Actually *all* of our scientific knowledge uses theories as the foundation, they're the unifying ideas that make sense of what would otherwise be just a disordered collection of observations.
Should we really be teaching Evolution in schools??
- Thread starter CanadianLove
- Start date
The Miller-Urey experiment created more than two amino acids. They had 20 common amino acids. As for combining with other elements, in later experiments when more elements are added, the amino acid products are stable.
If evolution of organic molecules is a lie, then they shouldn't have even been able to create a single amino acid, even with their simplified set of reactants.
Carbon dating is something else altogether.
As I originally suggested, if Hovind said things that indicated that experiment created only two amino acids, he was simply lying about the data. Creationists do that a lot.
I have no intention of watching such a fool for two hours, or even for one, five minutes is about my limit, but I'd bet he got carbon dating fundamentally wrong too. Creationists do that a lot as well, and tend to use it as a sort of generic term for all forms of dating by analysis of radioactive decay products, when in fact it's useful only for dating organic remains less than a few tens of thousands of years old. It's completely useless for anything as old as dinosaur remains. But for anyone who thinks the earth is only 6000 years old, I suppose it'd be adequate in principle, if they believed it worked at all. And they generally don't.
It is lucky for charlatans like Hovind that most people don't want to or are incapable of critical thought. They want their "facts" handed to them by people who claim to know stuff they don't. Clowns like Hovind and his ilk bilk these saps by claiming divine knowledge. Pretty hard to argue for the truth with people who would rather follow than think for themselves.
This is nuts.
You'd have to be one of those guys dependent on seduced dumb followers paying le bills to have a problem with it.
Like this: http://tunes.digitalock.com/a3/08.mp3
I grew up in Canada. I was a wimpy pencil-kneck science-geek, and (ironically) my best friends were (somehow) tough rats. The only times I almost got slammed was when I got lippy to classmates. Had I not been able to run it could have meant Quebeque-level priest protection, whereupon I would have had to allow dick-suck except for the part where I could turn his head back to God and show how if he delegates his sperm to a Montreal-level DNA bank then the best people shall be there when we go into space.
We talked about and debated science versus creation from the age of ten, and nobody got mentally deranged about it except those adults we could see were for some typically adult reason weird about it.
By the way... if you read Turtullian, he talks about how cult-leaders back in the third century were doing it just to seduce young women.
Actually... since we're on this topic...
Seriously...
Suppose you're in charge...
What position of authority would you have to be holding to feel threatened by subjects believing in evolution versus Old Testament creation?
If you were in charge, what threat to your authority would there be for people to understand the theory of evolution rather-than/versus believing in Old Testament creation?
PS - ever listen to late-night advertisements?
Ever notice how those seem like exactly the kinds of ads Arabs would take into?
Does it mean Arabs have secretly invaded late-night advertising?
Anybody MBA with half a brain-cell would stear that towards the horror-'Stanis abandoned after the collapse of the Soviet Union, where the puppet MBAs got to jerk off as their reward but never had to go back in as management.
Anyway...
Anyway... can't find a way to start a new threat, so I'll put it here.
Pretend you're Lucifer super-depending on taking souls down into spritual food to be eated like if you're a fungus compared to God who might have phtopsynthesis if he'd just talk about it more, and your next-door neighbor has become a Lucifer-food delight.
You'd have to be one of those guys dependent on seduced dumb followers paying le bills to have a problem with it.
Like this: http://tunes.digitalock.com/a3/08.mp3
I grew up in Canada. I was a wimpy pencil-kneck science-geek, and (ironically) my best friends were (somehow) tough rats. The only times I almost got slammed was when I got lippy to classmates. Had I not been able to run it could have meant Quebeque-level priest protection, whereupon I would have had to allow dick-suck except for the part where I could turn his head back to God and show how if he delegates his sperm to a Montreal-level DNA bank then the best people shall be there when we go into space.
We talked about and debated science versus creation from the age of ten, and nobody got mentally deranged about it except those adults we could see were for some typically adult reason weird about it.
By the way... if you read Turtullian, he talks about how cult-leaders back in the third century were doing it just to seduce young women.
Actually... since we're on this topic...
Seriously...
Suppose you're in charge...
What position of authority would you have to be holding to feel threatened by subjects believing in evolution versus Old Testament creation?
If you were in charge, what threat to your authority would there be for people to understand the theory of evolution rather-than/versus believing in Old Testament creation?
PS - ever listen to late-night advertisements?
Ever notice how those seem like exactly the kinds of ads Arabs would take into?
Does it mean Arabs have secretly invaded late-night advertising?
Anybody MBA with half a brain-cell would stear that towards the horror-'Stanis abandoned after the collapse of the Soviet Union, where the puppet MBAs got to jerk off as their reward but never had to go back in as management.
Anyway...
Anyway... can't find a way to start a new threat, so I'll put it here.
Pretend you're Lucifer super-depending on taking souls down into spritual food to be eated like if you're a fungus compared to God who might have phtopsynthesis if he'd just talk about it more, and your next-door neighbor has become a Lucifer-food delight.
Last edited:
What the heck are you talking about? I never made any such claim. I don't even think evolution as it is presented is all that accurate. What I am saying is that creationism as presented by fundamentalists is so unbelievable that people have to suspend logic to buy it.
`
Kent Hovind? really?
*facepalm*
What's next? Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron and the banana?
It's 2012. The fact that question of the OP was posed at all is disheartening and depressing...........it's about as relevant as asking "should gravity be taught in schools?"
Evolution is scientific fact and has been for a loooong time now.
