Tenn. Senate Passes Bill Allowing Alternative Theories to Evolution in the Classroom
- Posted on March 22, 2012 at 11:38am by
Liz Klimas
- Print »
- Email »
Anti-evolution league selling books in Dayton, Tenn., in 1925. (Image: AP)
The Tennessee state Senate passed a bill this week with an overwhelming majority in favor — 24-8 — which would allow for teachers to discuss alternative scientific theories to “subjects that may cause debate and disputation” with students.
Senate Bill 893 prevents the Tennessee Board of Education and local education officials from prohibiting public school teachers from “helping students understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories.”
The Associated Press reports Senate sponsor Bo Watson of Hixson as saying the bill helps teachers feel comfortable “addressing students concerns about certain scientific theories.”
While supporters see the bill as encouraging critical thinking of scientific issues, opponents believe it is a direct attack on teaching evolution, with some likening it to a modern-day “Scopes Monkey Trial.” In 1925, John Scopes was fined $100 for teaching evolution in a biology class. Although the Tennessee Supreme Court later overturned the original ruling the case, the state’s anti-evolution education law wasn’t revoked until 1967. Opponents have also expressed concern that this bill could also open the door for teaching alternative theories to man-made global warming.
AP reports Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, as saying that the bill “seeks to subvert scientific principle to religious ideology by granting legal cover to teachers who wish to dress up religious beliefs on the origin of life as pseudo-science.”
The Tennessean reports that the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Center for Science Education, among other national and local science and teacher associations, also strongly oppose the bill. Sen. Andy Berke, D-Chattanooga told the Tennessean that as a person of faith himself, he wouldn’t want religious issues being discussed with his children in a classroom:
“If my children ask, ‘How does that mesh with my faith?’ I don’t want their teacher answering that question.”
Watson on the other hand said, “This bill does not endorse, promote or allow the teaching of any non-scientific, non-conventional theories in a scientific classroom.”
Now, this bill and the House version passed last year go on to Gov. Bill Haslam who has said he has confidence the State Board of Education will develop the proper curriculum. WAFF reports Haslam as saying he plans to consult with the board of education on the measure.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 587 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 375 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 373 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 373 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (175)
am123
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 1:36pmWhat if I told you that evolutionists believe soft tissue from a dinosaur bone they dug up is 68 million years old? I kid you not:
“An adolescent female Tyrannosaurus rex died 68 million years ago, but its bones still contain intact soft tissue, including the oldest preserved proteins ever found, scientists say.”
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html
Wanna know what supposed 68 million year old soft tissue looks like? You can see it at the 9:10 mark of this video from 60 minutes:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5658449n&tag=contentMain;contentBody
Isn’t it ironic that evolutionists make fun of the beliefs of Bible believers and yet here is science making the ludicrous claim that 68 million year old soft tissue is flexible and resilient and stretchy? One question I have is, when an evolutionist finds a dinosaur bone with soft tissue that is 68 million years old, do they straight away put it into a zip-lock plastic bag in order to prevent spoilage? LOL!
Another more important question is this: why wouldn’t the dating calculations be questioned when someone says soft tissue from a T. Rex bone is 68 million years old? Here is why: because a dinosaur bone that is not millions of years old would contradict the millions of years old paradigm of the evolutionary model and evolutionists won’t let that happen to their religion. They’d rather look like fools claiming soft tissue is millions of years old rather than give up their
Report Post »am123
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 1:43pmTo finish up my final thought:
They’d rather look like fools claiming soft tissue is millions of years old rather than give up their ridiculous theories. So don’t look for science to contradict such an absurd claim.
Report Post »wvernon1981
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 2:41pmWhich is incorrect: the physics and geology behind dating the bones or our assumption that soft tissue couldn’t survive this long?
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 3:44pmNeandertal DNA does not fit the Evolutionary Tree, either. It’s just part of a Darwin Religion!
Report Post »joel228
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 7:21pmGreat post AM123. I have been looking for that for some time. Basically since I heard they found blood cells from a T-Rex. Couldn’t be much better unless they found a living one (which of course I know they won’t). But some decades ago someone did pull up a creature from the sea that was previously said to be extinct for 40 to 70 million years. It was a living coelacanth and looked just like the fossils that they said were tens of millions of years old. There are some seriously bad assumptions taken as fact when determining old ages of fossils.
Report Post »Snidely
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 9:55pmWVERNON1981 An honest scientist would have asked that very question. They should be questioned whether it was from contamination (they did, it wasn’t), if it was really blood and collagen remnants (they did, it was), whether they were wrong about how long ago the dinosaur died (they didn’t – it would contradict the evo timeline), and what they know about the rate of soft tissue decomposition (this was all they had left – they assumed they were wrong about how long it takes soft tissue to decompose). Of course, it’s ludicrous to think that the tissue can survive 68 MILLION years. But, with research grants and pride on the line, that‘s their story and they’re sticking to it.
Report Post »TheJeffersonian
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 12:45am@Snidely
You’re ruling out the possibility of it being preserved in a manner which we have not before observed.
Report Post »Snidely
Posted on March 24, 2012 at 9:00pmJeff, You are correct, that would be another question. I guess I wasn’t trying to make an exhaustive list, just to point out that they are not being intellectually honest when they don’t consider all possibilities. And yes, unusual preservation has been a question they have asked, but have not been able to answer. In addition to this T-Rex, there have been several other finds of dinosaur soft tissue – including a hadrosaur, or duck-billed dinosaur, that the evos date to 80 million years. 80 million years is a really, really, really long time. They need to swallow their pride and admit that the dinosaurs are not that old.
Report Post »HowTruthHurts
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 1:31pmThis should be a moot point. Why does the Tennessee Senate have a say in what kids are taught, because the Tennessee government is the one teaching the kids. We need to move to a universal school choice where even if the state still funds education, the private sector supplies the education. This way parents who want their kids to learn REAL science can get it and parents who want their kids to learn that we came from monkeys and had weekly dinosaur races can learn that. Everyone is happy…except maybe the teacher’s unions.
Report Post »Dale
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 4:20pmLocked;
I have evidence that God created the world. What evidence (I would prefer PROOF) that your Cambrian Explosion occurred do you have? Just because you find it inconvenient to discuss science and religion does not mean they are mutually exclusive. We are, after all, talking about the SAME thing (sports, I think you said), but it is indeed basketball (how did the earth come to be). I should believe your argument, because you have ‘science’ behind you – which I must point out – has no evolutionary proof (admit it, you only have a theory). You don’t believe me because I have religion behind me. I think you come up a little wanting.
Report Post »conundrum2020
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 11:43pmDALE is an example of ignorance. I get so tired of this.
Scientific Theory is an explanation of verified evidence. It is modified according to new tested, verified, predicted,observed evidence following the scientific method.
Every Law DESCRIBES what we verify to always be true, let go of apple, it will fall.
Every Law has a Theory attached to EXPLAIN why, the apple was attracted by gravity.
This is as close to proven as anything can be. It is not just an idea. It is an explanation of verified evidence found to be true.
A Hypothesis is an attempt to explain observed, but not verified evidence that does not meet theory criteria.
Creationism is a religious belief, not based on verifiable evidence and cannot be modified.
