Is creationism in the classroom constitutional?
Despite what the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Indiana says, a pro-family advocate assures that a bill pending in the Indiana Legislature that would allow public schools to teach about creationism is constitutional.
The one-sentence bill, proposed by Republican Sen. Dennis Kruse, passed 8-2 in the Senate’s Education Committee, but the ACLU says it will never stand up in court. However, as Curt Smith of the Indiana Family Institute points out, teaching creationism would be optional.
“It allows the governing body of a school corporation, which is typically the school board, to say We want to have a more balanced approached in our science so that students come out with a healthy respect for other opinions,” he explains.
Smith doubts there is enough time this session to get the measure through the legislature, but he does think there is a good chance it will pass in 2013.
Continue reading at www.onenewsnow.com
I Pray that this will pass, Why not every thing else is taught. We teach that there were cave men and women which they claim they evolved from man over millions of years. It's important to teach the truth and the truth is found in the Bible. That God created everything, MAN, WOMEN, Creatures in the sea , On Land and of the Air. No Evelotion.
-GARYThere was a similar case in Kansas in the 90's. The creationists lost because they could not give any scientific evidence to support creationism.
Besides the religious beliefs on creation, there are also many creationists believe that aliens came to our planet and seeded all life here.
-davesYes, the extraterrestrial is called Jehovah. He seeded life on this planet. The proof of His handiwork is all around us.
-PaulInteresting they lost because there is no scientific proof of evolution, either. Battle of the faiths.
-PaulPaul wrote: "there is no scientific proof of evolution"
There isn't any "proof" for any scientific theories… what there is is EVIDENCE, lots and lots of evidence from various fields like genetics, paleontology, geology, etc… "proof" is for alcohol and maths, not science.
-jatheistWhere they were they looking for proof?? Everything in the world is proof. There in nothing in the world that was made by man. He took the things that GOD made and fashioned things from them and claimed that he made them. No?? How about an automobile?. Where did the steal, the rubber etc. come from.Where did wood for houses come from, etc. etc. Computers? TV's? Sound and pictures that go through the air. It can be cut off in one second to the point you can't even start up a car, all the electricity can be off in a flash. What would we do or what will we do when that happens??? How can you explain these things if GOD did make them? HE IS HERE, HE WILL BE HERE WHEN WE ARE NO MORE. One shall be taken, one shall be left. What will happen if the airplane pilot is taken, the driver of a speeding car. Won't happen? Can you prove that?? Oh yes, I know you can come up with some hogwash, but prove it!!!! I am looking for proof??
-MyrtlelinderYou spelled "evilution" wrong, Gary….
-Blond1Who cares if evolution is spell wrong??????????
-MyrtlelinderI thought it says no law for or against religion it doesn't say where or pic area's.
-ronald barnesronald the First admendment Sayes states Congress shmake no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereofor abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redressof grievances. In other wards the Government is to Absoluitly Make No damd laws to infrenge against Evan a small part of we the peoples aarights in the Intire Bill Of Rights Otherwise we the People Reserve the Right to Through of Any Government Takeover of we the peoples Rights the Government Becomes a Trader Of we the People whin they Overstep there Athority.and they will be thron out By whatever Means Avalable by force like our ancesters Did EVAN if By Revalution.
-robert williamsIf there can be "No damd laws to infrenge against Evan a small part of we the peoples aarights in the Intire Bill Of Rights", then you must believe it is acceptable to practice ritual human sacrifice in religious practices, correct? After all, creating laws against that would be to "infrenge against Evan a small part of we the peoples aarights in the Intire Bill Of Rights".
How about the Mormons and plural marriage? Should they be allowed to have multiple wives? After all, their religion requires it.
-Jeff DixonRon Paul, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich would all agree with your last paragraph
-PaulNo, Ron Paul would say that religion can be practiced in any manner except that which violates property rights. Hence human sacrifice violates property rights of humans. So no you are wrong.
-Deep_ThinkerSurely if they can teach children what homosexuality is and all about, as they plan to do in some places, (I have read this) they can teach about the creation of the universe and who the CREATOR is.
-MyrtlelinderWhat doesn't the SCOTUS understand????? The government cannot .promote religion BUT neither can it restrict it.
-blackhawkThis crap has gone on long enough. Anti God in schools has produced young people like OWS .God is P.O.ed as He should.
Time to tell the ACLU and athiests to shut up.
People have been telling the atheists and the ACLU to shut up for years. We just do not listen. We also understand the Constitution better which is why we continue to win these legal battles in court. But feel free to keep jousting at windmills.
-Jeff DixonJef,f you may not believe i HIM but "GOD HAS YOUR NUMBER."There is nothing about you that HE does not know. I hope one day that you will realize this and make the changes needed in your live. You may think your "brilliant barbs" make a difference. They may but the difference is against you not for your good.
-MyrtlelinderWell, then he is welcome to call me anytime.
-Jeff DixonHe already has, but you didn't respond, now you have been given over to your judgement. You have been given over to be a reprobate with no chance of ever knowing the truth. You see God has answered your prayers Jeff.
-JoeMyrickSure he did. (eyes roll)
-Jeff DixonHey Jeff! Good to see you're still infecting this site with rationality, logic and truth! Keep up the good work!
-jatheistGood to hear from you. The site has always benefited from your insights.
-Jeff DixonYeah like a flea… not important and annoying…
-MelodyWell jathiest so far there has been no rationality here,just the same miss inform people like yourself and Jeff,That is affraid or willing to hear the truth. Twisting the truth to make your selfs feel better.
-DaveJoe, I disagree because Jeff has until his dying breath to believe in Jesus Christ as his savior. IF he has hardended his "heart" as the Phoaroh of Moses's day then it is too late for him but no man knows that. Let us all pray that he will see the truth before it is too late.
