At It Again

[The_Dark]

Nothing more then science, fact, and absoultes should be taught at a PUBLIC school.

Going with that we cant teach Evolution. It's not an absolute fact. It has no more facts backing it up than ID does.

[phee]

Intelligent Design and Creationism have less physical evidence then Evolution

[The_Dark]

Actually, ID has the same amount. They use the same evidence. ID simply has a different probability rating.

[phee]

Do you think ID and Creationism are the same thing?

[kellygrrrrrl]

heres a little theory. correct me if I am wrong.....

Adam & Eve created....in perfection...in whatever "Form" that may be....(monkey Man)

thier genes were prefect. period.

They sinned...introduced sin into thier hearts...genes...etc...they were no longer perfect in it's "form"

They were cast out of the Garden to live in hardship for all the days of thier lives.

They multiplied. became many and grew the earth with people.....

people that were now "Tainted with sin"...mutated and then populated the earth ....(Attractive man).

Skip to Genesis 6. It goes onto say that The true sons of GOD...(Direct blood line of Adam & Eve in it's form - WHATEVER FORM that may be)..began to notice that the daughters of men were attractive and began taking them for themselves....

Now to me that has significant meaning....Genesis is VERY short on how things were created (for one because I think it is irrelevant)...but science can agree with most of what it says,....so to me this is telling me that Perhaps maybe the true creation of man was in sound perfect, but perhaps not people that we see today....in OUR form....but maybe a man that was a bit hairy and bigger

Btween the time of Adam & Eve and the FLOOD was approximately 1500-2000 years (or better).....(WHICH IS ALSO WHEN MAN LIVED TO BE 900ish YEARS OLD) that is a lot of of time for people to mutate, and adapt to thier surroundings.....and a lot of time for the earth to become populated. (We all know that over much time species will adapt to thier surroundings...)

then there came a point where god was sad that the earth was so filled with violence so he wiped off man with the great flood...

after which man populated again, god shortened the lives of man, introduced a separation in tongue...different languages...

does that make ANY sense?

I felt like I wasn't making sense typing it...so go ahead flame me now....

OH YEAH..one more thing..observation. Does it appear that over time people are getting to be MORE attractive? People are getting smaller, and cuter I think. Now....if you look at natures most beautiful things.....gorgeous plants, beautiful flowers etc...they are POISON. FATAL. LEAVE ICHY SKIN, and rashes....

Then look at a kiwi...ugly, brown, hairy, but sweet and juicy and green and alive on the inside!

Oh...I don't nkow....bah... :fear

[AstralCrux]

OH YEAH..one more thing..observation.  Does it appear that over time people are getting to be MORE attractive?  People are getting smaller, and cuter I think.  Now....if you look at natures most beautiful things.....gorgeous plants, beautiful flowers etc...they are POISON. FATAL. LEAVE ICHY SKIN, and rashes....

Then look at a kiwi...ugly, brown, hairy, but sweet and juicy and green and alive on the inside!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Funny thing is, it seems people are becoming more full figured which previously was seen as being more attractive, but now isn't as much the case.

[Steven]

There's a difference here, though.  Evolution, problems or no, is based on sound, verifiable observed fact, with repeatable experiments.  Creationism is some guy saying, "This is what happened, and you all have to believe me.

I'm a cynic and a skeptic, I know, but I will always take what I can observe, even if it's incomplete, over some object of faith.  Show me the holes in the hands, and I'll ask to put my finger through it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but that's not my point here brutha (and for the record I disagree but that's not important).

my point is - that every one of us is falible and yet deserves a measurable degree of respect. I didint like Mikie's post.....didint like the tone of it....didint like the wide brushstrokes he used to include a man like me. But the thing is - I like Mikie. Still I need to make my point. The topic of MY discussion veered off the path somewhat of the original topic at hand. I'm not arguing (nor do I intend to) creationism versus darwinism. I'm arguing for decency and order in how we take up sides.

[Steven]

ok, but how old is the world according to the bible? doesn't that sort of preclude the possibility of anything being 35,000 years old? (honestly, i'm not sure what it says on the world's age - that's why i'm asking - not trying to be a smartass...)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

it is intentionally vauge, the bibles descriptions on the age of this planet.

