Fight over teaching evolution in Texas fizzles

[mustangguy289]

You just said that proof of evolution exists. Just thought I would point that out.

I think he just said there is proof of adaptation.

[jdgregory84]

You have the exact same amount of evidence that he has lol. That's what you can't get through your head. You have evidence that species can adapt and literally change form over time to better suit their environment. Nothing more. Prove otherwise. Your theory of "creation" has the exact same credibility, scientifically, as his theory of creation. Its just sad that you'll never see that. And thats an awful baby you have in your sig.

You just said that proof of evolution exists. Just thought I would point that out.

[Denny]

Accepted to be true is as close to true as science will ever concede anything.



Please give an example where science has several valid hypotheses that are correct and valid and there is a scientific theory on the subject. If it exists, I've never seen it.



He made a claim, and provided valid sources to back up his claim. That's how you show that something is correct when you're not an authority on the subject. He did exactly as he should be doing. That's how research works. Not looking at what actual experts are saying and going "Oh, I don't agree with that, so it must be wrong", which is what the 6 day creationists/Intelligent Design camp does on a regular basis.



Not when performing research on science, as science doesn't give a shit about anyone's personal input. It's all about facts. So, no personal input is required.

You, on the other hand, have a habit of asserting what you believe as fact with no supporting evidence, and yet still claim to be "researched" on the matter. Then you ridicule someone else over citing sources? It's doesn't follow that you think that citing proper sources is worthy of ridicule, personal input is required for science and are well researched in anything.



I'm not barking out "blatant dishonesty", nor am I doing it quickly. Based on Stephens statements and responses in this and the "What makes the bible true" thread demonstrates it.

See, this is the main reason why neither of us will see eye to eye on this. You base your BELIEF on these hypotheses to come to a stretch of a conclusion. My BELIEF is based on faith.

It is funny, though; the last time there was a discussion on this I brought up how the biblical order of creation was right in line with science, but I don't remember if it was ever addressed by anyone else. I may have to go find it (thinking it was in Canada somewhere). But for arguement's sake, I can post it up again. If we can verify "Moses' hypotheses" (if we need to refer it as such for this scenario) through "scientific fact," then can we conclude that he is right?

Just use "day" to mean a length of time, since my personal BELIEF is more in line with the "day-period" theory. It could also not necessarily mean consecutive days, again it doesn't say for sure.

Order of Creation:
Genesis 1:1 was before the first day. It states "in the beginning." If you look at the wording, the heavens and the earth were already created. Now, what happened before that, I don't know, but I'm not going to say "millions and billions of years ago, this was here and this was happening." since I have nothing to back those claims up. If you look carefully, though, verse 1:2 talks about the earth being formless AND it was covered with deep waters.

Could there have been something prior to "Day 1" of Creation on earth? Could the earth had some sort of thriving life before "this" Creation? How far back was "In the beginning?" He flooded the earth during Noah's day. He said it would be the last time, but was it the first? I take every word of the Bible as having a specific meaning. Ya, it has been butchered and re-translated several times over, but I also belive that He got His Word to me in a specific way for a specific reason.

OK, so we have the heavens and a water-filled earth to bring us to Day 1. Now, as most things that I've read pertaining to scientific order of events, this hunk of rock started life out in water as well, so I'm still cool here.

Day 1- God made light upon the earth and separated it from darkness.

OK, since I have said that I believe that the heavens and earth were already around at this point, then the sun was already doing its thing, BUT no light shown on the earth yet. Now, science has stated that the earth could have started off with a heavy layer of gasous clouds and water vapor (possibly blocking any sunlight?). So, I'm still cool, y'all.

Day 2- The separation of the midst of waters from waters and the accumulation of land.

So, with the heavy gases and water vapors parting to allow sunlight, it allows water to collect in the form of seas, making room for land (getting that whole evaporation, condensation, precipitation thingy-muh-gig going). That process would be needed to start any sustainment of life on earth, scientifically speaking, of course.

Day 3- Vegetation, plantlife, seeding, etc.

Now, I'm no scientist, but I reckon that one of dem edumucated fellers in dem big schools would agree that the vegetation came before the chicken and the egg, so I think we still cool, here.