-msjallenII Pet 3:9 -The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance (change of mind towards Him).
John 3:15 so that WHOEVER BELIEVES will in Him have eternal life.
Jeff, you can see now why I did not bother getting into a long debate with you. You add nothing, you take cheap shots at people. Are you not suppose to be in school? These conversations are for adults, son. Please go back to face book and tell your peers about us. You really waste time here.
-millergroup2He doesn't need your permission… but listen for the message….
-MelodyGod Has, but you refuse to listen or acknowlegde him, you have turn you back like you would do to someone that is NOT cool or someone that you did NOT like.
So maybe it is time to LISTEN and grow up.
-DaveYou speak for the atheist? The Aclu…. everyone knows these people behind the scenes have nothing to do about rights, religious or otherwise…. and is about money…. defund this organization…. and the group will die. We all know where the power is… and it is getting ready to crush this organization. God and faith will NEVER be censored or silenced… NEVER.
-MelodyAnd you claim you know the constitution better but you twist the truth like always. Again you think your smarter than million of other people and you don't even understand what you put on this site or the links.
-DaveI am getting to have the attitude that LT COL Allen has ,'Take your propaganda to the ocean take it to some other country ,but take it the hell out of America. If these fools can teach that their ancesters came from monkeys,(which I do beleive theirs did) then we should be able to teach our kids that God created us in his image. Most of these fools from the ACLU and the rest act like they still swing arround from tree to tree .
-skipfossChrist said it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Surely a rich man will enter therein before a lawyer. And a lawyer before a politician.
-DonYou can teach that to your kids – no one is stopping you. Just don't force it on other peoples kids.
-davesEveryone thinks of the Bible when they think of creationism, and I believe the Bible account of creation, but there is a scientific side of creationism as well.
Run the communistic scum bags out of the country. There is no counting how much money these dirt bags have cost the tax payers of America with senseless law suits. There needs to be a stop put to their non sense.
-KnowTheTruthTodayKnowTheTruth wrote: "there is a scientific side of creationism as well."
If you can actually present some science to support creationism you would be the first. Are you interested in your nobel prize? Are you going to enlighten us with this "scientific side of creationism"?
In court case after court case – the SCOTUS has ruled that creationism is religion and NOT science. Why do school boards like wasting their precious budgets on losing lawsuits?
Look up Kitzmiller vs. Dover for the last such case:
-jatheisthttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_…
Can you jathiest? So far there is no sciencetist that agrees on how everything was created. You don't even know.
So far there has been NO proof on how the earth became, ask any sciencetist,They will tell it is all speculated.
Let me ask you this.
So you think there nothing more than what there is in your life? There is No life force and when you dye you just become dust? Your the ultimate being of this earth and life?
-DaveWhat else would you expect? What's the point of somebody with Alzheimers living for eternity – they don't know squat and don't remember squat. Like you haven't remembered how to spell.
Nobody has produced ANY science about creation. At least they ware working on it. You guys cannot even agree on your inerrant bible or god.
-Chris PTalk about spelling there Christ, Before making comment like this you Better proof read.
-DaveHey, Chris, congratulations. Dave thinks you are Christ.
-Jeff DixonI believe that all truth should taught in the schools, creationism included. Why should it not be taught, just because of the people who do not recognize the fact that the CREATOR created the heavens and the earth and everything here. Why does the ACLU want to run and rule the earth, it is so obvious they had nothing to do with the creation. They only create "EVIL" by trying to force their way.
I believe the CREATOR has a special place prepared for the ACLU!!
-MyrtlelinderWhich creation account would you want taught in this classroom? The Norse one? Perhaps the Navajo one? Maybe you want the Mayan or the Egyptian or the Chinese or the Hawaiian one? There are many different creation stories found all over the world. However, I am pretty sure you only mean the Christian creation story, right? But how is that teaching ALL truth?
Here is a link to many different creation stories. Since you seem to like reading myths, you should love this site.
http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html
The reality is teaching creation accounts is not teaching truth, it is teaching myths.
We do not teach astrology along side astronomy to be fair. We do not teach alchemy along side chemisty to be fair. Why? Because they are not viable alternatives. Well, neither is creation a viable alternative to evolution.
Evolution is the best documented theory in science. there is more evidence for evolution that germ theory, atomic theory or the theory of gravity.
-Jeff DixonJEFF again evolution has NO again I repeat NO proof it ever happen, It is a opinion, The science has tried but they keep on manipulating the evidence to try and prove that evolution happen. Like grinding bones to fit the way the sciencetist want to make a name for them self. They sure did as false science.
Again believe what you want but until you can prove that evolutuion is real science the proof is all around us. Open your ears and eyes. There IS NO way this earth and life came by chance. There is NO WAY!
-DaveYou sir are lying. You are evidence of evolution. You can produce genetic experiments that are repeatable for fruit flies.
-Chris PI am sorry that you are so ignorant about biology.
Chris NO I am NOT evidence, I did NOT come from apes, And if you say it our DNA matches, yeah so Our DNA match the trees also98%. So there is NO proof , wake up and Grow up.
-DaveGrinding bones? I suspect you have been reading fairy tales again.
In the Jacobs version of the story Jack is a young lad living with his widowed mother. Their only means of income is a cow. When this cow stops giving milk one morning, Jack is sent to the market to sell it. On the way to the market he meets an old man who offers to give him "magic" beans in exchange for the cow.
Jack takes the beans but when he arrives home with no money, his mother gets angry and throws the beans out the window and sends Jack to bed without supper.