It is not a scientific theory, Hypothesis or rely on the scientific method. It ignores evidence.
The bible says so is not evidence.
It has no place in science class. Keep your religious dogma in your church where it belongs.
Remember, a Law describes, a theory explains verified observations always found to be true, what we call facts.
The theory of Evolution holds the same stature as Gravity, Light, Atomic, Genetic, etc theories, a description of the observed natural world, verified and always found to be true.
Report Post »timewarp42
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 11:54pm@HowTruthHurts – You took the words right out of my mouth.
Report Post »Heather Mae 74
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 5:09pmconundrum2020 all those theories you mentioned had data to back them up Darwin said that the data for his theory would show up in the fossil record and yet out of 200 million cataloged fossils there is NO EVIDENCE of one species turning into another. They also never teach that Darwin thought Africans were sub human because they were closer to our ape ancestors. Genetics also have failed to prove evolution. That is why I have a problem with it being taught to my children. It can never be questioned which means that it is as much dogma as religion is. Take a look at what an ardent evolutionist found when his beliefs were challenged at http://www.thegrandexperiment.com. You know for hundreds of years scientist believed life came from spontaneous generation every time someone challenged it they would come up with different experiments to prove they were right. They finally thought they had the answer and sent out a world wide challenge to see if it could be disproved, Louis Pasture took them up on the challenge and he finally put it to rest science has gotten a lot of things wrong and people have followed them a religiously as any person of faith just like you.
Report Post »am123
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 1:17pmIronically, the theory of evolution is taught as science and yet, it lacks empirical evidence (which is what science is supposed to be all about) from the fossil record. For example, there is no record of one species or kind of animal changing into another species or kind. Also, there is no physical evidence from the fossil record of anteaters with shorter and progressively longer snouts. The theory of evolution would have it that the anteater evolved its long snout gradually over millions of years. So at one point, there had to be an evolutionary ancestor to the modern anteater with a short snout, let’s say a 1 inch snout for arguments sake. And gradually over the years, it had to evolve a longer and longer snout, 2 inches, 3 inches, and so forth up until the modern anteater with its long snout. But does the fossil record shows such a progression? Nope. Likewise, there is no sequence in the fossil record of giraffes with shorter and progressively longer necks. If evolution means the slow gradual change of an organism over time, the overriding characteristic of the fossil record is the LACK of evidence for evolution.
Report Post »Vendia
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 1:27pmAs opposed to the answer of “God did it”? Which has so much proof on it’s own, I mean just uttering the word God means it’s true right?
Report Post »USAMEDIC3008
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 1:28pmEvolution
Why did it stop
Created by God
Or
$#!T happens
Pick one
Report Post »am123
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 1:39pmSo, neither of you have evidence from the fossil record for evolution?
Hear that sound? It’s a pin dropping.
Report Post »chameleonx
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 1:43pmI have some great links which show transitional fossils.
Report Post »http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.transitionalfossils.com/
Tell me what you think of the links i included.
Locked
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 1:46pm“Evolution
Why did it stop”
Confusing question. Evolution continues; the rate of change has been approximately the same since the Cambrian Explosion.
Report Post »am123
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 2:01pm@chameleonx
Report Post »Posted on March 22, 2012 at 1:43pm
Tell me what you think of the links i included.
————————————
I think they’re propaganda.
chameleonx
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 2:12pmI would have to respectfully disagree. There is numerous evidence to prove evolution and also numerous websites, books, videos, etc to explain and show evidence that will support evolution.
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54
http://www.youtube.com/user/Potholer54debunks
http://www.youtube.com/user/ProfMTH
Here are a few YouTube channels I enjoy to visit to watch videos.
COFemale
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 2:23pmSo Locked by your statement, What animal has morphed into a new species?
Report Post »Locked
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 2:41pm@Cofemale
“What animal has morphed into a new species?”
I‘m guessing you’re not knowing what the Cambrian Explosion is, as the answer would be: “pretty much all modern species.” The Cambrian Explosion was over 500 million years ago. Up until that point, organisms were very simple (a few small cells). After that period we had more complex families, like fauna; still incredibly simply, but extremely complex compared to prior organisms. In the millions of years since then we’ve had the rise of what we have today.
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 2:46pmYou still did not answer the question. What animal today has morphed into a new animal?
Who created the Cambrian Explosion?
Report Post »am123
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 2:58pmRegarding the Cambrian explosion, let’s examine how the model of the theory of evolution fits the reality of the fossil record. And let us put aside for now the Frankenstein type story of how the first cell came alive (it got zapped with electricity….IT’S ALIVE!) and just start with the infamous single cell. The model of evolution would have it that from that from one single cell evolved all the various life forms we see on the planet today. So the model of evolution basically is a triangle, starting at a single point and expanding and producing the various higher life forms across a wide spectrum. However, this model of evolution does not fit the raw data of the fossil record. In the Cambrian explosion, we see a vast multitude of higher life forms appearing fully formed in the fossil record without any precursor forms like the model of evolution requires. And the number of phyla that existed then is greater than the number of phyla on earth today. And so unlike the model of evolution, which must start with one life form with the number of life forms expanding and expanding, we see in the physical fossil record a multitude and vast spectrum of life forms appearing fully formed in the fossil record without any precursors in the fossil record and then we see the number of phyla actually decreasing and not increasing. All in all, the model of the theory of evolution is a poor excuse to explain how the various life forms on the planet today came into being.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 3:01pm@Cofemale
“You still did not answer the question. What animal today has morphed into a new animal?
Who created the Cambrian Explosion?”
Wait… animal today morphing into another animal? That’s… not how evolution works. You don’t suddenly wake up one day to find your zebra is a rhino. You go through millions of years of years of changes and find that your proto-Perissodactyla could have become a zebra or a rhinoceros.
And the causes of the Cambrian Explosion aren’t known. Why did evolution suddenly kick into a relative overdrive? Why has evolution continued at roughly the same rate since? It’s a great mystery; albeit one with evidence of occurrence.
Report Post »timewarp42
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 3:03pmIf you are asking what animal has morphed into a new species in our lifetime, you don’t understand the staggering amount of time that evolution works over – MUCH longer than a human lifespan.
And by asking “who” created the Cambrian Explosion misses the point. It happened all by itself. Sure God MAY have caused it, but the science works even if he didn’t. As Pierre-Simon Laplace said to Napoleon when asked why he hadn’t mentioned God in his astronomy book, “I had no need of that hypothesis.”
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 3:23pmLocked – you are mixing your evolutionary theories – There is the theory of Macro-evolution which is the basis for the question about animal “morphing” and when did it stop. Then there is the theory of micro-evolution which is small changed over time – we do have evidence of micro-evolution in some sense since humans are taller, live longer etc.
there is no empirical scientific evidence to support macro-evolution
Report Post »timewarp42
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 3:58pm@kaydeebeau – Micro and macro evolution are the same thing, just over different time scales. And evolution has not ended and WILL NOT end so long as our children are not exact clones of us.
Report Post »Dale
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 4:01pmLocked;
Let me get this right, you claim there was a Cambrian Explosion. Alright I get that – but what PROOF do you have that it happened. 500 million years ago – I guess there was no historian to observe it (too bad). I claim that God created, not only the Earth, the Universe, but plants, animals, and man. I have no proof you find acceptable. Why should I believe your claim?
