Fight over teaching evolution in Texas fizzles

[jdgregory84]

I'd rather you say apes are human like. We are the predominent species.

Put a dude in a cage with an ape and my money's on the monkey.

[Denny]

22,493 years ago, but who is counting?

[exlude]

Holy wall of text, paragraphs please.

[stephen4785]

Madhatter and racrguy have a tendency to get on any conversation and simply say that evidence you present is not valid. It doesn't matter if you have theologians or Dr.'s or scientists..they always have some reason to discount anyone they don't agree with. This is a typical response to someone who cannot refute the actual scientific evidence of an argument. Any "Evidence" from evolution I can refute with "Evidence" from creationism. Notice they do not have an answer for the scientific decay of the Earth's magnetic field or the human artifacts found throughout the geologic column that is evidence of a young Earth/ creation. They will try to attack the author of the piece or where it was published but they don't address the actual science. Again, they cannot produce "Scientific evidence" of where the first bit of matter came from. The whole evolution argument rests on that question but no scientist can answer it (Seems kinda important guys).

The idea of a universe beginning with a big bang goes against empirical science and the laws of physics (Let's see if they believe the laws of physics are a valid source or if the fact that I am quoting it makes it untrue). The 1st Law of Thermodynamics has shown that energy and matter remain constant. They can be transferred from one into the other but neither can appear from nothing. Even basic common sense and logic tells us that it is obvious that something can simply not come from nothing.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that the everything in the universe is running down and decaying. But to believe in a big bang would mean that the opposite is true... out of chaos order came into being and rather than decaying and becoming more disorderly, life and the universe is becoming more orderly. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics refutes this. The Bible, far from being at odds with science (as some have erroneously been led to believe), actually tells us that the universe is running down and becoming more disorderly just as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has revealed (Isa. 51:6; Ps. 102:25-26; Rom. 8:21).

But that's not important I guess. As I have said before, they argue in a vacuum. They can't prove their beliefs so they can only attack ours. Faith is not devoid of evidence. It just is that last little piece you cant prove but given all the other evidence...it just makes sense. The order of the universe, the complexity of a single human cell, the balance and order of life just doesn't point to the random chaos of the big bang. Let's ignore for the moment that there is no viable explanation of where the initial atoms came from. Or that, in all the vastness of the known universe these atoms could somehow find each other to initiate the explosion. This alone, if quantified as a mathematical probability, would exceed a googleplex...a google raised to the googleth power...a number that is so big that it cannot be written by a human in an entire lifetime. But apparently that is exactly what happened, against the laws of physics to make our universe. But I believe an orderly, intelligent God created the universe only 20,000 or so years ago and I'm the nut?

Hahaha better exlude?

[Denny]

Ruled out only in that it can't be considered until there is a means to test or observe it. Until then, it's left to the theologists.

Gotcha. I can live with that.

[exlude]

Can't be tested or obseved, so it has to be ruled out?

Ruled out only in that it can't be considered until there is a means to test or observe it. Until then, it's left to the theologists.

[mustangguy289]

I think it's more that humans started out as a more ape-like species. We're still ape-like. A couple of small physical changes and a lot more body hair and you're not far off from a modern day ape.

I'd rather you say apes are human like. We are the predominent species.

[Denny]

Yes, but not in the way you are leading with this post. Science is about what is observed and testable. As the supernatural cannot be observed or tested, it falls outside the realm of science.

Can't be tested or obseved, so it has to be ruled out?

I just don't get how evolution is still considered theory and not scientific fact. Like the article states, there's nearly as much evidence supporting evolution as there is supporting the "theory" of gravity. Is anybody here, christian or non going to say that gravity doesn't exist? I don't think that scientists are are trying to understand evolution are trying to discredit God. It might discredit the bible, but that's not the same. That brings us back to the bible being written by men though. What if God is sitting up on that little cloud, thinking "Dammit. They really screwed that book up."?

I can see this perspective and there are a lot of believers that do as well. It all just goes back to faith again.

[jdgregory84]

They probably could if they minimized the theory and took some of the more unproven stuff out.

Correct me if I am wrong, man coming from monkeys is part of the theory correct. You CANNOT prove that for a fact.

You CAN prove organisms change slightly over time and evolve in order to adapt to their surroundings.

I think it's more that humans started out as a more ape-like species. We're still ape-like. A couple of small physical changes and a lot more body hair and you're not far off from a modern day ape.

[Denny]

They probably could if they minimized the theory and took some of the more unproven stuff out.

Correct me if I am wrong, man coming from monkeys is part of the theory correct. You CANNOT prove that for a fact.

You CAN prove organisms change slightly over time and evolve in order to adapt to their surroundings.

More like man and monkey coming from the same place, but evolving in different ways.

[mustangguy289]

I just don't get how evolution is still considered theory and not scientific fact. Like the article states, there's nearly as much evidence supporting evolution as there is supporting the "theory" of gravity. Is anybody here, christian or non going to say that gravity doesn't exist? I don't think that scientists are are trying to understand evolution are trying to discredit God. It might discredit the bible, but that's not the same. That brings us back to the bible being written by men though. What if God is sitting up on that little cloud, thinking "Dammit. They really screwed that book up."?

They probably could if they minimized the theory and took some of the more unproven stuff out.

Correct me if I am wrong, man coming from monkeys is part of the theory correct. You CANNOT prove that for a fact.

You CAN prove organisms change slightly over time and evolve in order to adapt to their surroundings.

[jdgregory84]

Maybe he will evolve soon and understand it.

I just don't get how evolution is still considered theory and not scientific fact. Like the article states, there's nearly as much evidence supporting evolution as there is supporting the "theory" of gravity. Is anybody here, christian or non going to say that gravity doesn't exist? I don't think that scientists are are trying to understand evolution are trying to discredit God. It might discredit the bible, but that's not the same. That brings us back to the bible being written by men though. What if God is sitting up on that little cloud, thinking "Dammit. They really screwed that book up."?

[exlude]

But isn't science about ruling out all possibilities until a conclusion is reached?

Yes, but not in the way you are leading with this post. Science is about what is observed and testable. As the supernatural cannot be observed or tested, it falls outside the realm of science.

[mustangguy289]

And you STILL don't get it...

Maybe he will evolve soon and understand it.

[Denny]

"Hey square one. It's been a few posts since I've seen you."

And you STILL don't get it...