As Jack sleeps, the beans grow into a gigantic beanstalk. Jack climbs the bean stalk and arrives in a land high up in the sky where he follows a road to a house, which is the home of an ogre. He enters the house and asks the ogre's wife for food. She gives him food, but the ogre returns and senses that a human is nearby:
Fee-fi-fo-fum!
I smell the blood of an Englishman?
Be he 'live, or be he dead,
I'll grind his bones to make my bread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_and_the_Beansta…
But this has as much basis in reality as any of the Christian myths.
-Jeff DixonOh Jeff Your reading to read again. That Good it is progress.
-DaveLearning to read.
-DaveIt is called the theory of evolution NOT the law of evolution!!! Why is it called a theory? Because it cannot be REPRODUCED or repeated …therefore it is a theory just as mythological as the BIG BANG THEORY or any other man made concept…it is not a scientific law. If you want to think you are a descendant of a monkey…have at it moron! I chose to believe what Genius says not some man made fairy tale. Although Michelle Obama can perhaps change my thinking.
-Bo KassaBo wrote: "Why is it called a theory?"
Because a ~scientific~ theory is the highest level a scientific idea can achieve! An idea which holds promise is presented. If tests can be formulated which would falsify this "idea" it becomes an hypothesis. If this hypothesis passes enough reproducable tests (while failing NONE) it moves up to the "theory" level.
Some notable ~just~ theories which you likely accept:
- Germ theory of disease
- Atomic theory
- theory of gravity
These are also scientific theories – and whether you like it or not there is MORE evidence supporting the theory of evolution than for all 3 of those theories combined…
Bo cont'd: "Although Michelle Obama can perhaps change my thinking."
Wow. Classy and ignorant… your family must be proud.
-jatheistCreationism is not legal to be taught in science classes because it is unsupportable garbage. Even the Christians cannot agree on which creation story is the right one.
There is no science to creationism just dishonesty on the part of Christians – if it isn't dishonesty then it is pure stupidity. Too dumb to know that they don't know what the hell they are talking about.
You people holding this country back with this idiocy – no better than having the country run by radical Muslims.
-ChrisI believe it take more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than in Creationism. The proof is all around us.
-NomadDaveNomadDave wrote: "I believe it take more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than…"
That is because you are wholly ignorant regarding evolution. There is no "faith" involved – it's called accepting the evidence and where it leads.
Science doens't take faith to accept – it just takes knowledge.
-jatheistWhat science jathiest there is alot more evidence on creation then there is evolutions and science still has NOT provide the science to prove eveolution happen.
-Davedave, are you ever going to be able to ask a coherent question? I am still wondering when the brain damage occurred?
-Jeff DixonAgain jeff you Can NOT understand a coherent question or even answer one. Your to much into your self. When you come out of that hole that you in then maybe we can have a real debate, but until then I be waiting, but NOT holding my breathe.
-DaveDave wrote: "jeff you Can NOT understand a coherent question or even answer one"
That's rich coming from a person who writes at a 3rd grade level…
-jatheistWhat your excuse jathiest? You can Not even comprehend your own comments.
-Davejatheist, where is the evidence for evolution, please?
-PaulThere are no transitional forms in the world today, nor in the fossil record – none in the present, none in the past.
The Cambrian "explosion of life" shows the appearance of fully formed life forms all at once, and no transition of life from single cell to complex organism to varied lifeforms. The evidence is sorely lacking and renders belief in evolution nothing more than a blind faith.
Wrong;
The Cambrian Explosion:
For most of the nearly 4 billion years that life has existed on Earth, evolution produced little beyond bacteria, plankton, and multi-celled algae. But beginning about 600 million years ago in the Precambrian, the fossil record speaks of more rapid change. First, there was the rise and fall of mysterious creatures of the Ediacaran fauna, named for the fossil site in Australia where they were first discovered. Some of these animals may have belonged to groups that survive today, but others don't seem at all related to animals we know.
Then, between about 570 and 530 million years ago, another burst of diversification occurred, with the eventual appearance of the lineages of almost all animals living today. This stunning and unique evolutionary flowering is termed the "Cambrian explosion," taking the name of the geological age in whose early part it occurred. But it was not as rapid as an explosion: the changes seems to have happened in a range of about 30 million years, and some stages took 5 to 10 million years.
-Jeff Dixonhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_…
WOW jeff you do not even know what your saying, read again it all opinionated, NO PROOF!!
Nice try though.
-DaveIt amazes me that someone can uncritically accept the bible/koran as divine – but then refuses to accept scientific evidence when it's presented to them… it's the very definition of unreasonable.
-jatheistWhere jathiest where is the evidence, It is all theories and opinions. NOTHING is back up their claims.
-DavePaul asked: "jatheist, where is the evidence for evolution, please?"
The best place to start, IMO, is with talkorigins.org. Pandasthumb.org is also a good online resource. I also like perusing http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.htm….
Paul wrote: "There are no transitional forms in the world today"
You are either extremly ignorant or you are lying (my guess is ignorance). For an excellent summary of one of many transitional fossils look at:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtra…
I wish more folks were interested in actually learning about the wonders of our world and weren't content ignoring the evidence to protect their fragile beliefs…
-jatheistAgain jathiest Just like Jeff your stuck on your self and like hear your talk about pinionate info with NO PROOF!!
-DaveReason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all.-G. K. Chesterton
-cyoderWhere – I see proof of evolution every day – are you blind? Do you not notice genetic features like red hair? Genetic diseases like breast cancer.
-Chris PThe ignorance of you atheists is absolutely astounding. Read hair is proof of things like a donkey or monkey turning into a man? It's more like foolish men denying clear evidence of God and acting like donkeys or monkieys: deEvolution
-RobertoAre you trying to read hair?