Report Post »Locked
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 4:07pm@Dale
” I claim that God created, not only the Earth, the Universe, but plants, animals, and man. I have no proof you find acceptable. Why should I believe your claim?”
Well, because this entire article is about science. So you would use scientific evidence, definitions, and theories. If we were talking about religious matters, you would use religious text. In regards to the Cambrian Explosion, we have evidence of it happening by soil samples, fossils, and dating techniques. On the flip side, nothing in the Bible talks about it.
It wouldn’t make much sense to talk about Jeremy Lin if the discussion was about football, right? They might overlap in that they’re related to sports, but if you start debating free throw averages people will shoot you funny looks.
Hence this entire comment section: it’s fine to have alternative scientific theories brought up in science class. But there’s no scientific theory behind religion; why would it be mentioned except to say “It’s not science”?
Report Post »JohnnyMidknight
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 4:24pm@ Dale
What proof? It is called carbon dating:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/carbon-142.htm
“As soon as a living organism dies, it stops taking in new carbon. The ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 at the moment of death is the same as every other living thing, but the carbon-14 decays and is not replaced. The carbon-14 decays with its half-life of 5,700 years, while the amount of carbon-12 remains constant in the sample. By looking at the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the sample and comparing it to the ratio in a living organism, it is possible to determine the age of a formerly living thing fairly precisely.”
“Because the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,700 years, it is only reliable for dating objects up to about 60,000 years old. However, the principle of carbon-14 dating applies to other isotopes as well. Potassium-40 is another radioactive element naturally found in your body and has a half-life of 1.3 billion years. Other useful radioisotopes for radioactive dating include Uranium -235 (half-life = 704 million years), Uranium -238 (half-life = 4.5 billion years), Thorium-232 (half-life = 14 billion years) and Rubidium-87 (half-life = 49 billion years).”
Report Post »JohnnyMidknight
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 4:30pm@ Dale
Things die all the time. It is quite easy for scientist to study decay in the elements that make a living thing after death. The study of entropy is quite common. Forensic science uses it all the time. The mathematics has been used time and time again on various samples and is quite sound.
http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/libby.html
It may not be 100% in all cases, but the study of various samples helps reduce the amount of error. You can fell free to test the math. Here you go:
A formula to calculate how old a sample is by carbon-14 dating is:
t = [ ln (Nf/No) / (-0.693) ] x t1/2
t = [ ln (Nf/No) / (-0.693) ] x t1/2
where ln is the natural logarithm, Nf/No is the percent of carbon-14 in the sample compared to the amount in living tissue, and t1/2 is the half-life of carbon-14 (5,700 years).
Please prove it wrong. Go ahead and find a sample and calculate all your data and plug it in yourself.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 4:31pm@Johnnymidnight
Technically not carbon dating, as (as your source mentions) it’s only good for a few tens of thousands of years. The other types listed (radiometric dating) is more commonly used as are soil samples and mineral decomposition (when volcanic stone is nearby).
Report Post »Dale
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 4:32pmJohnnyMidknight;
What relationship is there between carbon dating and evolution? I am mystified. If I accept carbon dating, you show when an organism died – you don‘t show how it ’morphed’ from one species to another. Good try, but try again.
Report Post »JohnnyMidknight
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 4:54pm@ Locked
You are correct, which is why they use the carbon dating method with radioactive isotopes naturally found in the once living material. It still follows the same principles.
@ Dale
Well, that is two part.
1) “Carbon Dating” using radio active isotopes allow scientists to judge the estimated age of fossils.
2) You then look at the fossils over the course of time and see the transitional phases. Seeing as no humans were not around we can not say each fossil is direct descendant (as in mother to child).
3) “Carbon dating” is not the sole source of data. We know evolution happened because of the convergence of evidence from such diverse fields as geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and many more.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-fossil-fallacy
The study is far more sound then the Earth and humans appearing 5,000 years ago. But that is an error in interpretation of the Bible. Fact, the thought that Science is replacing religion is quite stereotypical too. Evidence shows that 68% of Scientists are spiritual in their religious beliefs:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-science-religion.html
Especially seeing as we can date human remains past the 5,000 year threshold of the Bible (both with archeology and with carbon dating, we know that there is an error in the Bible (but is most likely an interpretation error).
Report Post »JohnnyMidknight
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 5:06pm@ Dale
In fact the oldest human remains have been found in Israel:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-world-oldest-human-israel.html
400,000 years old… Eerily close to the region of Mesopotamia, Babylon and Sumeria (which are the roots of Judaism – ahem tower of Babel).
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-world-oldest-human-israel.html
Many Rabbis theorize that the Genesis story is mostly metaphorical. Many Archeological findings have found similarities with stories Gilgamesh (Sumerian demigod) and Noah. Even the list of names in the Torah of descendants from Adam (which means humankind in Hebrew) to Noah (antediluvian Patriarchs) and the Jews show similarities:
Report Post »http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v12/n3/sumerian
http://www.piney.com/BabKingCath.html
JohnnyMidknight
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 5:08pm@ Dale
Here is the story of Gilgamesh:
Report Post »http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh_flood_myth
JohnnyMidknight
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 5:13pm@ Dale
Never take my word as definitive proof… I am only giving you information I have come across. The search for faith, truth and life must be a personal journey. Just be open (meaning read and listen to what you can even if it is in sharp contrast to your beliefs). Take what you can and live in peace with your fellow man. That is the basis of most of scripture in the Torah, the Gospels and most faiths. We need to be more accepting of opposition and be open to teach each other.
You pose excellent questions, but learning is only a journey that an individual can do for themselves. Seek truth and question with boldness. No one will know all the answers, but hopefully we can at least understand each other better and come to terms with disagreements.
Report Post »JohnnyMidknight
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 6:25pm@ Dale
Also, you state:
“If I accept carbon dating, you show when an organism died – you don‘t show how it ’morphed’ from one species to another. Good try, but try again.”
You are asking something at the same time stating you do not accept. You are already close-minded. Even if i showed you the math, you would never accept it. That is why I told you to do the math yourself. And do your own research. It is the only way I can prove anything. Don’t push you ignorance on me and make it my labor to beat, that is your personal choice and your burden.
Sorry man, I still love ya as a person though.
Report Post »hi
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 7:39pmCHAMELEONX
Your wikipedia intermediate fossil articles begins:
“Ideally, this list would only recursively include ‘true’ transitionals”
There are no transitional fossils shown!!!! They are just side species as determined by THEORY! Another evolution deception.
Report Post »timewarp42
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 1:10pmThis should be a moot point. Why does the Tennessee Senate have a say in what kids are taught, because the Tennessee government is the one teaching the kids. We need to move to a universal school choice where even if the state still funds education, the private sector supplies the education. This way parents who want their kids to learn REAL science can get it and parents who want their kids to learn that Jesus and Moses had weekly dinosaur races can learn that. Everyone is happy…except maybe the teacher’s unions.
Report Post »FoundingTrek
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 1:02pmRembmer: This bill does not mandate teaching or discussing alternate theories. It only prevents local school districts from prohibiting the teaching or discussion of those theories. Anytime you allow education to involve broad discussion and thoughtful debate, it’s a good thing.
