| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
06 Aug 2006 08:50:22 AM |
| Object: |
Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
From The Washington Post, 8/6/06:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/05/AR2006080500718.html?nav=rss_opinion
Nothing Wrong With Kansas
State voters move science education out of the Victorian era.
Sunday, August 6, 2006; Page B06
FOR THE SECOND time in less than a year, voters have turned out
office policymakers who insisted on teaching kids bad science.
Last year, the people of Dover, Pa., got rid of a group of school
board members who injected the theory of "intelligent design" into
high school biology.
Last week, Republican primary voters in Kansas ousted the conservative
majority on the state Board of Education, which had adopted science
standards embracing intelligent design and casting doubt on Darwinian
evolution.
Moderate Republicans replaced two conservatives -- giving those
supporting science at least a 6-to-4 majority, even if the other
conservatives hold on in the general election.
The vote, which should lead to changes to those embarrassing
standards, is an encouraging sign that even in conservative
jurisdictions, most people want kids to be taught biology, not
religion.
The Kansas board has been fighting over evolution since 1999, when it
moved to eliminate references to Darwinian theory from statewide
standards.
After anti-evolutionists lost their majority, the board restored
evolution's place.
But the conservatives regained the majority in 2004 and moved to
promote intelligent design -- a challenge to Darwinian theory based
not on biblical inerrancy or overt creationism but on purportedly
scientific flaws in the theory.
Its proponents claim that they merely intend to make sure that
schoolchildren get a full sense of the scientific controversy over
evolution.
The trouble with this liberal-seeming pose is that there is no
scientific controversy over whether evolution happens or over its
essential mechanisms.
Intelligent design is a defensible theological position -- the belief
that life is so complex and perfect that a creator must lie somewhere
behind it.
But being untestable in its positing of a supernatural explanation for
natural phenomena, it is no more scientific than the belief that
Athena was born from Zeus's head.
Teaching it as science does a grave disservice to students who wish to
understand natural phenomena that only evolution truly explains.
How do bacteria become drug-resistant?
Why do birds, bees and bats all have wings?
Intelligent design can lead only to unintelligent students, or at
least badly educated ones.
In the seesawing of Kansas politics on this issue, it is too early to
declare victory.
It is, however, encouraging that voters seem to be insisting, at least
for now, that when students study biology, they learn the real thing.
_____________________________________________________
"The argument that the literal story of Genesis can qualify as science
collapses on three major grounds: the creationists' need to invoke
miracles in order to compress the events of the earth's history into
the biblical span of a few thousand years; their unwillingness to
abandon claims clearly disproved, including the assertion that all
fossils are products of Noah's flood; and their reliance upon
distortion, misquote, half-quote, and citation out of context to
characterize the ideas of their opponents."
Stephen Jay Gould
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
09 Aug 2006 10:36:05 AM |
|
|
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:12djvk24osm8n76@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Gl8Cg.110510$iU2.78068@fed1read01...
Random mutations cannot take you from dogs to cats because the cat has a
complex, orderly, sophisticated design elements which are not in the dog
DNA.
The fact that you would even say such a thing indicates how little
understanding you have of evolution. No scientist would ever claim that
dogs could evolve into cats or vice versa. That's not how it works. Only
creationists or those with virtually no understanding of evolution would
even think such a thought.
No you think a cat evolving into a different cat enough times will make a
dog.
Your comparison to automotive technology with biological discoveries has
no rational connection whatsoever. (What was it you whined about in
another thread? "Change the subject and run away?" Something like
that.
It went over your head, that's okay I will explain it to you. Claiming
that just because two two different species had a similar non-functional
gene makes a case that man came from apes. It doesn't, if anything it
leans the other way. If we are the higher echlon of all the life forms
before us shouldn't we have a non-functional fish gene, non-functional
bird gene......>
And this car analogy is further proof that you haven't a clue about
evolution. Seriously, get some real books about the subject, talk to some
real evolutionary scientists and educate yourself. Then come back and
talk about it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd King" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
09 Aug 2006 04:59:01 PM |
|
|
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:FhnCg.8$rT5.5@fed1read01...
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:12djvk24osm8n76@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Gl8Cg.110510$iU2.78068@fed1read01...
Random mutations cannot take you from dogs to cats because the cat has
a complex, orderly, sophisticated design elements which are not in the
dog DNA.
The fact that you would even say such a thing indicates how little
understanding you have of evolution. No scientist would ever claim that
dogs could evolve into cats or vice versa. That's not how it works.