Day 4- Separation of the light from the night and order of sun, moon and stars.

This gets a little tricky, as I'm merely just a simpleton, trying to understand the Creator of everything. I believe that the solar system (even galaxy, for that matter) finally aligned itself into the order and positioning (timing) we have today. Notice that now living creatures were named yet, so who knows what went on when it was just plantlife... but then again, this is just what I gather from reading the Bible.

Day 5- Sea creatures and birds.

From just plants and vegetation to sea creatures and birds perfectly describes the transition of the Cretaceous and Tertiary eras. Am I still correct, here? If so, that's about right in order with science as well, so we're still cool.

Day 6- All the other "beasts of the earth" and LASTLY, man.

While that kinda loses the other orders of eras in a vague generality, it doesn't go against anything scientifically stated either, especially man being a very young creation, compared to everything else.

I could produce several sources that have similar theories, but none will have my exact theory, as they shouldn't because each and every believer has their own personal belief. I accept this since we all have our own personal relationship with God and exercise our own free will that He's given us.

Some sites that each have their own interpretations as well:

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml

http://www.suite101.com/content/the-order-of-creation-a16134

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html (this one is pretty close to mine. In fact, this is where I got help with the eras I mentioned, but he lost me on a few other parts... which is OK).

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/anthony_garrett/esct.html

Anyway, I guess since this conversation is obviously spinning its wheels in place, I thought I'd just lay out what I get from both the Bible AND science. Feel free to tear it up, but I needed to get the point across that there are no two believers of Creation that will have the same interpretation about ANYTHING that is from the Bible. Hell, even scientists come up with different theories about one subject. I just hope that you don't think that we're all just mindless drones that don't think for themselves.

[mustangguy289]

One can believe whatever they want and need no permission from anyone to do so.

That doesn't mean one has any claim to truth, unless it can be demonstrated. Evolution has been demonstrated, in a great many ways. What hasn't been demonstrated is not included in the theory, so I don't see the reasoning behind believing in certain parts of the evolutionary theory and not in others.

When has it been demonstrated that a monkey has evolved into a human?

I understand cells, organisms, any living thing adapts through certain amounts of evolution to its surroundings. However, I do not see the humans from monkeys hypothesis.

[Forever_frost]

It's not like it was all written at once. If gospels written several hundred years apart make up the book what's wrong with adding a new gospel now?

Revelation is very clear on this. Adding to it adds the plagues of the Bible to you, taking away from it removes your name from the Book of Life. Pretty simple

[Maddhattter]

Can one believe in certain parts of the evolution theory and not in others?

One can believe whatever they want and need no permission from anyone to do so.

That doesn't mean one has any claim to truth, unless it can be demonstrated. Evolution has been demonstrated, in a great many ways. What hasn't been demonstrated is not included in the theory, so I don't see the reasoning behind believing in certain parts of the evolutionary theory and not in others.

[mustangguy289]

No. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. There are many denominations of christianity and other religions that accept their particular supernatural claim and evolution.

Can one believe in certain parts of the evolution theory and not in others?

[Maddhattter]

So does the theory of evolution discredit any form of a Higher Being.. AKA God?

No. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. There are many denominations of christianity and other religions that accept their particular supernatural claim and evolution.

[mustangguy289]

So does the theory of evolution discredit any form of a Higher Being.. AKA God?

[Maddhattter]

ACCEPTED to be true, not true.

Before you try to pull the "it's not a law" crap again, you've been informed that Scientific Law is defined as...

A scientific theory that has been tested many times and is generally accepted as true. It is a statement about events that always occur in nature.

http://www.unit5.org/villhauer/Glossary/Glossary.htm

Just wanted to reiterate what even high school graduates are expected to understand.

[Maddhattter]

ACCEPTED to be true, not true.

Accepted to be true is as close to true as science will ever concede anything.

They are verifying the hypotheses, but it still doesn't mean that the conclusion is necessarily true. Several valid hypotheses can be correct and valid, but it doesn't have to mean that they can mean that Hyp A plus Hyp B and Hyp C means conclusion D.