Report Post »kingdom_heart_333
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:50pmAs always, man believes that he has all the answers. Before it was proven that the Sun was the center of our solar system, it was a fact that our solar system was gecentric. They had diagrams and proofs for this so-called fact. The same thing happened when it was discovered that the Earth was not, in fact the center of the universe. The Earth was flat, and don’t you dare say otherwise, until they proved it wasn’t.
Report Post »It’s time that all the enlightened and learned scientists of the world learn from the simple mistakes made by their predecessors. We don’t know everything there is to know and the things we think we know are only theoretical. Is it so crazy to think that there may be an alternate explanation for how the world came about? If people and scientists stick so dogmatically to any scientific “proof” we wil never move on and progress in scientific fields. We need to be able to look at a thing from every angle, not just the ones that have been okayed by scientists.
Balpit
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 1:35pmIronically, the same people who criticized the church for opposing scientific progress in the past do the exact same thing today. If scientific theories are never questioned, nothing new will ever be discovered or learned.
Report Post »TheJeffersonian
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 12:46amIronic that you choose discoveries made by scientists to… discredit scientists?
Report Post »kingdom_heart_333
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 11:41amYou misunderstand me. I’m not saying that scientists are all wrong or all out to lie to us all, I’m saying that just because some scientists claim something is factual does not make it so as has been the case innumerable times before. The problem I am pointing out is the dogmatic belief that because some scientists claim something is fact, it must automatically be true. That’s like believing everything a pastor or priest says simply because of his/her position.
Report Post »pap pap
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:47pmWatson on the other hand said, “This bill does not endorse, promote or allow the teaching of any non-scientific, non-conventional theories in a scientific classroom.”
Opponents have also expressed concern that this bill could also open the door for teaching alternative theories to man-made global warming.
Man-made global warming is non-scientific conjecture so why is it taught in the schools.
Report Post »wvernon1981
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 2:49pmWhat makes global warming a non-scientific theory?
Report Post »dnewton
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 12:12amHow does other general junk science fare in this? Can they still teach that the seas are rising, except around Al Gore’s houses on the coast of California? Can they still teach that the Polar bears are drowning in the Arctic?
Report Post »chameleonx
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:31pmI believe we should promote science more so children will more influenced in learning about science. During my days in school evolution was rarely taught and when it was brought it up it was explained poorly. In my opinion creationism is neither a science nor an alternative to evolution. There is more than enough evidence for evolution. This why I believe we should teach evolution to young people and students.
Report Post »chameleonx
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:38pmhttp://www.talkorigins.org/
Report Post »http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/index.html
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/understanding_evolution.htm
http://sciencebasedlife.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/understanding-evolution-17-misconceptions-and-their-responses/
http://humanorigins.si.edu/research
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_facts_support_evolution
Here are a few links in which either explain in detail and/or show evidence that evolution is true.
chameleonx
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 1:27pmI have been reading the comments where people continue to play the same tune that: “evolution is not science!“ or ”there is no evidence to support science.” Read the links I included to get a better picture of evolution and see the evidence for yourself. With or without your support evolution will still be true. :)
Report Post »Watchyer6
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 3:48pmEvolution is a scientific FACT supported by overwhelming, independent evidence from numerous scientific disciplines including geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, biogeography, genetics, molecular biology population genetics, comparative anatomy and physiology, and more. Creationism is a religious belief. Keep it in your church where it belongs. Looks like Tennessee wants to retry the Scopes case. It’s hard to believe that this stuff is going on in a country supposedly as advanced as the USA in the 21st century.
Report Post »chameleonx
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 4:13pmThanks for the kind reply. I respectfully agree with your comment.
Report Post »black9897
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 10:42pmIt’s hard to believe kids are still be brainwashed in public schools to think something is a fact when there is evidence to say something else could have happened, AND problems with the Theory of evolution. But they don’t point that out of course. I’m confused when people say those who believe in ID are closed minded when in most private Christian schools they teach both evolution and young earth/ID.
Report Post »joel228
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 3:33amWatchyer6
I can tell how strong the overall argument is by what you choose to present as the main evidence. If you had to pick the strongest argument from the strongest field in favor of macro evolution what would it be? Since you believe that it’s “scientific fact” supported by “overwhelming” evidence this should be an easy one right? And if the difficulty is picking the top one out of so many good ones go ahead and throw two or three in there.
I know all your arguments as I made it a concerted study of mine about 15 years ago. I even signed up for an on line college credit class (closely associated with PBS I believe) that was teaching the teachers of evolution on how to be a better evolution teacher. I debated about 20 secondary level teachers for at least two or three months. Some had 10 plus years teaching evolution and all praised the doctrine of Darwin. Surely they should have no trouble with little self educated me (on topic of evolution). But I found they had very little ammunition and most could not even rebut my rebutles to the topic of the week. One fairly honest one said he loved to take my arguments to his science class to start the debates.
Report Post »cont..
joel228
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 3:34amOf the 7 or 8 weekly (or weakly) main topics they chose to “prove” evolution included things like the long ago discredited ideas as “embryonic recapitulation”. They also included fossils of whale evolution (what a joke that is) and the extensive (not hardly) fossil evidence of human evolution. All I had to do to point out the extreme weakness of that was show that not even the most knowledgeable among them can agree on a path. What PBS did on it’s web site was have three majors players (well known evolutionists) where you could click on the name to get that person’s opinion on a graph showing what connects to what leading to humans. Surely if that is such strong evidence there should be a strong degree of agreement on what led to what, don’t you think?
For the record I am not a creationist. I believe the universe is eternal and so is life in the universe. Evolutionists who also generally believe all got started from a “big bang” look like creationists to me but just have a different time line.
So Watcher6, do you have something better than what is being taught to the teachers of evolution? Pick your field and pick your strongest argument – if you can.
Report Post »joel228
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 3:55amBy the way Watcher, the scopes trial had to do with a substitute teacher teaching evolution which was against state law. He lost of course. Now the reverse is the case where it has to be Darwinian evolution that is taught and the only descent allowed has to be how descent with modification works not if it works.
Macro evolution has to be the biggest hoax ever presented to the world and only recently rivaled by the man made global warming scheme who’s main goal is global transference of wealth and global governance. Both rely on deceptive extrapolations of micro to macro.
Report Post »Ron Staiger
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:30pmI find no conflict in believing in both concepts and realizing that natural processes, including evolution, WERE created by God. I do not believe, however, that the earth is 6000 years old as some interpreters of the Bible suggest- that my friends is absurd. Take a few courses in geology-like “Sediments, Organisms and Time” for instance- a very basic 200 level course, go out and make personal observations, and then consider this: coccolithophores, a type of plankton that lives near the surface of the ocean, is microscopic in size (5-25 micrometers across). When these organisms die, the skeletons sink to the bottom of the ocean. The White Cliffs of Dover are 350 feet high and comprised of compacted and compressed coccolithophore skeletons (chalk). To say that the White Cliffs of Dover were formed in 6000 years is as ludicrous as suggesting that the deposition of the sedimentary structures and the subsequent carving out of those structures by the Colorado River gave us the Grand Canyon in only 6000 years. It would be just as ludicrous, however, to suggest that all of these beautiful organisms, processes and wondrous interactions that formed the world we have today is an accident. The zealots on both extremes of this discussion obfuscate the truth to compensate for their own weak faith and conviction.