-Jeff DixonChris? Breast cancer is NOT Genetic, It is eviroment, research.
-DaveThose have nothing to do with evolution.
-cyoderThere is a lot of stupidity in this world today, which is destroying it, but it isn't "GOD;S CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT!!" It should be taught as all other truths should be taught.
-MyrtlelinderYes, there is much stupidity in this world. It is sad that the Christians contribute to so much of it.
-Jeff DixonLook INTO the Mirror Jeff, By percentage wise athiest is the reasons for all of the stupidity and only think of them selfs.
-DaveChris,contrary to your comment,evolution has been proven and supported through fossils,preserved carcasses,etc.i also believe in creationism but science has proven that evolution has played a large part in it as well.
-wayne aScience has never proven evolution. It has never been observed in the present nor in the past. As the fossil record clearly indicates, life appeared all-at-once.
-PaulRubbish. You sir are an ignorant liar. It is proven everyday. The food you eat, your relatives, – everything to do with life proves evolution.
When are you Christians going to get and education and learn what is going on around you. You are so painfully dumb.
-Chris PChris We do everyday. unlike you and a few others that refuse to think BIGGER than your selfs.
What we Christian are say here that your life can be bigger if you allow it and there so much more to life than what your living Now. Where you can look at life that GOES BEYOND your dreams,But you refuse to listen.
-DaveOh Chris, what you have stated is NOT proof of evolution not at all.
-DaveExplain please. How does our food prove evolution? What you are saying strikes me as being extrmely irrelevant.
-cyoderwrong
The Cambrian Explosion:
For most of the nearly 4 billion years that life has existed on Earth, evolution produced little beyond bacteria, plankton, and multi-celled algae. But beginning about 600 million years ago in the Precambrian, the fossil record speaks of more rapid change. First, there was the rise and fall of mysterious creatures of the Ediacaran fauna, named for the fossil site in Australia where they were first discovered. Some of these animals may have belonged to groups that survive today, but others don't seem at all related to animals we know.
Then, between about 570 and 530 million years ago, another burst of diversification occurred, with the eventual appearance of the lineages of almost all animals living today. This stunning and unique evolutionary flowering is termed the "Cambrian explosion," taking the name of the geological age in whose early part it occurred. But it was not as rapid as an explosion: the changes seems to have happened in a range of about 30 million years, and some stages took 5 to 10 million years.
-Jeff Dixonhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_…
Please post the tree of evolutionary progress for 1,000 species, since you have proof. Then show me the one for the 100,000 species. There's none, because there's no fossil links for anything evolving from one thing to another, much less something to man.
-RobertoIt would be exceedingly difficult to summarize all of the arguments for evolution in a concise fashion here. However, the most important point to remember is that evolution theory, like all scientific theories, was originally a solution to a problem. What's remarkable about anti-evolution propaganda is that it never acknowledges this fact, and so never takes on the burden of producing a better explanation for that original problem.
So what was this original problem that evolution theory was invented to solve? It's called the Linnaean Taxonomy, named after Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778). If you are not familiar with the term, it is the categorizations of plant and animal species into a hierarchical structure. This structure has 7 layers: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species. Now, the remarkable thing about this system is that the early naturalists classified animals into a hierarchical "family tree" structure long before the theory of evolution was proposed. In other words, all naturalists agreed long before Darwin that the animal kingdom appeared to be a family tree.
Now the question becomes: why did they do that? The theory of evolution did not exist yet, so they obviously didn't do it to please "evolutionists", as creationists are wont to call them. What was their reasoning? Well here's where we run into an interesting coincidence in the animal kingdom: the appearance and development of animal features also looks like a family tree. In other words, you can take any given feature and trace its appearance, in various levels of complexity, along lines of animal species. Sometimes a feature will change in one direction for one branch of the tree and another direction for the other branch of the tree, and as you examine more complex organisms on any given branch, the two diverging features always (I must repeat this: ALWAYS) stay that way. They never jump back and forth; while features can jump between bacteria due to genetic material exchange (they're so small that they can literally swap pieces of DNA), we have never observed a feature exchange between complex organisms. There is no reason why an engineer would steadfastly refuse to take features from one product line and use them in another, so why would this be the case for an engineered biosystem?
This is a classic example of a problem in need of a solution. It is not enough to classify it as coincidence, not when it is so incredibly consistent. And the problem gets worse: when those early naturalists examined the geographical distribution of the animal kingdom's "family tree", they discovered yet another impossibly unlikely "coincidence": species which appeared to be very close to one another on the family tree were also geographically close to one another. And whenever someone found what appeared to be an exception to this rule, they discovered a migratory path. Centuries later, the rule is unchanged: when species show a biological connection, they also show a geographical connection.
The significance of these two intertwined globe-spanning coincidences cannot be overstated: it was an enormous problem for taxonomy. If someone had indeed designed and created these species, he went to enormous lengths to make them appear to be related, by carefully arranging their structures and geography to match! Why would he do this? There was no intrinsic need for this, as we have proven in the last century by artificially moving species outside their natural habitat and seeing that in many cases, they thrive in far-off environments. There was no intrinsic need for features to be arranged in a hierarchical fashion, or for structural proximity to invariably mirror geographical proximity. So why would the designer do this? No one ever provided an answer … until Darwin.
This, then, is the single largest argument for evolution: it is a solution to a problem that no other theory can explain. Creationists often try to argue that God could have chosen to make the animal kingdom look that way, but they can't explain why or how. And if they can't explain why or how, then they actually do not have an explanation. Can anyone explain how you would derive the prediction of a "family tree" animal kingdom from the idea of God? It's not enough to say that God reused previous designs; that would explain the similarities but not the divisions in the family tree. The Linnaean taxonomy is a family tree, not a family sponge. Only evolution offers a real explanation: the kind of explanation where you can start from its mechanism and use it to logically work forward to predict the outcome.
