Jump to content
Science Forums

Evolution Lie


TINNY
 Share

Recommended Posts

anyway, about the googlebattle, i'm not sure what your point is. It seems to prove my point. i think 'god gene' is an evolutionist speculation since it shows how religious inclinations is merely part of evolution. so the googlebattle stats actually support my claim that evolutionist speculation is given more attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 36
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Nope, what it shows (and I picked "god gene" as just one example) is that religious related news with or without science topical nature, gets far more press than simple science issues. Esp Evolution items. About the only time Evolution gets covered is when some Christian scum bag is trying to stop our kids from getting a REAL science education.

 

Google News search

 

Results 1 - 10 of about 415 for theory-of-evolution

Results 1 - 10 of about 759 for creationism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Nope, what it shows (and I picked "god gene" as just one example) is that religious related news with or without science topical nature, gets far more press than simple science issues. Esp Evolution items. About the only time Evolution gets covered is when some Christian scum bag is trying to stop our kids from getting a REAL science education.

 

Google News search

 

Results 1 - 10 of about 415 for theory-of-evolution

Results 1 - 10 of about 759 for creationism

Evolution may not get the coverage in the press that you would like, but it certainly dominates our halls of ivy. I think you have a very large captive audience here. You must agree that creationism gets hardly no attention in this arena. I am a believer in natural selection, and am in favour of teaching it in school. I would however, like creationism to be more closely examined in our schools of learning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree with FT as fame make some wise people foolish. :hihi:

 

And the couple of false claims made by people trying to get a name in actual science is nothing compared to the continual stream of lies from the Creationists. And when the few false claims like piltdown man are promoted they are disproven by the same process, science. While Creationists never stop using the same lies no matter how often the lie is exposed.

 

Scientists just are not as dedicated to lying as Creationists are.

 

I would concur that I have often seen a lot less dedication to facts and evidence by people

labled as Creationists than those that ally with Evolution.

 

With respect to Piltdown Man what is so notable is the fallacious validity of the theory lasted

so long. Basically, Anthropology and Paleontology was in its infancy and had little in the

way of independent verification to validate or refute such a theory.

 

Maddog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution may not get the coverage in the press that you would like, but it certainly dominates our halls of ivy. I think you have a very large captive audience here. You must agree that creationism gets hardly no attention in this arena. I am a believer in natural selection, and am in favour of teaching it in school. I would however, like creationism to be more closely examined in our schools of learning.

Which certain type of creationism would that be, and why would schools seriously consider it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution may not get the coverage in the press that you would like, but it certainly dominates our halls of ivy. I think you have a very large captive audience here. You must agree that creationism gets hardly no attention in this arena. I am a believer in natural selection, and am in favour of teaching it in school.

 

What burns me up is this "have to" syndrome. It goes both ways. We are a country that

proposes to "protect our inalienable rights", and "pursuit of happiness". Evolution has now

been the prevailing body of knowledge for awhile (over 100 years). It was tested in 1925

as being allowed in education and wisdom won. It do not see harm in allowing both sides.

Evolution can be taught fine in schools and those who wish to prefer there kids learn of

Creationism have many a Sunday School opportunities at their respective local church.

 

Likewise, I see it totally Stupid or rewriting the Pledge of Allegience or the demand to reprint

all US currency to please a small group of people who feel their "rights are being squashed".

Nothing of the kind, someone who professes to be atheist does not have to say "under

God" when they say the Pledge of Allegience, nor spend US currency. In this way they

can continue believe (or not) as they wish.

 

I would however, like creationism to be more closely examined in our schools of learning.

 

I would not be opposed to such a class taught at the college level that brought critical

review to the subject of Creationism, not prostletize the subject. I might even take such a

class were it taught with an air of indifference as to what is "true" instead see what makes

valid locical sense. I think it would a good class broadening the minds our youth. :hihi:

 

Maddog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The largest problem I see (I do teach evolution in my classes) is that evolution is scientific theory with a whole lot of evidence to support it. Creationism/ intelligent design is a faith based concept. If we decide to start including creationism in the class why don't we also bring up the Hindu concept that the universe is a large disk sitting atop three elephants riding on the back a giant turtle through the cosmos? These ideas belong in a theology class, not a science class. I do not make my students read Chaucer nor discuss Shakespeare in my class, I should not be made to talk about a mandated idea promoted by only single sect out of the myriad of creation myths. Pehaps I should also discuss Chaos and Gia making the Titans? Now I am all for cross curriculum studies, but that concept is used to reinforce and integrate knowledge, not contradict it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would however, like creationism to be more closely examined in our schools of learning.