Report Post »black9897
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:39pmI have taken earth science classes, geology, biology, etc. and it is reasonable to believe the earth is young. 6000 years?? maybe not. but much , much younger than billions. I personally believe the earth is thousands of years old. and yes there is evidence to support that. Most turn a blind eye or view the same evidence differently. One cannot believe in the Biblical God and believe in macro evolution or the big bang. Yes, you can believe the earth is older than 6000-10000 years old and still believe in God.
Report Post »kegbuna
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:42pmIt becomes a problem when you have to align your beliefs strictly with what is in the Bible. I think the idea of a prime mover is not incompatible with science, however, the existence of a Christian God as it pertains to the texts is tough. There are people who consume and interpret the texts in different ways, so in the end, I would agree that extremists on both sides are responsible for the conflict we’re seeing today. The fact that our public education is caught in the middle of it is a shame, though.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:46pm“One cannot believe in the Biblical God and believe in macro evolution or the big bang. Yes, you can believe the earth is older than 6000-10000 years old and still believe in God.”
Sure you can. You just can’t believe everything in the Bible is literal. And really, believing that parts of the Bible are half-truths, parables, or mistranslated requires no more of a leap of faith than believing all of it is 100% literal. In fact, I’d argue it requires less faith than a literal translation; at least with some versions (such as the King James Version) we know for a fact that it is horribly mistranslated.
Report Post »black9897
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:59pmThat’s what I meant. You would not be able to believe the Biblical account of creation. I would disagree. There’s nothing to suggest that Gen. is “just a story”. Even bad translations have the same story. God created the world, man sinned, God sent Jesus to die and rise again. That’s the main theme. Doing just a little bit of research it’s easy to see that Gen is not a pretend story, it actually happend. (assuming one believes in the Bible.)
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 2:22pmLet me throw this at you Ron. Reading Genesis, God took existing matter and used it too create earth. How old was that matter before he molded/formed it into the firmament? Is it possible that matter was already millions/billions of years old? Is it also possible that animals, plants, people when buried in that formed matter actually absorbs some of the carbon footprint, thus giving scientist a false reading?
Just some food for thought?
Report Post »Leehweht
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 3:21pmThe evidence for creation is obvious to anyone looking for it. An atheist looking for god or signs of a god is like a crook looking for a cop. (he doesn’t want to find it). Science is about things that can be proven, observed, etc. How one looks at the world determines what one sees. Evidence does not lead anyone, with an open mind, to conclude that things recorded in the bible didn’t happen. (Although hard to believe). The scientific PROOF is there and can be proven, however, when the only answer left to the question is removed as a possibility (God), then we have what we have today. Imagine trying to explain how your computer was built, without being able to point to anything “outside” of your computer. It would be impossible to do. Thus you are left with “my computer must have evolved from a calculator 4.5 million years ago”.. ALL arguments…”ALL” arguments for an old earth, etc fall to the wayside when confronted with real thought, logic and real science. (Not assumptions and agendas.) And the true scientist has MAJOR issues with the big bang, and evolution. One has to believe evolution took place, thus it is a belief system and should be considered a religion; a religion of government. The government should not establish such a religion.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 4:15pm“Evidence does not lead anyone, with an open mind, to conclude that things recorded in the bible didn’t happen. ”
Nor does it lead anyone without knowledge of the Bible to independently corroborate its stories. The problem with your thinking is that science is based on “Here’s the evidence; what do we interpret it to mean?” Once you get an interpretation, it only stands so long as the evidence supports it. Whereas religious science (like ID) is based on “here’s our conclusion, how do we use the facts to support it?” and ignores what doesn’t fit.
Obviously those are ideals. Some people will support theories that are considered disproven by almost everyone else.
Report Post »black9897
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 4:43pm@Locked: Um. You do understand that evolution when dating rocks for example start off with the assumptions of evolution and old earth, data is then examined—you get interpretations consistent with evolution and the old earth. all contrary evidence explained away. I don’t mind people holding old earth theory or evolution , or whatever. My problem comes when it’s stated as 100% fact and anything else is false.
Report Post »momprayn
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:27pmYAY! Either do this or ban teaching of Darwin’s theory as “fact” as another of the libs indoctrination topics and part of their “religion” of liberalism, atheism, whatever. Any honest seeker of truth can find out easily and quickly these days that his theory HAS been disproven but it’s kept hidden as much as possible. Like with all other issues re truth, you have to do your own research. People mistakenly believe that if you are a “scientist” or went to some prestigious college and state it is true, then that means it is. No. Scientists are human, and too many are actually dishonest when it comes to their theology, ideology. Even when confronted with it, they’ll deny it or try to spin it as much as possible. There are other scientists who will tell you it is wrong.
Book “Scientists Who Believe”
Sites:
http://www.creationevidence.org
http://www.answersingenesis.org
http://www.allabouttruth.org
Report Post »http://www.christiananswers.net
http://www.dancingfromgenesis.wordpress.com
wvernon1981
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:41pmYet most biologists will tell you it’s correct. Why do you trust a few scientists over the majority of scientists that accept evolution as fact?
Report Post »bankerpapaw
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:27pmTennessee had better be careful. The government will come in and sue them and force them to
Report Post »teach the evolution B.S., just like they are suing Arizona and North Carolina for trying to uphold the
law.
shogun459
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:24pm“prevents the Tennessee Board of Education and local education officials from prohibiting public school teachers from “helping students understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories.””
What the Tenn. BoE et al. are against is “Teaching students to learn, be smart, Not Be Easily Fooled.”
Report Post »I can see how that would scare Social-slicks and Marxist Dick-taters.
wvernon1981
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:22pmThere are no legitimate alternative theories to evolution. There are only hypothesis that don’t work. Intelligent design for example explains everything and thus by explaining everything, fails to be scientific. It is not falsifiable because no matter how the evidence appears, the designer made it that way. If you have an alternative, scientific framework for explaining the observations of biologists that works better than evolution by natural selection and other selective forces, then by all means, get it published in a credible journal, hash it out with the scientific community, then, someday, when we have a consensus understanding of the origins of biological diversity, you can teach your position as a valid theory. Untili then, you don’t have an actual theory worth teaching in schools.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:35pm“Untili then, you don’t have an actual theory worth teaching in schools.”
From reading the article, it doesn’t seem that teachers can choose “non-scientific” ideas to teach; they are just safe from punishment if students bring them up. So if a student asks about creationism, the teacher is allowed to say “There’s no scientific basis behind it, at all“ instead of ”I can’t talk about it.”
Report Post »Snidely
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 11:51pm“It is not falsifiable because no matter how the evidence appears, the designer made it that way.” You realize, of course, that the same thing could be said of evolution. Karl Popper even said as much. Evos always retreat to “evolution did it!”, no matter how illogical and silly their just-so story is. Evolution is not falsifiable because no matter how the evidence for design appears, it evolved that way. Dawkins calls it the appearance of design. Stephen Jay Gould recognized the absurdity that evolution could be responsible for the Cambrian explosion, but came up with the bizarre “punctuated equilibrium” hypothesis. The more we learn about microbiology, the less believable evolution is.