Please give an example where science has several valid hypotheses that are correct and valid and there is a scientific theory on the subject. If it exists, I've never seen it.

Utilizing various sources to make YOUR point is one thing, just regurgitating info is another.

He made a claim, and provided valid sources to back up his claim. That's how you show that something is correct when you're not an authority on the subject. He did exactly as he should be doing. That's how research works. Not looking at what actual experts are saying and going "Oh, I don't agree with that, so it must be wrong", which is what the 6 day creationists/Intelligent Design camp does on a regular basis.

He'd fail any course on the grounds of his lack of personal input with "research practices" like that.

Not when performing research on science, as science doesn't give a shit about anyone's personal input. It's all about facts. So, no personal input is required.

You, on the other hand, have a habit of asserting what you believe as fact with no supporting evidence, and yet still claim to be "researched" on the matter. Then you ridicule someone else over citing sources? It's doesn't follow that you think that citing proper sources is worthy of ridicule, personal input is required for science and are well researched in anything.

I can't be quick to bark out "blatant dishonesty," but if you can, I'll let Stephen address that one.

I'm not barking out "blatant dishonesty", nor am I doing it quickly. Based on Stephens statements and responses in this and the "What makes the bible true" thread demonstrates it.

[Denny]

You seem to be determined to either parade your ignorance at best, or be blatantly dishonest at worst. Racrguy has not claimed that Theory=Law. However, science agrees with what he is saying, that Theory=Fact. So, once again, science disagrees with you.

Scientific Theory: A well tested concept that explains a wide range/lots of observations.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Scientific_theory

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Your misrepresentation of the definition of scientific theory and of Racrguy’s statements does not bode well for your claims of being “well researched” compared to other theists.

ACCEPTED to be true, not true.

They are verifying the hypotheses, but it still doesn't mean that the conclusion is necessarily true. Several valid hypotheses can be correct and valid, but it doesn't have to mean that they can mean that Hyp A plus Hyp B and Hyp C means conclusion D.

[Sarcasm]Yep. It’s only half-assed intelliposting when you properly cite your sources and to use valid sources.[/Sarcasm]

If that’s not the way you do research, there is no good reason to even have a discussion with you as you don’t properly do research then demand that you are right.

Utilizing various sources to make YOUR point is one thing, just regurgitating info is another.

I don’t agree with dismissing someone as quickly as he does, but extrapolating your research practices by looking at your criticisms of his research practices, I’d have to agree with Racrguy in your case.

He'd fail any course on the grounds of his lack of personal input with "research practices" like that.

Considering Stephens display of the inability to check his sources, circular logic and blatant dishonesty, there is no reason to believe this is not true.

I can't be quick to bark out "blatant dishonesty," but if you can, I'll let Stephen address that one.

[Maddhattter]

You have the exact same amount of evidence that he has lol. That's what you can't get through your head. You have evidence that species can adapt and literally change form over time to better suit their environment.

That is called Evolution. So, by your own admission, Racrguy has more evidence than Denny, as Denny has demonstrated none.

Nothing more. Prove otherwise.

Considering the topic is evolution, and you agreed that it happens, there is nothing more that needs to be proven.

Your theory of "creation" has the exact same credibility, scientifically, as his theory of creation. Its just sad that you'll never see that. And thats an awful baby you have in your sig.

Reading his posts, he has put forward no “creation” theory.

However, given that every time throughout history, the supernatural option has been shown to be untrue, any naturalistic hypothesis is more credible and rational than a supernatural one. It would be outright irrational to bank on an option that has never been proven to be accurate in anything.

Yes. I did just state that the Raliens creation hypothesis, as I understand it, i.e. aliens created us and the biosphere for us, is more credible than the 6 day creation hypothesis, as it requires no supernatural claims.

[Maddhattter]

Theory = Fact/Law and he will not explain it in detail.

You seem to be determined to either parade your ignorance at best, or be blatantly dishonest at worst. Racrguy has not claimed that Theory=Law. However, science agrees with what he is saying, that Theory=Fact. So, once again, science disagrees with you.