`
`
No, you really don't
no person can afford to waste 2 hours listening to someone who doesn't understand/misrpresents the science behind evolution.....
Skip the Hovind video and just spend an hour or so persuing the Talk Origins website. It's one of the best resources around on the facts of evolution.
`
Kent Hovind? really?
*facepalm*
What's next? Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron and the banana?
It's 2012. The fact that question of the OP was posed at all is disheartening and depressing...........it's about as relevant as asking "should gravity be taught in schools?"
Evolution is scientific fact and has been for a loooong time now.
`
`
No, you really don't
no person can afford to waste 2 hours listening to someone who doesn't understand/misrpresents the science behind evolution.....Skip the Hovind video and just spend an hour or so persuing the Talk Origins website. It's one of the best resources around on the facts of evolution.
`
Remember, half of all people are below average intelligence. Apparently, evolution is a difficult concept for some.
I would say that gravity shouldn't be taught in schools, because it is as real as centrifugal force, but I think that would go over many people's heads. I don't think one would have much luck teaching general relativity in schools, so Newton's law of gravitation it is...
If my memory is correct (high school was a long time ago for me), high school physics also teaches that centrifugal force is real. I recall one memorable exam question. We were given that Tom Sawyer is swinging a dead rat by its tail, and the necessary data, like the tail's tensile strength, and instructed to calculate what angular velocity he'd have to achieve to snap the tail off. I liked that teacher a lot. He did a lot of demonstrations that involved dropping heavy things on the floor, because the senior French teacher, whom everybody in the school despised, was in the classroom right below his.
More to the point, a lot of what's taught in schools is of the "lies told to children" variety of information, in the sense that they're oversimplified versions of what's really known. I think it probably has to be that way, and university really isn't much different, at least in the undergraduate years. You don't start out with general relativity in first year physics, for instance, you go through classical physics first, so you might get Lagrange's and Hamilton's formulations of Newton's version before you get to Einstein. Same with evolution. There are some basic ideas you can impart at the high school level, but that's about it. Given that a major purpose of high school, or at least what I think should be a major purpose of high school, is to expose students to as broad a range of human knowledge as possible so they have a foundation on which to make reasoned decisions about what to pursue further, if anything, it can't really be any other way.
More to the point, a lot of what's taught in schools is of the "lies told to children" variety of information, in the sense that they're oversimplified versions of what's really known. I think it probably has to be that way, and university really isn't much different, at least in the undergraduate years. You don't start out with general relativity in first year physics, for instance, you go through classical physics first, so you might get Lagrange's and Hamilton's formulations of Newton's version before you get to Einstein. Same with evolution. There are some basic ideas you can impart at the high school level, but that's about it. Given that a major purpose of high school, or at least what I think should be a major purpose of high school, is to expose students to as broad a range of human knowledge as possible so they have a foundation on which to make reasoned decisions about what to pursue further, if anything, it can't really be any other way.
Genetic engineering is what Claude Vorhilon aka Rael claims with is elohims,who in the begining of his cult were little guys with black long hair and beard,later by some weird alien magic,they were tall blond hair aliens.humanity was created by genetic engineering when ancient aliens needed a labour workforce to mine elements.
actually, I have no idea how we got here. all I know is we're s h i t ting up the place.
As i said before in another thread.
Alien explorers arrived here,they were happy,they celebrated,then got so drunk and some of them shagged a few apes.....and here we are "humans"
Elementary, my dear Dog. You can't get humans from shagging monkeys any more than you can get a new species from a dog shagging a cat. You have to splice DNA, probably over several mutations, some of which would have been horror shows, like Frankie Baby.Genetic engineering is what Claude Vorhilon aka Rael claims with is elohims,who in the begining of his cult were little guys with black long hair and beard,later by some weird alien magic,they were tall blond hair aliens.
As i said before in another thread.
Alien explorers arrived here,they were happy,they celebrated,then got so drunk and some of them shagged a few apes.....and here we are "humans"
There are so many ways to rip apart the anti-teaching-evolution neurosis propagated by hungry preachers desperate for coin in the collection plate from parisioners desperate themselves for something to get theologically hyped about on a level they can understand that I might as well just get to the point...
If you were Lucifer, wouldn't *you* work on getting people to focus and stress over a part of the Bible having nothing to do with salvation in order to keep them from reading and thinking about the parts describing behaviors of the type that will make God want to keep their souls alive after their body dies so they won't be available as food for a thing existing on the spiritual level of a fungus?
If you were Lucifer, wouldn't *you* work on getting people to focus and stress over a part of the Bible having nothing to do with salvation in order to keep them from reading and thinking about the parts describing behaviors of the type that will make God want to keep their souls alive after their body dies so they won't be available as food for a thing existing on the spiritual level of a fungus?
Last edited:
No. If I was Lucifer I would write a book claiming I was god, threaten the hell out of everybody with a promise of eternal damnation so they would bow down and kiss my feet and pay charlatans to tell them they are saved because they believe in the book I wrote. God certainly wouldn't write a book like that.
Which side are you on?
And what would be in it for you, as Lucifer pretending to be God? Are you going to live on worship?
Hmm... who's side was God on when he got mad at Moses for asking stupid questions at the burning bush?
If god is all powerful and all knowing and if he created the Universe, why would he need a bunch of punk ass humans to worship him? If he is that insecure, then he ain't no god, he is probably a low life like Dick Cheney.
As Jethro Tull pointed out in Aqualung, man created God in his own image
and likeness. Teaching the Bible in schools, based on emotion and belief
alone is nonsense
and likeness. Teaching the Bible in schools, based on emotion and belief
alone is nonsense