I beleive it is written this way - because it was never intended to have to be "proven". it was written for people fo faith by people of faith in order to flesh out their identity and purpose. Some things, like lineages are very accurately detailed, because that WAS the intention fo the writer in order to suppliment the topic at hand. But as far as creation......very little is actually written down.

[Steven]

heres a little theory.  correct me if I am wrong.....

Adam & Eve created....in perfection...in whatever "Form" that may be....(monkey Man)

thier genes were prefect. period. 

They sinned...introduced sin into thier hearts...genes...etc...they were no longer perfect in it's "form"

They were cast out of the Garden to live in hardship for all the days of thier lives.

They multiplied.  became many and grew the earth with people.....

people that were now "Tainted with sin"...mutated and then populated the earth ....(Attractive man).

Skip to Genesis 6.  It goes onto say that The true sons of GOD...(Direct blood line of Adam & Eve in it's form - WHATEVER FORM that may be)..began to notice that the daughters of men were attractive and began taking them for themselves....

Now to me that has significant meaning....Genesis is VERY short on how things were created (for one because I think it is irrelevant)...but science can agree with most of what it says,....so to me this is telling me that Perhaps maybe the true creation of man was in sound perfect, but perhaps not people that we see today....in OUR form....but maybe a man that was a bit hairy and bigger

Btween the time of Adam & Eve and the FLOOD was approximately 1500-2000 years (or better).....(WHICH IS ALSO WHEN MAN LIVED TO BE 900ish YEARS OLD) that is a lot of of time for people to mutate, and adapt to thier surroundings.....and a lot of time for the earth to become populated.  (We all know that over much time species will adapt to thier surroundings...)

then there came a point where god was sad that the earth was so filled with violence so he wiped off man with the great flood...

after which man populated again, god shortened the lives of man, introduced a separation in tongue...different languages...

does that make ANY sense? 

I felt like I wasn't making sense typing it...so go ahead flame me now....

OH YEAH..one more thing..observation.  Does it appear that over time people are getting to be MORE attractive?  People are getting smaller, and cuter I think.  Now....if you look at natures most beautiful things.....gorgeous plants, beautiful flowers etc...they are POISON. FATAL. LEAVE ICHY SKIN, and rashes....

Then look at a kiwi...ugly, brown, hairy, but sweet and juicy and green and alive on the inside!

Oh...I don't nkow....bah... :fear

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

very good Kelly.

I beleive, that these sons of God were the watchers, the forefathers of the Nephilim.

The hebrew that is used to describe "sons of God" in these early genesis accoutns are unique in that the terminology is only used to describe the supernatural. we make the mistake when reaidn genglish translations, that other terms for "sons of god" found in other areas of the bible mean the same thign, but they do not - because the hebrew and aramaic text are different - literally different combinations of words.

Enter the Noah account.

Forget all the hubbaloo about the animals and the ark. thjats a whole other oprah. The english translations for Noah being chosen to survive the flood are also wrong. In english, the words are translated to say that Noah was more holy or good than his peers. That is not an accurate translation. What Noah was - was pureblooded. His DNA had not been intermixed with this progeny you speak of, the Nephilim. God wanted a (needed a) pure base to start with again. And if there was/is a Satan, wnho understood God's intention of eventually birthing a God Man named Jesus thousands of years later..... a perfect foil to this plan would be to pervert the creation of man - taint it with the DNA of the Nephilim.

its a theory. I beleive it though.

[Der Nister]

This doesn't surprise me since it is coming from the bible belt. What a shame that people try to impose their beliefs on others simply because of religeon.

[The_Dark]

Phee: No, I do not think ID and Creationism are the same thing.

[phee]

Phee: No, I do not think ID and Creationism are the same thing.

Cool

[kellygrrrrrl]

I also have to add to said theory...something I thought about after I wrote that....

What if "The Great Flood" IS the "missing link"....I mean...god destroyed ALL of mankind....and all was left was Noah's "Genes" and "appearances body shape etc.." to reproduce....

a completely different, adapted, re-formed gene pool....left to creat mankind all over again....which would be the new shape and form of people....

it was thousands of years between Adam & Eve and the great flood....so much time for the original form to mutate and adapt and reform.

then BAM....all of what was seen was gone...

all of man was reformed again....new bones new shape..you know...?