-Jeff Dixonhttp://www.creationtheory.org/Introduction/Page04…
All opinionated! Jeff NO PROOF. Where the science to prove this theory? NONE!
-DaveFor the umpteenth time: science doesn't deal in "proofs" – that's for alcohol and maths. Science deals with facts, and presents theories to explain these facts.
Some notable ~just~ theories in science:
- germ theory of disease
- theory of gravity
- atomic theory
- quantum theory
etc…
None of these "theories" have been "proven" because that isn't how science works… science deals with "evidence" not "proof".
Do you accept the theory of gravity? Evolution theory has ~more~ evidence backing it up than the theory of gravity – but gravity doesn't threaten your cherished religious beliefs so you likely accept it.
-jatheistOk Smarty PANT where the facts, There is NONE!! All Theories to TRY to explain BUT NO FACTS.
-DaveYes Gravity is IN the Bible.
the theory of gravity is a misnomer it has been prove yo be a law of science.
-Bo Kassaall of your points are totally mute to this discusssion. Where is the proof of evolution.when is the last time you saw a money turning into a man…..never!!! Never happened never will.
Bo wrote: "the theory of gravity is a misnomer it has been prove yo be a law of science."
That is a misunderstanding of ~yours~ Bo… the "theory of gravity" explains the fact of gravity. That's how science works – theories explain facts. Evolution is both a fact (witnessed daily in the lab and in nature) and a theory (the explanation of these facts).
Your continued misunderstanding of the basic scientific process that theories ARE NEVER "proven" shows your ignorance is willful on your part. The theory of gravity hasn't be "proven" – it has passed tests and shown to be reliable, but it hasn't been "proven".
"monkey to man" – if somone saw a monkey turn into a man this would FALSIFY the theory of evolution. The entire theory would need to be thrown on the junk pile because there is no way a monkey can turn into a man via evolutionart processes. This "monkey turning into a man" meme is an excellent way to gauge a person's scientific understanding of evolution – in your case, Bo, you fail.
-jatheistJatheist,
-Bo KassaYou don't understand the basic definitions of terms used in a scientific discussion.
Evolution has NEVER been proven in a lab….where are the creation made in the lab?
I think your self enhancing attitude towards the existence of God is clearly shown by your user name. Your lack of true knowledge and lack of accepting the truth cries out loudly for a self- evaluation before your judgement day arrives. Having taught for a number of years I have known many folks like you…we call them lost for more then one reason. May you someday see the light.
Jeff, that is one of the best outlines for Creationism I've read in a long time. Darwin was a creationist who named his book "Origin of the Species". God's Lab Notes records "each creature will reproduce after it's own kind". Thatnot only predicts a "family tree", it established a family tree" Is there any evidence of a non-living substance reproducing. Only a living thing can reproduce life. God is a living thing. Luke a physician wrote in the "Best Seller of Time, "In Him we live and move and exist".
-ColpatThere are huge gaps in the fossil records. Many of the fossils that should be there if evolution were true aren't there.
-cyodercyoder wrote: "Many of the fossils that should be there…"
Should be ~where~ exactly? Fossils are rare, to hold the naive belief that every single transition between every single animal should be available is ludicrous… unless you have dug up the entire earth you can't say they aren't "there" – you can only say they haven't been found yet. Many won't ever be found, but so what? That doesn't automatically mean that "god did it" suddenly becomes a reasonable position.
And none of that denegrates the wonderful transitional fossils we ~do~ have. How does you creationist belief explain the many transitional fossils that we do have?
-jatheistEven By your own stander jathiest then there is NO FACTS, it is all opinioniated, but where creation is facts are showing up every where, In fossils and to river beds,
-DaveReading the posts from Dave is like listening to a five year old having a temper tantrum. And without their ability to communicate.
-Jeff DixonNo Chris people like your self are by spreading lies, That because your scared and refuse to hear the truth.
-DaveWhat truth. Are you stupidly ignorant to not understand cattle breeding or inherited traits in humans. That susceptibility to breast cancer and other diseases is inherited.
I cringe at the lack of knowledge.
-Chris PChris again I will tell,First breast cancer is NOT inherited, it is enviroment, Cattle bread is NO proof, it is alter by Man,
You want knowledge? Open your mind to something BIGGER than you, Then you will really will learn and learn more than you can handle. Your stuck on your selfs to really understand life it self.
-DaveI have never had cattle bread. Sounds terrible.
-Jeff DixonI dunno Jeff… cattle bread sounds kinda yummy to me!
-jatheistWhat Federal Law will be cited to try the teacher accused of teaching “Creationism”?
-ColpatScientific Facts are not based on legislation. We don’t ask Congress or SCOTUS to define “energy”, “gravity”, render an opinion on 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Rather we have agreed to use the Scientific Method. Almost all textbooks begin address this in the first chapter.
Therefore it is impossible to teach a class about the “Origin of the Universe” or “Origin of Life” without teaching evolution, creation or intelligent design,
But they will ONLY ALLOW teaching 1 of the 3 choices you state: evolution, the old Greek myth (like the other Greek idea that the Earth was the center of the universe- which tricked the Catholic church). They are all Theories, none can ever be proven, and can all be taught. ID or creation will likely win, as the evidence has far fewer problems than neoDarwinism.
-RobertoRoberto wrote: "ID or creation will likely win, as the evidence has far fewer problems…"
Can you actually present some of this "evidence" you claim is there for creationism/ID? I'd love to see what passes for "evidence" in your world…
-jatheistThere has been evidence real proof that you can touch,smell and even feel, BUT again jathiest like others you refuse and believe your own lies of opinions. Some day you will grow up but hope it will not be to late.