It is very closely examined. Hundreds of them are. And in the appropriate fields of endevor in those Ivy Halls. The Theology, mythology, sociology, ... fields.

 

But there is NOTHING scientific about Creation. It has no Scientific value what so ever.

 

OK one, to show what BAD (psudeo)science looks like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would concur that I have often seen a lot less dedication to facts and evidence by people labled as Creationists than those that ally with Evolution.

 

With respect to Piltdown Man what is so notable is the fallacious validity of the theory lasted

so long. Basically, Anthropology and Paleontology was in its infancy and had little in the

way of independent verification to validate or refute such a theory.

MD you and I might get along yet! :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Likewise, I see it totally Stupid or rewriting the Pledge of Allegience or the demand to reprint all US currency to please a small group of people who feel their "rights are being squashed".

Boy are you right!

 

Why they added the GOD crap to the pledge and our money after it was intentionally written without it and served without it for far longer and thru WWI and WWII when our soldiers fought the world against those wishing to trample the rights our Constitution was written to protect!

 

Just so a few Christians would stop bitching!

Nothing of the kind, someone who professes to be atheist does not have to say "under God" when they say the Pledge of Allegience,

Absolutely correct. They can get beat up on the playground by Loving Christians as my kids have, for not saying it. While the teachers just watch. They're HEATHENS! They have no rights in a Theocracy like the USA....

nor spend US currency. In this way they can continue believe (or not) as they wish.

Ya it's not like there is some Bill of Rights which would protect US citizens from the Gov passing a law that PROMOTES religion! Or restricts the free exercise there of!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe in evolution, but I would be willing to accept a science class teaching creationism as long as it used the scientific meathod. However, creationists seem more likely to set up an experiment to prove their hypothesis than to test it. Or they use strange logic:

http://www.icr.org/goodsci/bot-9703.htm

Let's take a logical look at the possibility of an evolutionary development of biological pollination. In order for the process to work, one must start with a plant that needs pollinating. There is a mutual benefit between plant and pollinator who needs the nutrients the plant offers. If plants were able to reproduce before the pollination process evolved, would a world of survival of the fittest be the environment suited for such a process? If a random chance mutation produced a plant that needed pollinating, would that mutation be the most apt to survive? Absolutely not. The plant would have to share soil, rainfall and nutrients with other plants that were able to reproduce without pollination. These plants would complete their life cycles, bear fruit and crowd out the mutant before the first pollen grain located another plant that had evolved the egg that awaited fertilization.

 

So, plants requiring pollination couldn't have evolved because they would've needed pollinators, which only exist with plants that need pollination. It's the chicken or the egg - or the battery or something that used batteries. I think that creationism should be taught in our schools, to show students how NOT to conduct science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

Technically, Congress didn't pass a law respecting an establishment of religion...technically. I think that it should be removed, but more out of respect to other religions, not atheists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe in evolution, but I would be willing to accept a science class teaching creationism as long as it used the scientific meathod. However, creationists seem more likely to set up an experiment to prove their hypothesis than to test it. Or they use strange logic:

http://www.icr.org/goodsci/bot-9703.htm

 

pgrmdave,

 

I agree with you. I wouldn't put such a class in lower than high school, better college

though.

 

So, plants requiring pollination couldn't have evolved because they would've needed pollinators, which only exist with plants that need pollination. It's the chicken or the egg - or the battery or something that used batteries. I think that creationism should be taught in our schools, to show students how NOT to conduct science.

 

These are plants that require a symbiotic relationship with other forms of life. The are

such plants that use the elements of weather to pollinate. Learned that in biology. Also

saw it the farm I grew up on. So maybe it's chicken not so egg problem.

 

Maddog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

Technically, Congress didn't pass a law respecting an establishment of religion...technically. I think that it should be removed, but more out of respect to other religions, not atheists.

 

I feel that atheists should be granted as much respect we would grant any religious person..

 

In Jesus' own words (assumed according to Gospel of Thomas)

"Treat everyone you would have yourself be treated". It is only fair.

 

Just my opinion. :hihi:

 

Maddog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, but what would the real problem with currency having "God" on it be? I can understand the Pledge being altered, a person should never feel that they have to believe in god to be patriotic, but on currency? I actually find it quite ironic...

For the love of money is the root of all evil
1 Timothy 6:10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...