[kellygrrrrrl]

Funny thing is, it seems people are becoming more full figured which previously was seen as being more attractive, but now isn't as much the case.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

too add more of a moral to the story,

beauty being luring, attractive, and all that....to me represents "sin", desire in all of it's wickedness....with consequence...blah blah blah

over time the more "Sinful" man gets, the more luring it is.

[Guest Megalicious]

Going with that we cant teach Evolution. It's not an absolute fact. It has no more facts backing it up than ID does.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Its not a matter of evolution for me.

ITs about things likeTHIS

According to everthing I read reguarding how "old " the earth is bible wise is about 6,000 years or somewhere along in that area.

The fact is .. WE KNOW artifacts that people have found are more then 6,000 years old.

Do to carbon dating that is a FACT.

If you chosse not to believe that then thats your choice. I just dont see how you could ignore something is reality, when the proof is right in front of your face.

And the fact is thesse assholes in AK are forcing there teacher just to say "thesse rocks are really old". That is bullshit. Its not a matter of evolution for me ... its the fact that thesse children aren't getting facts while being taught.

To be robbed of another view point (which happens to be based on science, which has to do with math, are you going to tell me you dont think that 1+1=2?).

Im not aguring the evoulution shit here, thats for me to decided what I believe for myself, but when you censor someone (a teacher no less that knows what he is talking about) not to teach the facts .... it robs the children/and or students of the right to make a choice as to what they want to believe is truth.

THe FACT that they dont have the CHOICE. That is what fucking bothers me .. and honestly it should bother anyone. It's not a matter of what is effecting it ... if it wasn't chiristanity it would be something else....

Have faith, have all the faith you want, in your own home, in you church, BUT ONLY in a school if you so chosse to pay for christian schooling.

[Blackmail]

I didn't read Shade's link, but in other ID debates I thought the anti-ID people were up in arms over nothings, all the ID people wanted was one sentence in the whole semester - just explaining that some people do not believe in evolution but rather ID. This may be a completely different case though.

I believe in evolution personally. I am just not offended when the Christians or Muslims or Jews want their views heard. Nowhere have I seen anyone trying to teach ID as fact in the public schools.

[Shade Everdark]

I didn't read Shade's link, but in other ID debates I thought the anti-ID people were up in arms over nothings, all the ID people wanted was one sentence in the whole semester - just explaining that some people do not believe in evolution but rather ID.    This may be a completely different case though.

I believe in evolution personally.  I am just not offended when the Christians or Muslims or Jews want their views heard.  Nowhere have I seen anyone trying to teach ID as fact in the public schools.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

S'ok - I won't RTFA you.

Basically, the article said that several educators in Arkansas public schools were being pressured to leave evolution education out of their curricula, and in one or two cases replacing it with creationism. Yes, creationism, and not intelligent design.

[Blackmail]

Ok Shade, I read it.

It was more of an op/ed than a news story, but I'll take the authors word that this is really going on and the Arkansas schools really do have this wrong.

What should, in my opinion, happen is this:

First day of discussion about evolution the teacher says "We will be learning about evolution now. Evolution is a theory. There are other theories that some people believe, religious people believe in Intelligent Design <insert brief and objective description of ID>. However we will be studying Evolution because based on Scientific studies, the theory with the most evidence in it's fsvor is Evolution"

Then never bring up ID for the rest of the class(es).

[Steven]

Its not a matter of evolution for me.

ITs about things likeTHIS

According to everthing I read reguarding how "old " the earth is bible wise is about 6,000 years or somewhere along in that area. 

The fact is .. WE KNOW artifacts that people have found are more then 6,000 years old.

Do to carbon dating that is a FACT.

If  you chosse not to believe that then thats your choice.  I just dont see how you could ignore something is reality, when the proof is right in front of your face.

And the fact is thesse assholes in AK are forcing there teacher just to say "thesse rocks are really old".  That is bullshit.  Its not a matter of evolution for me ... its the fact that thesse children aren't getting facts while being taught.

To be robbed of another view point (which happens to be based on science, which has to do with math, are you going to tell me you dont think that 1+1=2?).

Im not aguring the evoulution shit here, thats for me to decided what I believe for myself, but when you censor someone (a teacher no less that knows what he is talking about) not to teach the facts ....  it robs the children/and or students of the right to make a choice as to what they want to believe is truth.

