Larry Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Or you could, you know, talk about the actual topic at hand Or reality, for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Or reality, for that matter. In clinical tests, a small number of Realitrex users reported dizzy spells, shallow breathing, cold sweats, and acute withering of the pearl-clutching hand. Symptoms typically were moderate to severe. Patients with a history of fiction-rage delusions should avoid taking Realitrex. Always consult your doctor (or alternative-medicine practitioner) before beginning any reality-focused regimen. (new sig?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Not bad. But no doubt within a few days I'll be seeing another sig along the lines of "If you or anyone you know has had anything bad happen after taking Realitrex, you may be entitled to a large cash compensation." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Creationism, IMO, is the result of marketing to man. If the scriptures are indeed based off the word of God, then how could God convey the answers to some of the mysteries of life and expect people of that time to even come close to understanding it? Hey people from thousands of years ago, the Earth and the other planets revolve around the Sun because of gravitational pull. the moon controls the tides because of gravity also, those stars you see are actually light from many, many, many years ago, tiny little things called germs make you sick, we're made up of molecules, etc. etc. All of that would have been over their heads, how would you even convey these things in that time? You have to convey the simplest idea possible for that time. That, IMO, is creationism, a simple explanation meant to help people thousands of years ago understand their world better. Society has grown out of various religious traditions and ideas, I think it's time we grew out of creationism. I think a greater testament to the power of God is being able to set things up on a very minimal level and allow things to work out the way they have as opposed to directly setting up every single thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Evolution and creation should be left out of the science room only that which you can prove should be taught or you can do things to attempt to prove theories Viewed through a sufficiently abstract lens, nothing can be proven with 100% certainty. Spending all day questioning reality isn't particularly conducive to accomplishing anything, however. The best we can do is trust the basic information we gather through perception, make inferences based on that information, and do our best to repeatedly test our inferences to make sure that they are sufficiently strong so as to be of practical use to us. That's basically what science is at it's core. What separates evolution and creationism, then? Simple. Creationism is, for all intents and purposes, currently untestable. We can't confirm anything we infer about it, thus it is not useful to us. Evolution, however, can be tested and has proven capable of withstanding the rigors of objective doubt. As such, we can use it. Or you could, you know, talk about the actual topic at hand That would require a minuscule amount of effort. ND stopped trying and started to just phone it in a long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 ...That would require a minuscule amount of effort. ND stopped trying and started to just phone it in a long time ago. A plausible theory...assuming you think he's actually serious about all the foolishness he posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuposse87 Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 If a school wants to teach creationism, thats fine. They need to implement in it a way that doesn't interfere with science. School boards should allow for the basic ideas of creationism to be detailed in world history classes. That is different however from preaching to them. I have to say, I get very annoyed when people say "evolution is just a theory" when they have no idea what it means to be a scientific theory. The very computers we post from are derivatives of scientific theory. I guess it is cool to discount one when it doesn't fit your agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter44 Posted February 9, 2011 Author Share Posted February 9, 2011 I don't know, I think I have a problem with someone wanting to teach my child that people and dinosaurs lived harmoniously together about 5000 years ago... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 It's opening a can of worms to me. If you teach christian creationism, why not all other religious forms of creationism? Why not the old native american myths where the earth is on the back of a turtle?There comes a moment where religion has to move on and accept science, all of it. The world isn't flat. That was once hard to grasp, but it isn't. Now it's accepted. Evolution is real, it's hard to grasp. But eventually it will have to be accepted. Otherwise it's hypocritical every time a young earth creationist gets a flu shot based around the entire premise that a virus has evolved to fight their anti-bodies from the previous year. Frankly, I've stopped fighting the evolutionary fight. I've learned that it's not my job to educate those who don't want to be educated; living in ignorance is their prerogative. And if that makes me an elitist academic, then I'm damn proud of it. It wasnt christianity that promoted the idea of a flat world it was secular society Most of the flat earth claims stymy around the time from 1870-920 had to do with idealogical settings over created by struggles over evolution anti christians were the ones that spread the Myth about the flat earth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 can someone please point to me where that blog says that they are teaching creationism in the classroom? (other than the title, of course) Otherwise it's hypocritical every time a young earth creationist gets a flu shot based around the entire premise that a virus has evolved to fight their anti-bodies from the previous year. . do you think it's possible to believe that creatures do evolve, but not take the position that humans evolved from primates? i think that's the rub for most. ---------- Post added February-13th-2011 at 07:57 AM ---------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Viewed through a sufficiently abstract lens, nothing can be proven with 100% certainty. Spending all day questioning reality isn't particularly conducive to accomplishing anything, however. The best we can do is trust the basic information we gather through perception, make inferences based on that information, and do our best to repeatedly test our inferences to make sure that they are sufficiently strong so as to be of practical use to us. That's basically what science is at it's core.What separates evolution and creationism, then? Simple. Creationism is, for all intents and purposes, currently untestable. We can't confirm anything we infer about it, thus it is not useful to us. Evolution, however, can be tested and has proven capable of withstanding the rigors of objective doubt. As such, we can use it. Creation is depulicated all the time, man is constantly trying to create and when science tries to duplicate a process in nature and brings together all the ingrediants he or she plays the role of God in that experiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 do you think it's possible to believe that creatures do evolve, but not take the position that humans evolved from primates? i think that's the rub for most. ---------- Post added February-13th-2011 at 07:57 AM ---------- I thought science established we did NOT evolve from primates? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/science/15oblucy.html http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/10/01/Study-Man-did-not-evolve-from-apes/UPI-40881254412291/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spec138 Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 I thought science established we did NOT evolve from primates?http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/science/15oblucy.html http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/10/01/Study-Man-did-not-evolve-from-apes/UPI-40881254412291/ Those are mostly just arguing around most people's misunderstanding of "evolving from" primates. We didn't evolve from the primates around today but our ancestors were primates. EDIT: The Pan genus is chimpanzees and bonobos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 What do you mean were?...Don't you mean are,as are we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spec138 Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 What do you mean were?...Don't you mean are,as are we? Our ancestors aren't alive today or I would have said are lol. I forgot the most damning evidence for our evolution from primates, Chromosome 2: Clear evidence for the evolution of Homo sapiens from a common ancestor with chimpanzees is the number of chromosomes in human as compared to all other members of Hominidae. All Hominidae with the exception of humans have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Humans have only 23 pairs. Human chromosome 2 is widely accepted to be a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.[11][12]The evidence for this includes: * The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the common chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.[13][14] * The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere.[15] * The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the middle.[16] Chromosome 2 thus presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2."[16][/Quote] Edit: And ya we are primates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanboyOf91 Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 I don't know, I think I have a problem with someone wanting to teach my child that people and dinosaurs lived harmoniously together about 5000 years ago... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSF Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 I don't know, I think I have a problem with someone wanting to teach my child that people and dinosaurs lived harmoniously together about 5000 years ago... Me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilandil Tasardur Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 It wasnt christianity that promoted the idea of a flat world it was secular society Most of the flat earth claims stymy around the time from 1870-920 had to do with idealogical settings over created by struggles over evolution anti christians were the ones that spread the Myth about the flat earth I had no idea about this; thanks for the info. I think I partly confused myself with the notion of the earth not being the center of the solar system. can someone please point to me where that blog says that they are teaching creationism in the classroom? (other than the title, of course)do you think it's possible to believe that creatures do evolve, but not take the position that humans evolved from primates? i think that's the rub for most. ---------- Post added February-13th-2011 at 07:57 AM ---------- I know you're right; but that doesn't make a difference to them. You can't just pick parts of the bible that you like to follow, and say that others "Don't apply to me." In the same way, you can't just pick parts of science that you like and discard those that don't fit your agenda. For me, the proof is in the pudding. The bible says God created man in his own image. It's pretty evident to me that that is not the case. Any way you slice it, we look just like chimps. With small exceptions in our skull and our feet and our hair, we're not much different at all. If God was making us, he sure as hell used the primates as a starting point. That's just plain to see. Edit: The important thing is to understand that that's okay! Primate doesn't mean inferior; it doesn't mean animal; it doesn't mean uneducated or "unspecial." The term primate is just a random tag made up by scientists that covers animals that look the same and appear similar genetically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 The important thing is to understand that that's okay! Primate doesn't mean inferior; it doesn't mean animal; it doesn't mean uneducated or "unspecial." The term primate is just a random tag made up by scientists that covers animals that look the same and appear similar genetically. God I hope not ,though some clearly are Anybody have a image of God handy for clarity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Ask and ye shall receive ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilandil Tasardur Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Bang you beat me to it! Nicely done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 I had no idea about this; thanks for the info. I think I partly confused myself with the notion of the earth not being the center of the solar system. I know you're right; but that doesn't make a difference to them. You can't just pick parts of the bible that you like to follow, and say that others "Don't apply to me." In the same way, you can't just pick parts of science that you like and discard those that don't fit your agenda. i fail to see how accepting that species do evolve but still believing in creation and not accepting that humans evolved from primates is picking and choosing from the Bible, since the whole thing about evolution / adaptation isn't really addressed to my knowledge. For me, the proof is in the pudding. The bible says God created man in his own image. It's pretty evident to me that that is not the case. where'd you find a picture of God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilandil Tasardur Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 i fail to see how accepting that species do evolve but still believing in creation and not accepting that humans evolved from primates is picking and choosing from the Bible, since the whole thing about evolution / adaptation isn't really addressed to my knowledge.where'd you find a picture of God? Ah, I think I explained that wrong. I didn't mean that it was picking and choosing from the bible, but that it was picking and choosing from science. In the same way that I can't embrace certain passage of the bible and renounce some, christians can't renounce certain aspects of science while championing and reaping the benefits of others. You can't only follow the laws you want; you must follow all the laws. Science can be wrong, and it often is, but respecting the scientific process is essential, otherwise you're just being a hypocrite. To me, it's like the same people who trash big government and welfare programs while collecting their welfare checks for months and months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Evolution and creation should be left out of the science room only that which you can prove should be taught or you can do things to attempt to prove theories Are you saying Evolution should not be taught in science class rooms? Modern Biology requires belief in evolution and natural selection. Half the stuff we learn in Genetics and Population Genetics is based on the principles of natural selection. Remove evolution and you might as well remove Biology from the curriculum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 anti christians were the ones that spread the Myth about the flat earth In actuality, it was mostly Washington Irving (also author of The Headless Horseman), who told a story about Christopher Columbus sailing to prove the world was round and not flat. The myth stuck. It's a ridiculous notion, of course, because the ancients were well aware that the world was not flat. Any sailor that looked at the horizon knew this, and the Ancient Greeks actually measured the Earth's circumfrence with surprising precision, using only trigonometry and a few measurements. For me, the proof is in the pudding. The bible says God created man in his own image. It's pretty evident to me that that is not the case. That's not what "created in God's image" means in Judeo-Christian theology. It has more to do with spriritual qualities, like love and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.