Scientific Theory: A well tested concept that explains a wide range/lots of observations.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Scientific_theory

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Your misrepresentation of the definition of scientific theory and of Racrguy’s statements does not bode well for your claims of being “well researched” compared to other theists.

In fact, he'll make a half-assed intellipost only on the coat tails of someone else.

[Sarcasm]Yep. It’s only half-assed intelliposting when you properly cite your sources and to use valid sources.[/Sarcasm]

If that’s not the way you do research, there is no good reason to even have a discussion with you as you don’t properly do research then demand that you are right.

If you don't like it, you can excuse yourself from the conversation.

I don’t agree with dismissing someone as quickly as he does, but extrapolating your research practices by looking at your criticisms of his research practices, I’d have to agree with Racrguy in your case.

By the way, you're uneducated. Now that that is said, nothing you say is valid.

racrguy wins again!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111oneonejuan11!!

Considering Stephens display of the inability to check his sources, circular logic and blatant dishonesty, there is no reason to believe this is not true.

[Maddhattter]

You are so full of crap I can smell it from here. I guess I missed where the big bang theory turned into the big bang fact.

When theory is used as it’s defined, within the context of science, it is a fact. Your refusal to use the word as defined in the context of science when discussing science is most likely the reason that you “missed where the big bang theory turned into the big bang fact” or when any theory became fact.

That small point of matter that is expanding....where did it come from? You don't know.

You’re right. Science doesn’t know. Religion doesn’t know either, at least not demonstrably. Science just has the intellectual honesty to admit it.

That is where faith comes in.

Wrong, as faith is devoid of evidence. You know this, because you’ve been shown the definitions, and how they relate. I guess dishonesty is something that should just be expected from you at this point.

The evidence supports the “Big Bang” theory, hence it being a theory, scientifically. The “Big Bang” theory doesn’t have to know where the matter came from, as the matter exists now. There is no leap of faith to assume that matter came into existence. It’s a similar concept as the issue of evolution. It requires no faith that life started as life is here. That doesn’t mean that anyone knows how life started, but evolution doesn’t cover that.

You saying there is absolutely no proof of creationism just shows you are ignorant.

No, science cannot prove the supernatural. It’s a little problem with any of the 6 day creation models, and most of the intelligent design models.

Again, I guess the 5 billion people who believe in God must be wrong and you must be right.

Appeals to popularity do nothing to support your claim when the vast majority of the 5 billion people you claim are not qualified to speak on the topic with any legitimate authority. Like the sources you cited in the Theology Corner.

I am so glad the world has you to bring us out of the darkness into the light...believing some matter that came from...well somewhere...and formed goo that eventually evolved into human beings is way more rational than a Supreme Being created everything.

Given that historically, the naturalistic hypothesis’ have always been found to be accurate, while the supernatural claims have been shown to be untrue, you’re right. It is more rational to believe that “believing some matter that came from...well somewhere...and formed goo that eventually evolved into human beings’ via naturalistic means, than to believe that “a Supreme Being” magiced everything into existence.

http://184.154.224.5/~creatio1/index...ask=view&id=36

HOLY CRAP! You come bearing even more people who are not qualified to talk about the issues they are discussing?!

Wait, no… That’s been par for the course from you.

However, to be fair:
1. John Woodmorappe is an author without the confidence in his “non-conventional” science practices to use his actual name, or background details to demonstrate himself to be an authority. In his paper, he uses a vast amount of rhetoric and highly inflammatory comments not found in legitimate scientific journals. Sorry, Creation Research Society Quarterly is not a legitimate scientific journal. Also, in his paper, he never spends more than a few sentences doing anything more than asserting any of his claims and quote mining the documents that he is “refuting”.

For a reference who uses actual science, you can check out Dr. Kevin R. Henke who has a Ph.D in geology. You know, someone who can reasonably be considered an authority on the subject.

2. Nils Heribert-Nilsson quotes are more than fifty years old and the man was in his 70s when he wrote the book quoted. Science has progressed a little in the last fifty years, not to mention that he personally subscribed to a lot of both outrageous and outdated ideas, like the idea that enzymes are genes.

So, given that the first two sources cited by the website you posted are crap, there is no reason to progress, as it is safe to assume that the rest are crap.