Report Post »red_white_blue2
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:21pmPeople sometimes ask me where my POSITIVE stories are–here’s one…It’s the Truth, and it steps on the liberals throats! It’s a BOGO–ENJOY!
Report Post »timewarp42
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:20pmI would be much happier if they taught a scientificly disproved theory like Lamarkian evolution than if they taught the pseudo-scientific intelligent design theory that boils down to “God did it.”
Lamark was wrong, but at least he gave it the old college try. ID pretty much suggests that we give up on using reason to determine how the world works and just base our “science” on the mythology of an ancient middle eastern tribe.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:26pm“ID pretty much suggests that we give up on using reason to determine how the world works and just base our “science” on the mythology of an ancient middle eastern tribe.”
Not quite. Creationism says that; ID claims a deity, but stops short of saying “God.“ Kinda like Alcoholics Anonymous and their ”higher power.”
Oddly, if you say your higher power is the Flying Spaghetti Monster to either AA members or ID followers, they tend to think you’re insulting them.
Report Post »wvernon1981
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:29pmTo simplify it, intelligent design proposes to explain our observations by “The designer did it that way”.
Report Post »timewarp42
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:34pmJust because the wolf puts on a sheep’s clothing, do we now call it a “sheep”? No, of course not; a wolf is a wolf no matter how you dress it up. And ID is creationism no matter how you dress it up.
Report Post »marybethelizabeth
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:18pmGenetics is science.
But things don’t turn into other things. Evolution is superstition.
Report Post »wvernon1981
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:44pmGenetics backs up our observations of common descent. You can observe the change in species over time by measuring the genetic drift between their descendants as you would expect if evolution were true.
Report Post »marybethelizabeth
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 2:22pmIt does nothing of the sort. There are only so many elements. There is only evidence one would expect from this small available sample.
Report Post »Everything else, and any rash conclusion, is science fiction.
COFemale
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 2:31pmOh my, I can’t believe it, I am agreeing with MaryBethElizbeth.
Name me one animal that has morphed into a new animal all you evolution believers. Monkeys don’t count as an answer.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 2:42pm“Monkeys don’t count as an answer.”
Why not? Because you don’t like it?
Report Post »wvernon1981
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 3:22pmA piece of evidence for common descent:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
Report Post »timewarp42
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 3:54pmHere’s my understanding of how evolution produces new species:
When organisms reproduce, the genes from their parrents are not 100% accurately copied – There are deletions, additions, and changes. Most of these mutations are benign and are simply passed on to the children. Sometimes these mutations are harmful and the offspring dies. Less often, the mutation is benefitial and the mutant offspring is able to survive and reproduce better.
The mutant and non-mutant organisms both reproduce and mutations occur within both groups. If the two groups are seperated, these changes pile up and eventually the two groups are incapable of reproducing with each other.
WOILA! Speciation has occurred. This takes place over hundreds, thousands or even millions of years – little changes over a long time resulting in big changes.
Primates are a key example of this. New world primates have common differences from African primates, because they were seperated by continental drift.
Report Post »marybethelizabeth
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 9:13pmWVernon1981. I watched the video. It suggests that scientists knew that evolution was unproven, and likely false, until the study published in Nature was finished in the past few years. I have never seen that argument ever put forward. I have questions. It‘s hucksterism to say questions don’t exist. I haven’t read the Nature article so maybe some of my issues have been addressed.
There is a scientific axiom that the simplest explanation is probably correct. Fused genes is not a simpler explanation that the existence of unique, separate life forms.
I think theblaze also printed “The First Ever Picture of a Black Hole” earlier this year, which was a masterpiece of photoshop artistry. Only black holes and most other objects theorized by modern physics have never been proven. There’s plenty of evidence that they are imaginary. Statisticians balance equations with false data for a living. Their work is makes a constant appearance here.
Science has always been about magical thinking, from antiquity through the alchemical middle ages to the present. But things do not turn into other things. That is magical thinking.
That guy that agreed with me above is going to wish he hadn’t. Intelligent design shouldn’t be taught in schools. But neither should evolution. The video ends stating objections can now only be religiously based. But it’s bad science. And that‘s why it’s theoretical nature can not be stressed enough.
Report Post »shogun459
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:16pm“While supporters see the bill as encouraging critical thinking of scientific issues, opponents believe it is a direct attack on teaching evolution,”
What Opponents see is THE POSSIBILITY that students will APPLY CRITICAL THINKING to the THEORY of evolution. Not the fact of evolution it’s a theory that means UNPROVEN.
Report Post »capitalismrocks
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:05pmWell — Here’s an added argument, Einsteins Theory of Relativity… something that is considered the very bedrock of Science, has possibly been disproved:
http://news.sky.com/home/technology/article/16075434
So, people need to keep theories in perspective…
That said, I believe that life does and is evolving, however there had to have been intelligent design in the creation of life in the first place, there are just too many things that can’t be explained away by the common “a random occurrence happened” fallback every evolutionist uses…
For example, some butterflies have patterns on the backs of their wings, they look like owl eyes, owl being a predator of a bird that eats the butterfly, how did the butterfly create this defense? How did it understand what a bird is, since the only time they meet is when the butterfly is eaten, and how does the butterfly know the owl is the birds enemy and how did the butterfly create a pattern on its wings, the back of its wings, that is can’t even see…. this all comes down to the butterfly having a higher level of intelligence and understanding…. not.
What is does come down to… a blueprint was cast for a lifeform that came from intelligent design, not some “random” smathering of events.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:13pm@Capitalismrocks
“For example, some butterflies have patterns on the backs of their wings, they look like owl eyes, owl being a predator of a bird that eats the butterfly, how did the butterfly create this defense? How did it understand what a bird is, since the only time they meet is when the butterfly is eaten, and how does the butterfly know the owl is the birds enemy and how did the butterfly create a pattern on its wings, the back of its wings, that is can’t even see…. this all comes down to the butterfly having a higher level of intelligence and understanding…. not.”
You seem confused on what sexual selection mean. It doesn’t just mean the female butterflies go for the sexiest, strongest males; it means that males with patterns closer to owls’ eyes were not being eaten, and thus eventually became the dominant group. Thus the owl-like eyes were passed down to future generations over time. The “eyes” feature became clearer and better over time, because the more the “eyes” looked like an owl, the less likely they were to be eaten, and the more likely they were to live and pass along their patterns.
Conscious thought plays no part in evolution. Creatures don’t think “Oh, I’ve never met an owl, but I want owl eyes on my wings.” The closest is picking a good partner; in this case, a partner who could stay alive.
Report Post »shogun459
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:19pmThat’s just it, they can’t stand to have their religion questioned and demand unconditional belief in their THEORY. Where I grew up “unconditional belief” was called FAITH not science.
