was forced out , like an explosion. Well, Here is Allah telling us he created it together , then seperated the heavens and the Earth.

 

I'm saying, man, you can play deaf , dumb and blind if you want,

Allah is aware of what you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dawood, I thought you were gonna keep your religious bullshit on your nature thread?

 

first off, the Bible was not written in aramaic. What we call the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, A literary language of scholars. Of course that was translated into aramaic, as other languages. A couple books of what we call the new testament was probably written originally in aramaic, but it was mostly written in a form of greek, which was the language used for trade etc (like english is today).

 

but you say:

 

"Now why would God reveal a book to mankind and tell them to follow it until the end of time, then the very language that it was revealed in was not spoken anymore?"

 

The Arab the quran was written in doesn't exist anymore either. Yes people read and learn it in the original language, but most scholars can't really agree what it really means. All langauges evolve. much as Latin is now french and italian, so it is with 7th century arabic and todays decendants, all of which call thier language 'arabic" for the sake of political and cultural unity...but the arbic they speak in mekka and medina today isn't the arabic spoken by mohhammed and them. Think about reading Chauncer. We can learn it in 12th century english, but we don't really knows what it says until we translate it, which makes it lose its original meaning...the same with the quran...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what you said about the arabic Language is a lie. It is the exact same arabic now as then, and why don't you try being more respectful to people older than you , son.

 

P.S. Jesus spoke aramaic, look it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oy vey...

 

 

so lets see...linguists, etymologists, fields studied globally, have this great conspiracy aginst arabs to instill the belief that arabic, along with all other languages, evolved? So the turth is, all other languages evolved except arabic? hmmmm. And your proof, in a book written in a dead language? hmmmmm...

 

and yes I know what language was spoken in that region at that time. Actually I know all the different languages spoken in that area at that time. Demotic Greek was the lingua franca of the Medditeranean world at that time, so most people, including Jesus, probably knew that too...

 

 

but I don't understand why when you are confronted with something that doesn't jive with your belief system, you just dismiss it as "lies"? When I am confronted with new ideas, theories etc etc, I investigate it to the nth degree. Remember your Hegal. If a new idea doesn't agree with my thinking I don't dismiss it as lies. Take quantum theory. I don't really understand it and what I understand I don't really agree with. But I don't just dismiss it as "lies." I will continue to investigate and see what scientists etc can propose in the years to come...

 

 

so back to the topic...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In many ways I appreciate this~

 

Ok, I can see being considered as Christian Right propoganda,

used to encourage the belief that something else is the meaning or cause of all of this..

but science is itself a religion..

the religion of physics and samsara..

but other conventional religions actually depth into the meta-physical;

which supersedes all that is tangible..

 

It is not said that the teachers are to abandon this theory of evolution,

but that they must suggest and/or explain other arguements to the students..

 

To many many people in this world,

that theory is as abstract as the next religions god..

 

Reality is in the eye of the beholder..

and if you have'nt seen or made those experiments yourself

than you too should hear an other side to that story...

 

 

 

aum.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seriously dawood your constant preaching isnt going to convert anyone it just makes people aware of the fact that youre an annoying little zealot.

 

and the link that was first posted in thsi thread doesnt work anymore can someone give me the jist of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

religion truly is the downfall of mankind

i think it's so sad that people could be so deluded.

 

i kind of think of mother nature as God.

is it really so hard to believe that these things took millions of years to be produced out of earth? and all the materials she posseses?

and that no thing had to wave a magic wand to make it happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for a 12ozProphet forum account or sign in to comment

You need to be a forum member in order to comment. Forum accounts are separate from shop accounts.

Create an account

Register to become a 12ozProphet forum member.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×