school mandates changes to evolution.

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Th3 b0ng 1337, Nov 12, 2004.

  1. I never said what they were doing in ths school in Penn is right... all I said is that they should only biefly introduce intellegent design as another theory that some people believe.
  2. I don't think very many people would have a problem with that, so long as they are very up front about the lack of evidence.
  3. They teach Evolution as "How man evolved from lower life forms" in the States, and that Evolution requires the Universe to form naturally? Even though Science is strictly methodical naturalism, it places no restrictions on Gods of any sort.

    If this is what America teaches as Evolution, no wonder so many are vehemently opposed to it.
  4. there was an interview about this i saw, with a a few scientists on MSNBC a few nights ago.
  5. yeah and intelligent design doesnt automaticaly mean the God of your precious bible you stupid #$%#ing idiot
  6. Considering that you created this thread, you really have contributed bery little to it.
  7. i threw in my 2 cents at the beginning of the thread
  8. that was nowhere close to what i was taught about evolution. not to mention there wasnt a single word put in edgewise about creation.
  9. Anyone who would reject religion simply because it's "not scientific" is not religious, regardless of what their faith suggests.
  10. God did create earth, I think its great their finally teaching it right. (Oh and its the same god thats in the bible. You just wont find out till after you die.)
  11. shut the #$%# up
  12. ill definately agree with you on that.
  13. I was wondering when you'd show up in this thread.
  14. Yes, that is true, but it doesn't mean the two are mutually exclusive.
  15. I don't think that's happened yet in this thread.
  16. <A BORDER="0" HREF=""><IMG BORDER="0" SRC=""></A>

    as far as im concerned, there's no debate here. politicizing science the way creationists do is just as bad as capitalizing religion.

    until their theories get more proof and likeliness of probability much as evolution has, i see no reason to give them a second of attention in the classroom. especially when the vast majority of the scientific community doesnt even bother with that. i mean, what is the percentage of paleontologists, archaeologists, and especially ANTHROPOLOGISTS, that are serious creationists? a minority.

    if people want to believe and support creationism, learn it and teach it in bible school. being that each religion has its own idea of creation, then that's where they should stay until they can be more factually backed-up.
  17. By serious creationists, you mean YEC? In the relevant fields it is far less than 1%.
  18. i mean anyone who honestly does not believe in the commonly-held notion of the formation of earth and man, among other things.
  19. the widely accepted theory of ether's existence as a carrier of electromagnetic radiation was discarded after relativity.
  20. The theory of relativity is 99 years old. Just BARELY qualifies...

    EDIT: Made it less confusing.
  21. Although it could be argued that Aether was all but done after the Micheal-Morley experiment (1887) and the Trouton-Noble experiment (1903), you're right, I'd forgotten about that.

Share This Page