Report Post »wvernon1981
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:24pmMore recent experiments attempting to verify the earlier results of faster than light neutrinos has been unable to reproduce the anomalous results from the earlier experiment.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0319/Retest-of-neutrino-speed-suggests-Einstein-was-right-after-all-video
Report Post »capitalismrocks
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 4:40pmLocked — You simply jumped totally past the origin of the Owl eyes being there in the first place. I very much believe that species improve (aka – evolve) but the original blueprint, the original architecture has to be there first to build and improve upon, thus some origin of intelligence to create it.
Report Post »timewarp42
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 8:52pmThe experimant that “disproved” Einstein turned out to be an error in the test. BUT, proving a theory wrong, even a long-standing, important one like relativity, would be a good thing from a scientific perspecive; it would mean that we better understand the universe. Einstein’s theory was not the first to address his subject, nor is it likely to be the last.
Science works by independent people testing and retesting theories, hypothesis and “laws”. When we have a theory that better explains observed reality, we put that theory through the ringer and if it stands up it becomes the new paridigm. And other than some tinkering around the edges, Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection HAS stood up quite well.
Report Post »Itsjusttim
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:03pmI was just thinking about Progressives building a new world order, and I remember Egypt. And I recalled the first-born effect, and I remembered that no matter what kind of order Progressives are building, their order will be sabotaged by their firstborn children because their children think they are perfect deceiving themselves, which will cause the order to only last as long as the first-line of Progressives are alive. And the thing is that when Progressives get old, their own children will pull the plug on them. You see, in ancient Egypt, the firstborn children of pharaoh which was actually the firstborn children of all the Kings of Egypt, those firstborn children were poisoned by the high priests of Egypt, because the High Priests knew the Children of the Kings would sabotage the system they were trying to keep for a long time to come.
Report Post »Itsjusttim
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:14pmI suppose I’m saying that after Communism comes to the U.S, the firstborn children of all elite Progressives are going to be in extreme danger.
Report Post »Itsjusttim
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:30pmBut don’t just take my word for it, but instead read the Bible and fill in the blanks between scripture with thought. Because you can do that as it is that Only the “Book” of Revelation says to not add or take anything away from it.
Report Post »RodT82721
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:01pmThis is just going to ruin Neal Boortz’s day, along with all those that have been convinced that our complex world was all big mistake. They preach the big bang, they just can’t prove it.
Those that fear the mention of any alternative ‘theories’, seem to fear we might evolve into real thinkers, maybe even find some prove.
Report Post »JMO.
ThankBabyJesus
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:01pmNew scientific *model* God created the big bang :D
Report Post »encinom
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:32pmIts the Conservative Christians’ war on logic, reason and science.
Are they going to be teach the Hindu, budhist and shinto creation myths, along with the Christian myth. What about the flat earth theory. Again it is becoming clear that the conservative christians are no different than the taliban in their desire to return to the 16th century and live in a pure theocracy.
Report Post »Itsjusttim
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:37pmThe thing that cracks me up about people is that if they can conquer at least the level they are on, then God will set them on his knee to give them more information. It wouldn’t make sense to take a young child who can not understand to keep his bedroom clean, and give him more responsibility, because if he can not understand responsibility in close quarters, then he won’t understand a broader area of responsibility.
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 2:37pmThe thing that cracks me up is you too. Encinom and ITSJUSTTIM. Both of you have way over the top thinking. You are actually funnier than Bill Maher and that is saying a lot.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 11:54amThe bill doesn’t sound inherently dangerous to scientific learning. Ideas like creationism or intelligent design would still not be allowed to be taught – but could be addressed without repercussion.
Report Post »Freedom Keeper
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 11:51amTired of the indoctrination in public schools? Try homeschooling! http://oleglorynews.com/2012/03/21/homeschooling-an-alternative-to-the-progressive-indoctrination-machine/
saranda
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 8:00pmGreat idea. That is what we need….more socially handicapped, narrow minded people with a world view shaped by equally socially handicapped, narrow minded people. At last, a way to totally mess up thenext generation.
Report Post »Mark0331
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 11:42amLibs forget.. it is called, “The Theory of Evolution”..not ‘The definitive proof of mankinds origins”…
Report Post »Yuuperguy
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:19pmIt‘s hasn’t been called the “theory” of evolution for years. Evolution is a proven scientific fact, with tons of empirical evidence to support it. On the other hand there is NO reason that Evolution in any way discounts the belief in God. It surprises me the number of people who think evolution is proof that God does not exist. When in some ways it could appear the opposite is true. I also have no problem with Intelligent Design or even Religion being taught in schools, as long as it falls under the title Religious Theory, or introduction to Religion. Oh and I am an Agnostic Liberal. I feel than anybody who believes they know what comes after this life is deluding themselves. We won’t know until we die.
Report Post »Mark0331
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 1:06pmSo you are saying it is “The absolute proof positive hands down only way not to be diminished proven without a fact never argue…of evolution”…OK.whatever you say, your right, and countless Scientists and Anthropologists who disagree with you are wrong. Got it…Nobody knows for certain 100%..new species are being found everyday that throw everything we ‘know’ about life on this planet into disorder…Keep an open mind is all I am saying…What do they teach kids in school then? What is it called? Darwins [blank] of evolution? I never mentioned God..what are you talking about?
Report Post »Mark0331
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 1:14pm@Yuuperguy…read what I wrote slowly..it may make sense to your liberal mind. Have a nice day.
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 1:21pmMARK0331, Yep, and the man who developed that theory, Charles Darwin recanted it too.
Report Post »timewarp42
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 9:03pmEvolution is a “theory” in the same way gravity is. A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena. And by predict phenomena, that means it creates TESTABLE hypothesis which withstand repeated, independent testing.
Report Post »HorseCrazy
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 11:41amWatson on the other hand said, “This bill does not endorse, promote or allow the teaching of any non-scientific, non-conventional theories in a scientific classroom.” what about the fact that evolution cannot be proven. oh how they cling to their science andd then ignore its own finding on so many issues like abortion, evolution, gender identity etc.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:15pmActually, Evolution has lots of proof points from the macro-structure of animals down to the chemical level, passing through micro-biology and genetics in the middle. What proof Creationism? Less than that.
This bill does not sound like it permits the teaching of creationism, but it does sound like it opens the door to critical thinking about scientific issues, and THAT is a good thing.
As for students attempting to insinuate Creationism into the classroom through brainwashing or other coaching by religious leaders and their parents on what to say to their physics and biology teachers, I like the reply given above. Teachers are not to directly answer any questions of faith, nor to proffer their own faith-based convictions as fact, or otherwise, in a public school classroom. If confronted by a student’s question on faith, the teacher should admonish them that the lessons given in that classroom are of a scientific nature, not a religious nature, and any questions of faith that the scientific lessons raise are to be brought to their respective religious leaders. Period. Full Stop. End of sentence.
Abortion is an evil which must be stopped.
Report Post »Evolution is a truth which must be taught.
Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity are separate personal issues each person must confront within themselves, with the help of psychiatrists if need be.
R3x0r
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:31pm@LPHP
Report Post »“the teacher should admonish”??? For being curious? HELLOOOO! This is America! You’re going to admonish a child because they are THINKING? Well let’s just shove the evolution theory down their throats and leave God out of it. And just what would you consider a “religious” question anyone? So if Evolution is a truth, then why are there still monkeys around? You‘d think they’d want to be more “evolved” than basic primates. Please show me an example where macroevolution has been PROVEN… or show me when a MAN (sorry… PERSON) has been able to make LIFE out of a chemical soup. BTW… even if a person WERE to create life out of a chemical soup, that would still only further the truth that an intelligent creator made it….