-DaveDave wrote: "There has been evidence real proof that you can touch,smell and even feel, BUT…"
Ah yes… the famous "BUT"…
It's funny how often I'm told that there is evidence for creationism/ID and yet not one single person has ever presented a single piece of this evidence. Add "Dave" to the list for claiming there is evidence and then forgetting (yeah right) to present any…
-jatheistBut out of context there jathiest, again twist and turn so you can feel good about your self.
Your just a Poppet, you refuse to think Bigger, to think better than other than your selfs.
-DaveProve me wrong then Dave… present this "evidence" you claim to have which supports creationism.
Of course you don't have any.. as will be evident when you reply to this comment with your usual '…you just worship yourself, evolution is an opinion…' crap.
-jatheistOf course your reply will be riddled with spelling and grammar mistakes – but that'll be the gist of it.
Yes, it is constitutional to teach creationism in schools. It is impossible to not teach creationism. The statement by Chris "Creationism is not legal to be to be taught in science classes" is false. What federal law would you cite to charge a science teacher? Since all the ranting is based on a false premise, I choose to consider the source and ignore it.
-ColpatI wonder why EVERY SINGLE court case involving teaching creationism/ID in public science classrooms has always had the same result – that it's unconstitutional and illegal. Perhaps they just needed ~your~ legal expertise eh Colpat?
-jatheistBecause of people like ur slef twist the 1st admendment to fit their needs and wants.
-DaveThere are several incompatible theories of evolution around, such as Darwinism and punctuated equilibrium, and scientists cannot agree on which is the right one. If prominent paleontologists such as Stephen Jay Gould are correct, then Darwin was wrong, or vice-versa.
-cyoderMake it fair, teach both CREATION and Evelution in the classroom.
-Byron PotterHow can you teach creationism? There is nothing there but a few sentences in Genesis. And then – WHICH creation story?
What other made up fairy tales should we teach kids?
-Chris PEvolution? Why do we not have monkey people or animal people or fish people of all degrees if there is such a thing as evolution. When and why did evolving end??
-MyrtlelinderWhen it reaches a dead end like you!
-SteveWe do have monkey people. All people are descended from other ape like creatures. We also have animal people since all people are animals. Fish people do not exist since humans are not direct descendants of fish.
-Jeff DixonDarwinism/Darwinian evolution belongs in science class – as a theory. It promotes teaching of scientific method and attention to data. Creationism belongs in religious 'sabbath schools' and possibly in some History classes involving overview of various faiths in the world, but not in Science class; both should also have access to after-school activities in public facilities. Both Darwinism and various religious creation stories should be considered theories and taught and respected as such. Exposure to the ideas of Natural Selection alongside the celestial cow licking a primordial giant free of ice, a world riding the backs of elephants and turtles, and the garden of Eden sounds like balance to me…
-MalikTous"Evolution" does not have enough solid support to call it a theory; it has no more force thatn a hypothesis does.
-JohnnyWhat a bunch of clowns out today. No clue about science here. Dumb as rocks.
You can prove it in an experiment you fool. It's been documented over and over. You can predict what happens.
Duh.
-Chris PEvolution is a failed hypothesis, not a theory. Theories need to be able to be shown true in many cases. Yet there is not one.
-PaulAnd you have no clue about science whatsoever. You people are so dumb that you don't know how dumb you are. Clueless about the basics of life.
-Chris PWhat a brilliant statement there Chris. Your insight is just blinding!
-Joe AnzilottiThe sad part about Chris is that he is actually talking about himself when he says the things he does about other people on this site. He doesn't have a clue and it means nothing to try to respond to his incoherent ramblings. All we can do is pray that he will come to know the truth and believe in Jesus Christ as his savior; the one who died on the cross for his sins.
-msjallenAnd the sad thing about you is that you actually believe that an all knowing god could create a universe where things fall apart.
An all knowing god would know exactly what would be a problem with his universe and never allow it to occur in the first place.
But, Christians have never been known for their ability to rationalize.
-Jeff DixonAgain Jeff LOOK into the Mirror,Hum on every comment you have put here has NO FACTS, NO MERITS and LACK In by your standers LACK OF SCIENCE
-DaveBiblical creationism and scientific species evolution are NOT incompatable, they have been made such only by a few on both sides displaying their frankly un-American rabid intolerance. Long ago I personally reconciled my faith with science. God is the creator and our world is his laboratory where evolution is allowed to naturally occur under His watchful eye. The evolution experiment went well with lesser forms of life but God was not satisfied in the quest to evolve a higher primate. For more than a century science has sought in vain the 'missing link' in man's evolutionary chain … it does not exist for God ended that experiment to instead create in His own image. Man is God's ultimate and favored creation, guided through the process of evolution by His hand, gifted with free will and the task of management over all other of His works.
-agbjrThousands of "missing links" have been found.
-davesPlease give two examples.
-JohnnyThere's no point. Everytime one is found, the creationists claim there's now two more missing links than before (one on each side of the one just found). A wise man contendeth not with fools.
-SteveNo Steve everytime one is found evolutionist tamper with it to fit their opinions and theories. That what is sad.
-DaveLike with Lucy, The sciencetist that found her was caught grinding bones to get her to stand upright and also other parts of her to look more like ape or human. And acourse the latest when they found something in australia in a cave and clame it was a missing link to eveolution but later found it was tampered with old bone and laid with a 20th cent ape,
-DaveJohnny asked: "Please give two examples."