THe FACT that they dont have the CHOICE.  That is what fucking bothers me .. and honestly it should bother anyone.  It's not a matter of what is effecting it ... if it wasn't chiristanity it would be something else....

Have faith, have all the faith you want, in your own home, in you church, BUT ONLY in a school if you so chosse to pay for christian schooling.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

beleive it or not Meg...I agree with you.....

[Steven]

too add more of a moral to the story,

beauty being luring, attractive, and all that....to me represents "sin", desire in all of it's wickedness....with consequence...blah blah blah

over time the more "Sinful" man gets, the more luring it is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

..... I think she's on to something here.......

on a side note, I personally beleive carbon dating is not a completely sound process. So do many others. Including certain scinetists. but tis the best thing we've got at the moment.

and - I think most biblical and or secular historians have it wrong in regard to what they thinnk is biblical in terms of the earth's age. I think they miss the point....again searching for conclusive evidence that the writer (ie God???) INTENDED to leave vague for this very reason.....to force a decision.

I also beleive that scientific "facts" are also debatable - in that many times "facts" or "laws" have later proven to be mistakes once further evidecne was presented. For example, certain species of dinosuars written in the textbooks that never actually existed, and the age of the universe itself until the Hubbell telescope showed that it was in reality not nearly as old as our factual beleifs had been.

[Blackmail]

"We can now see the edges of space and time"

I read about this last week and it seems relevant here

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...html?source=rss

This instrument called the WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anistropy Probe) sounds like the most magnificent invention in the history of mankind.

From a different article about the same topic in the Washington Post:

"Physicists announced Thursday that they now have the smoking gun that shows the universe went through extremely rapid expansion in the moments after the big bang, growing from the size of a marble to a volume larger than all of observable space in less than a trillion-trillionth of a second.

The discovery, which involves an analysis of variations in the brightness of microwave radiation, is the first direct evidence to support the two-decade-old theory that the universe went through what is called inflation.

It also helps explain how matter eventually clumped together into planets, stars and galaxies in a universe that began as a remarkably smooth, superhot soup.

"It's giving us our first clues about how inflation took place," said Michael Turner, assistant director for mathematics and physical sciences at the National Science Foundation. "This is absolutely amazing."

Brian Greene, a Columbia University physicist, said: "The observations are spectacular and the conclusions are stunning."

Researchers found the evidence for inflation by looking at a faint glow that permeates the universe. That glow, known as the cosmic microwave background, was produced when the universe was about 300,000 years old, long after inflation "

[Shade Everdark]

"We can now see the edges of space and time"

I read about this last week and it seems relevant here

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...html?source=rss

This instrument called the WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anistropy Probe) sounds like the most magnificent invention in the history of mankind.

From a different article about the same topic in the Washington Post:

"Physicists announced Thursday that they now have the smoking gun that shows the universe went through extremely rapid expansion in the moments after the big bang, growing from the size of a marble to a volume larger than all of observable space in less than a trillion-trillionth of a second.

The discovery, which involves an analysis of variations in the brightness of microwave radiation, is the first direct evidence to support the two-decade-old theory that the universe went through what is called inflation.

It also helps explain how matter eventually clumped together into planets, stars and galaxies in a universe that began as a remarkably smooth, superhot soup.

"It's giving us our first clues about how inflation took place," said Michael Turner, assistant director for mathematics and physical sciences at the National Science Foundation. "This is absolutely amazing."

Brian Greene, a Columbia University physicist, said: "The observations are spectacular and the conclusions are stunning."

Researchers found the evidence for inflation by looking at a faint glow that permeates the universe. That glow, known as the cosmic microwave background, was produced when the universe was about 300,000 years old, long after inflation "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's interesting, to be sure. I wonder how they explain the faster-than-light expansion of the universe; they didn't really make mention of that fact in the article.

[kellygrrrrrl]

if the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, then we will never be able to see the edge,.....as it's light is always moving away from us faster than it scoming to us.....

Is this right????

I'm trying to picture this in my head.....

[Msterbeau]

if the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, then we will never be able to see the edge,.....as it's light is always moving away from us faster than it scoming to us.....

Is this right????

I'm trying to picture this in my head.....

*Snaps photo of Kelly's head smoking*

[torn asunder]

that's similar to the thought about "if you're travelling at the speed of light, and fire a gun, is the bullet now travelling faster than light?"

i'll write more later - too busy at work for "deep thought"