Locked
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:38pm@R3XOR
“”the teacher should admonish”??? For being curious? HELLOOOO! This is America! You’re going to admonish a child because they are THINKING? Well let’s just shove the evolution theory down their throats and leave God out of it.”
Why should God ever be discussed in a class about science? There’s no such thing as a dumb question: but a student might not like the answer they receive if they bring up things that are outside the scope of the class.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 1:07pm“So if Evolution is a truth, then why are there still monkeys around?”
*facepalm*
Sounds like YOU could use one of those high school classes on Evolution as well. Follow me… if you can.
Millions of years ago. Basic simians roam parts of the Earth. They evolved into BOTH proto-apes AND proto-monkeys. At that point, where there was ONE species/class, there are now TWO species/classes. The proto-apes went on to evolve and bifurcate until in modern times we have gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans. The proto-monkeys went on to evolve and bifurcate until in modern times we have macaques, lemurs, tarsiers, capuchins, and pygmy marmosets. Edify thyself. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Monkeys
It never fails to flabbergast me when proponents of Creationism CONTINUOUSLY make the same idiotic claims about Evolution. We did NOT evolve from apes. Apes and humans BOTH evolved from a common ancient ancestor. DUUUUUUUUHHHH!!!!!
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 1:21pmThere are no such things as dumb questions. There are, however, inappropriate questions. Examples:
Asking the English Lit teacher about his alcoholism and DUIs.
Asking the Civics teacher which socialist madman killed more people: Stalin or Pol Pot.
Asking the Home Ec teacher for the best way to make hash brownies.
Asking the Chemistry teacher to explain the difference in explosive yield between trinitro-toluene and ammonium-nitrate.
Asking the Sex Ed teacher if he gives out extra-credit.
Asking the Physics teacher which god caused the Big Bang.
Asking the Biology teacher to defend Creationism.
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 1:37pm@LPHP
Report Post »Nice straw man. No one is asking a biology teacher to defend creationism. I would love to find one that can factually defend macro-evolution. Find me one of those since it’s taxpayer subsidised. Here’s a better idea, just teach biology which is exclusive of macro-evolution. Edify thyself.
Locked
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 1:49pm@Squid
“I would love to find one that can factually defend macro-evolution.”
I’d like to find one who uses the term macro-evolution, as there’s no such scientific term.
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 2:13pm@LPHP
That is because the church of evolution purposely uses the word evolution for both cases. But here’s a break down
Macro Evolution – A biological change that causes an ape to become something other than an ape. Which as much as we know by DNA science is not possible since DNA code is that law by which we biologically operate.
Micro Evolution – ( Or adaptation ) A biological change that would cause an ape to become a different type of ape. (A baboon becomes a gorilla) Which is perfectly acceptable within the DNA code because the information for that to occur already exists.
P.S. The dna structure of a swine is closer to humans than that of an ape. That is why people have human organs transplanted with pig organs. It’s never been done with ape organs.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 2:15pm@ Squid Vet Ohio:
Where’s my external link for supplemental reading material? Did you not pick up on the pattern I display? I only ever use the phrase “Edify thyself” right before I post a link… usually to Wikipedia, which begs the question why couldn’t people just look it up themselves?
Telling me to edify myself without a link to material bolstering your position is just demagoguery.
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 2:17pmPS.
Google “Macroevolution definition” and you’ll get 9060 hits to include college sites such the Christian fundamentalist college UC Berkeley, scientific magazines and so on.
You’re biology teacher must not have google on his computer.
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 2:30pmHere‘s your link though I’m skeptical you’ll read it.
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/
(It’s not a religious site, It college professors and I don’t know their religious persuasion, if any)
One last thing; I openly admit that Creationism is religious in nature. It is a belief about how know science came to be. I only wish Evolutionists would admit the same. I can not PROVE creation anymore that you can PROVE evolution. I do believe that empirical science anectdotably points to the creation account. Like I said, leave them both out of the public school and just teach science. I will teach people creation at church and you can teach evolution at whatever you do on Sunday.
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 2:43pm@LPHP
Sorry, I can be a bit of a smart alec. Not exaclty Christ-like. I am passionate about creationism and can get caught up in the heat of the debate. Hope I didn’t offend you. I hope that God blesses you regardless if you believe He exists or not.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 2:48pm@Squid
I’m not her, by the way. Might want to keep posters straight.
“That is because the church of evolution purposely uses the word evolution for both cases. But here’s a break down
Macro Evolution – A biological change that causes an ape to become something other than an ape. Which as much as we know by DNA science is not possible since DNA code is that law by which we biologically operate.
Micro Evolution – ( Or adaptation ) A biological change that would cause an ape to become a different type of ape. (A baboon becomes a gorilla) Which is perfectly acceptable within the DNA code because the information for that to occur already exists.”
Congrats on making up terms?
Again, your “proof” is coming from a site called “dissent from darwin.” No one except those purposely trying to discredit evolution use the terms because their very function is to move the goalposts from the scientific definition.
The end goal of science isn’t “ignore what we don’t like,“ but ”interpret the evidence and find a new theory if this one is wrong.” And it hasn’t been done for evolution… so instead you try to redefine evolution. That’s, unfortunately, not how scientific process works.
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 3:11pm@LOCKED
Sorry, evolutionist all look alike to me. Just kidding, you all look like apes.
My earlier post
“Google “Macroevolution definition” and you’ll get 9060 hits to include college sites such the Christian fundamentalist college UC Berkeley, scientific magazines and so on.”
I‘m good but I’m not responsible for all 9060 sites. I was paraphrasing what the terms meant, not defining them.
I can see you didn’t bother reading what the college profs at these major universities said because you were offended by the url name? You guys are the flat-earthers. No intellectual curiosity at all. Scientist are supposed to be skeptical. But evolutionists hold fast to their dogma with more piety and zeal than most christians hold to ours (sadly). I was forced to learn your religion in public schools and believed it until I actually started to learn real science and it quickly became illogical to believe. It required more faith that matter in of itself produced intelligence. It was easier and required less faith to believe that the God that completely changed by life created the matter with the intelligence installed and that all the similtarites in biology is because of a common designer, not a common ancestor.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 3:23pmAnd if you Google “Macro-evolution made up?” you get 120,000,000 results. Not sure that the number of Google hits is an accurate marker.
And I actually did go to the site, did a quick Ctrl + F “Macro,” found no results, looked at the site name and went “Oh.” So, here’s a nifty piece from me on “macroevolution” (also, coincidentally, the first site Google brought up when I asked if it was made up). You’ll be happy to know, all quotes and information is cited.
Report Post »http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html#confusions
Onowicit
Posted on March 22, 2012 at 9:23pm@Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Report Post »I am so tickled by your blah blah blah. As a simian that feels he has come a long way (pun not intended).it seems I have only brought a hammer to a hollow point fight, however sense I am still evolving apparently. what exactly should I do with this hammer, beat you with it or repair your broken porch? Evolution does not seem to answer this question for me. Thanks