Transitionals from reptile to birds:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html
Transitional from land mammal to whale:
-jatheisthttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.htm…
jathiest? Those are theories and opinions. NO FACTS and again By your standard lack OF SCIENCE.
-Davewhat were the Missing links? and when?
-Dave…and at midnight, the coach turns back into a pumpkin, and the coachmen into rats. Your reconciliation, @agbjr, is nothing more than a fairy tale of compromise that denies truth.
-PaulIt seems to me, If the Obama administration will be with-holding federal funding from Roman Catholic schools because tof the churches fundamental beliefs on abortion, that creationalism being taught in the schools will not make the cut either. Personally I believe religion does not belong in the public schools. Religion and I mean all religions are not a public school function it is rather the function of the church and the family. I can see no other fair way of handling this problem, this is what we have evolved tofrom our very simple beginnings. Sad but true.
-bluqebluqe wrote: "If the Obama administration will be with-holding federal funding from Roman Catholic schools because tof the churches fundamental beliefs on abortion"
What are you talking about?? I've seen no evidence that this is happening… I think you're thinking of Catholic ~hospitals~ that refuse to do abortions or referals for abortions.
bluqe cont'd: "creationalism being taught in the schools will not make the cut either."
This is true. You only need to look at the court rulings in previous cases to understand this. The SCOTUS has always ruled that creationism and it's offshoot (ID) are not acceptable in public school science classes.
-jatheistDoes the Government even fund religious schools?
-davesJathiest as usual brind and death so you can feel good about your self.
-DaveI agree, bluqe, because there are too many unbelievers who would teach the fact of creation by God incorrectly. Our homes and churches should teach Biblical truths; not unbelievers. Creation was not taught in the schools when I attended in the '50s since most people in my area of the country believed God's Word. We were taught evolution as a theory only. My grandchildren are taught evolution as a fact at school in CA. They know better since they have been taught from very early age the Word of God and reject evolution. Our church teaches the Biblical truth as well.
-msjallenHEBREWS 1:10 And, "YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;
msjallen wrote: "We were taught evolution as a theory only. My grandchildren are taught evolution as a fact at school…"
This shows your lack of scientific knowledge… evolution is BOTH a fact and a theory. The theory ~explains~ the facts – that evolution is occuring is not in question, we see it everyday. It's a fact. The theory is the explanation of these facts.
There is no "proof" in science class, proof is for alcohol and maths. In science the best level an idea can achieve is "THEORY" – you know, as in theory of gravity (which explains the fact of gravity), germ theory of disease (do you deny ~that~ theory?), atomic theory, quantum theory, etc… all theories which explain facts.
-jatheistIt is only constitutional if our forefathers taught it , OH ! Wait ! They did . What horrible people they were !
-buckbuck wrote: "It is only constitutional if our forefathers taught it…"
Constitutional law isn't your strong suit is it… the SCOTUS has always ruled against creationism in science class – always.
-jatheistI believe what the Bible teaches about creation. Evolution cannot be proven; no one saw it happen but God let us know who created the entire universe and man…
-msjallenI Cor 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.
Colossians 1:16-17 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things have been created through Him and for Him. He (Jesus Christ) is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Jesus Christ controls history.)
Psalm 102:25-27 In the beginning You founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. "Even they will perish, but You endure; and all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end.
No, people wrote these verses. Your desire that your god inspired them is merely that, your desire.
-Jeff DixonAre you sure Jeff,Were you there
-Davemsjallen wrote: "Evolution cannot be proven; no one saw it happen"
It never fails to amaze me about how much misinformation there is within the anti-science crowd. Evolution has been seen – many times! Some evidence if you want to cure your ignorance:
-jatheisthttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html
Creationists argue that "no one has seen evolution occur." This misses the point about how science tests hypotheses. We don't see Earth going around the sun or the atoms that make up matter. We "see" their consequences. Scientists infer that atoms exist and Earth revolves because they have tested predictions derived from these concepts by extensive observation and experimentation.
-Jeff DixonFor instance, particle physicists cannot directly observe subatomic particles because the particles are too small. They make inferences about the weight, speed, and other properties of the particles based on other observations. A logical hypothesis might be something like this: If the weight of this particle is Y, when I bombard it, X will happen. If X does not happen, then the hypothesis is disproved. Thus, we can learn about the natural world even if we cannot directly observe a phenomenon—and that is true about the past, too.
In historical sciences like astronomy, geology, evolutionary biology, and archaeology, logical inferences are made and then tested against data. Sometimes the test cannot be made until new data are available, but a great deal has been done to help us understand the past
Well, certainly the aetheist view of the entire universe just being created all by itself by no one and out of nothing is totally absurd and contradicts the 1st and 2nd laws of thermal dynamics.
-Bud MacGuireAnd you don't understand science either. You certainly can create something out of nothing – equal parts of matter and anti-matter. happens all the time.
-Chris PIh Chris, Nothing is Nothing Like 0 is a 0. It take two parts to make something but again that where your science fails.
-DaveQuantum thoery disagrees with you Dave… not that you care, or that it will cure you of your ignorance. You have to want to learn, and you clearly don't.
-jatheistWhat Federal Law will be cited to try the teacher accused of teaching “Creationism”?
-ColpatScientific Facts are not based on legislation. We don’t ask Congress or SCOTUS to define “energy”, “gravity”, render an opinion on 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Rather we have agreed to use the Scientific Method. Almost all textbooks begin address this in the first chapter.
Therefore it is impossible to teach a class about the “Origin of the Universe” or “Origin of Life” without teaching evolution, creation or intelligent design,
I have always wondered that if man evolved from apes, why are there still apes? That some evolved and others did not is discrimination in the first degree.
