Texas Education

You probably shouldn't use Fred Hoyle's quote as evidence that there's a scientific element to the rejection of evolution: he believed that life evolved from viruses that were borne here on comets. He also rejected the Big Bang Theory because he felt that a cause implied the existence of a creator.

Evolution can't be taught as a theory, because the scientific use of the word isn't the same as the way that you and I use it in everyday life. Or, it can be taught as a theory: a scientific theory, that is "a well-supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions."

We're supposed to have separation of church and state. Whether or not any of the founding fathers were religious doesn't matter. I think they would all have agreed on this. It stinks of politics when the fight for this one topic becomes of greater concern than the dismal performance overall in whole areas that are much more practical such as math & physics.

Fact is the conservatives need their religious base, whether they like it or not. I would bet that most, if not all conservative leaders that trumpet their religious views are only sincere about getting the votes. It's part of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jake

You probably shouldn't use Fred Hoyle's quote as evidence that there's a scientific element to the rejection of evolution: he believed that life evolved from viruses that were borne here on comets. He also rejected the Big Bang Theory because he felt that a cause implied the existence of a creator.

Evolution can't be taught as a theory, because the scientific use of the word isn't the same as the way that you and I use it in everyday life. Or, it can be taught as a theory: a scientific theory, that is "a well-supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions."

---

My point, especially in using Hoyle's comments are that we've got many "scientists" who can't even agree.

Not really, though. As with climate change, there's a pretty much universal scientific consensus regarding evolution.

And not enough real scientific evidence to support either one. Charlatans!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theGinsue

And not enough real scientific evidence to support either one. Charlatans!

---

Plenty of evidence to support both, but even if you're right (which you're not) 'not enough' evidence is still more evidence than there is to support creationism or whatever the opposite of climate change is.

There's plenty of support for the general process of evolution, namely, that genetic mutations cause species to change over time when those mutations happen to be beneficial.

Are you denying genetic mutations take place?

Are you denying that beneficial mutations will sometimes propagate through the species?

If so, what is your data? If not, why are you saying this is a scientific dispute?

You can dispute some particulars of the theory (ie whether mammals evolved from reptiles or whether they evolved from some common ancestor, or even from some completely different set of ancestors,) if you want, on a scientific basis. The foundation of the theory of evolution (that random mutations can cause a species to change over time,) however, has been documented many, many times. Are you denying that?

Science is just another form of religion. Who proves what they're saying is true? They do. Can some things be proven because you can see them? Sure. But last time I checked, they still can't agree if electrical current runs along the outside surface of a wire(s) or through the middle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jake

Plenty of evidence to support both, but even if you're right (which you're not) 'not enough' evidence is still more evidence than there is to support creationism or whatever the opposite of climate change is.

---

someone has been drinking his Kool-Aid!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pancho Villa

There's plenty of support for the general process of evolution, namely, that genetic mutations cause species to change over time when those mutations happen to be beneficial.

Are you denying genetic mutations take place?
No, I deny the possibility that something spawned some amoeba to mutate into some form of supra-microscopic organism which eventually formed into a reptilian type animal (both male and female mind you) with all of the intricately formed organs, etc. that exist. THEN this egg-laying animal later mutated into a birth-giving animal of both genders, THEN mutated into the various species that share NO DNA - including primates, and THEN mutated into humans beings......all the while leaving plenty of those original species along the way which never did mutate.

Have you ever considered the complexities of the human body? How so many things have to come together JUST SO or the whole thing fails. All this happened by chance? By mutation? How many millions of years of failures do you suppose THAT took to get the right combination?

Again, you think those who believe in creationism have to have faith? It's nothing like the faith that you possess to believe in evolutionism.

Pu-leaze!

Are you denying that beneficial mutations will sometimes propagate through the species?
Yes, I deny it occuring to the degree you infer; absolutely.

If so, what is your data? If not, why are you saying this is a scientific dispute?
I submit for a dimple example the comment posted by TroublCo below. Just one possible example.

You can dispute some particulars of the theory (ie whether mammals evolved from reptiles or whether they evolved from some common ancestor, or even from some completely different set of ancestors,) if you want, on a scientific basis. The foundation of the theory of evolution (that random mutations can cause a species to change over time,) however, has been documented many, many times. Are you denying that?
Minor mutations, sure. I can't even fathom the statistical chances of the type of mutations you're suggesting possibly occuring - even over millions of years.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Troublco

Science is just another form of religion. Who proves what they're saying is true? They do. Can some things be proven because you can see them? Sure. But last time I checked, they still can't agree if electrical current runs along the outside surface of a wire(s) or through the middle.

---

Yes, thank you.


Suffice it to say that both of us are too set in what we believe to ever consider the possibility posed by the other.
Personally, this conversation bores me. I'm having a much better time discussing pure BS in the other threads/forums.

I find it sad that a lot of Colorado schools don't teach the constitution, what the country was founded on and what basically all our laws should really be based from. just another way the system is trying to destroy the foundations of our country.