And to believe that all of creation "just happened" without Divine guidance just does not make any sense what so ever.
-Robert FGRobert, your understanding of evolution's claims is inaccurate. Evolution does not say we "came from apes" (perhaps the fanciful artwork in the natural history museums led you to think that). Evolution claims that man and ape came from the same common ancestor.
However, your understanding that things of complex order do not "just happen" is accurate, and we have several real-world proofs of that. The second law of thermodynamics shows that order does not come from chaos, and instead defines that all order tends back to chaos. Probability theory proves that there hasn't been enough time (even if we allow the universe to be 15 billion years old) for the inert chemicals to become amino acids, those amino acids to become proteins, those proteins to form RNA/DNA and cells, those cells to become tissue, those tissues to become organs, those organs to be life forms.
-PaulMakes no difference if men came from apes or both from some fantasy creature evidence is lacking for any such creature). Evolution is a fantasy attempt to discard God, so we can live without regard for any restraining laws on our life.
Either way, there's not near enough time for all the required genetic changes. And no explanation for end of any species, or how the breeding transition occurs. And guess what? If man had been on earth for even a million years, the population would have reached over 12 billion 100,000 years ago. And where are ALL the bones?
-RobertoEvolution makes no comment on restraining laws on our life. That has nothing to do with the theory. Creating straw men arguments against evolution merely shows you do not understand evolution.
-Jeff DixonI doubt you will spend the time, but here is a link that explains why your comments are ignorant of the laws of probability.
-Jeff Dixonhttp://www.creationtheory.org/Probability/Printab…
Anyone criticizing the Scientific Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection should spend some time studying the basics of Evolution. No one who has accepted the Scientific evidence for Evolution claims that "man evolved from apes." Man and apes have a common ancestor from which both have evolved. There are mountains of Scientific evidence proving this is true. Asking silly, sad questions such as, " if man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" only displays your ignorance of the Science of Evolution. I could ask you the same question: "If you are the grandchild of your grandparents, then why are your parents, brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews and cousins still alive? The answers to both questions are the same.
-Rezon1The problem is that "creationism" and "intelligent design" don't have any science to back them up. They don't even pretend to do science – and the courts have recognized this in every court case in the past several decades which is why it isn't allowed in science class. Much like you wouldn't allow astrology to be taught in astronomy class, or alchemy in chemistry we shouldn't waste science class teaching magic and anti-science.
-jatheistThere is more science on Creation intelligent design that there is evolution. That because they can NOT create in a lab and Nothing is base it off.
-DaveSo jathiest again you comment has NO merit.
Creationism is a total failure as a science. Even religious scientists don't bother trying to create actual formal scientific theories of creationism, because they know there is no such thing. You could not even express the idea of creationism in the form of a scientific theory; what would you describe as the controlling mechanism? God? How would you define the behaviour of this controlling mechanism? Despite what some creationists may tell you, creationism has zero credibility in science.
-Jeff DixonOf the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.
-Jeff DixonOpposition to the teaching of creationism is based on the irrational belief that a religious belief cannot be a scientific fact. There are huge gaps in the "evidence" for evolution. Anyone who claims that evolution is proven is just plain ignorant.
-cyodercyoder wrote: "Opposition to the teaching of creationism is based on the irrational belief that a religious belief cannot be a scientific fact."
Then correct our ignorance and present some actual science to back up your beliefs! It should be easy if you actually have some…
cyoder cont'd: " Anyone who claims that evolution is proven is just plain ignorant."
I agree… this notion that a scientific theory is EVER proven is not correct. Scientific theories get stronger as more supporting evidence is found and it's replaced if contrary evidence is found. So far, in over 150 years of trying, nobody has been able to falsify evolution. Each and every piece of evidence presented SUPPORTS the theory.
-jatheistNot rely jathiest, More evidence is found head to creation,NOT evolution.
-DaveTry again
jatheist is an atheist which forces him to believe in evolution. He is hardly objective. He wouldn't recognize evidence to the contrary even if it hit him between the eyes.
-cyodercyoder wrote: "He wouldn't recognize evidence to the contrary even if it hit him between the eyes."
Too funny… of course you have to guess here because nobody, not you cyoder, not Dave, nobody, has actually presented ANY "evidence to the contrary".
You keep commenting about this evidence but somehow are always reluctant to produce any. Why not test your hypothesis that I won't accept contrary evidence by actually presenting some?? Of course you don't have any so it's better for you to pretend that I simply won't accept it than to admit you don't have any… come on! Put up or shut up! Show me some evidence!
-jatheistWill say one thing People. Reading all these post but Christian do forget, That there scripture of dinosaurs,were not all as dinosaurs but were discribe as such called behemonth and leviathins. I also believe in other places as well just not sure where but you all might want to check it out.
-DaveFunny, the Constitution never comes into play unless it's in the hopes of denying the God Given Rights of Christians! What this government does that is Constitutional would be a real short list!
-Deancyoder wrote: "They show distinct species, not true transitional forms."
Just what do you expect a "transitional form" to look like? It will necessarily be closely resembling the animal/plant it is transitioning to/from. It may also be a unique species in it's own right – but I don't see how this disqualifies it from being a transitional form.
Here is a far more extensive site containing lots of evidence of transitional forms:
-jatheisthttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional….
For example, supposedly birds evolved from reptiles. A true transitional form would be covered something neither scales nor feathers but something inbetween. Its front limbs would be neither legs nor wings but something inbetwwen and probably useless for use as either. Furthermore, some of the world's leading paleontologists, such as Stephen Jay Gould, have admitted that the fossil record contains no transitional forms. This is why they pushed punctuated equilbrium, which tries to explain away the absence of such forms.
-cyoder