Only creationists or those with virtually no understanding of evolution
would even think such a thought.
No you think a cat evolving into a different cat enough times will make a
dog.
Nope. And once again, the fact that you even say such a thing reveals how
little you understand evolution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
09 Aug 2006 05:43:31 PM |
|
|
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:12dkml4rbnvndff@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:FhnCg.8$rT5.5@fed1read01...
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:12djvk24osm8n76@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Gl8Cg.110510$iU2.78068@fed1read01...
Random mutations cannot take you from dogs to cats because the cat has
a complex, orderly, sophisticated design elements which are not in the
dog DNA.
The fact that you would even say such a thing indicates how little
understanding you have of evolution. No scientist would ever claim that
dogs could evolve into cats or vice versa. That's not how it works.
Only creationists or those with virtually no understanding of evolution
would even think such a thought.
No you think a cat evolving into a different cat enough times will make a
dog.
Nope. And once again, the fact that you even say such a thing reveals how
little you understand evolution.
Well it is just a theory, after all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
09 Aug 2006 11:06:55 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:12dkml4rbnvndff@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:FhnCg.8$rT5.5@fed1read01...
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:12djvk24osm8n76@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Gl8Cg.110510$iU2.78068@fed1read01...
Random mutations cannot take you from dogs to cats because the cat has
a complex, orderly, sophisticated design elements which are not in the
dog DNA.
The fact that you would even say such a thing indicates how little
understanding you have of evolution. No scientist would ever claim that
dogs could evolve into cats or vice versa. That's not how it works.
Only creationists or those with virtually no understanding of evolution
would even think such a thought.
No you think a cat evolving into a different cat enough times will make a
dog.
Nope. And once again, the fact that you even say such a thing reveals how
little you understand evolution.
Well it is just a theory, after all.
Which fits the observed facts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
10 Aug 2006 10:15:42 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44DAB0DF.3CCB4119@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:12dkml4rbnvndff@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:FhnCg.8$rT5.5@fed1read01...
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:12djvk24osm8n76@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Gl8Cg.110510$iU2.78068@fed1read01...
Random mutations cannot take you from dogs to cats because the cat
has
a complex, orderly, sophisticated design elements which are not in
the
dog DNA.
The fact that you would even say such a thing indicates how little
understanding you have of evolution. No scientist would ever claim
that
dogs could evolve into cats or vice versa. That's not how it works.
Only creationists or those with virtually no understanding of
evolution
would even think such a thought.
No you think a cat evolving into a different cat enough times will
make a
dog.
Nope. And once again, the fact that you even say such a thing reveals
how
little you understand evolution.
Well it is just a theory, after all.
Which fits the observed facts.
As does Creation Science
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
12 Aug 2006 10:25:39 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44DAB0DF.3CCB4119@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:12dkml4rbnvndff@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:FhnCg.8$rT5.5@fed1read01...
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:12djvk24osm8n76@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Gl8Cg.110510$iU2.78068@fed1read01...
Random mutations cannot take you from dogs to cats because the cat
has
a complex, orderly, sophisticated design elements which are not in
the
dog DNA.
The fact that you would even say such a thing indicates how little
understanding you have of evolution. No scientist would ever claim
that
dogs could evolve into cats or vice versa. That's not how it works.
Only creationists or those with virtually no understanding of
evolution
would even think such a thought.
No you think a cat evolving into a different cat enough times will
make a
dog.
Nope. And once again, the fact that you even say such a thing reveals
how
little you understand evolution.
Well it is just a theory, after all.
Which fits the observed facts.
As does Creation Science
How? How without invoking evolution?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
09 Aug 2006 11:04:45 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:12djvk24osm8n76@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Gl8Cg.110510$iU2.78068@fed1read01...
Random mutations cannot take you from dogs to cats because the cat has a
complex, orderly, sophisticated design elements which are not in the dog
DNA.
The fact that you would even say such a thing indicates how little
understanding you have of evolution. No scientist would ever claim that
dogs could evolve into cats or vice versa. That's not how it works. Only
creationists or those with virtually no understanding of evolution would
even think such a thought.
No you think a cat evolving into a different cat enough times will make a
dog.
He does not think that nor does anyone else. You are really floundering here.
Your comparison to automotive technology with biological discoveries has
no rational connection whatsoever. (What was it you whined about in
another thread? "Change the subject and run away?" Something like
that.
It went over your head, that's okay I will explain it to you. Claiming
that just because two two different species had a similar non-functional
gene makes a case that man came from apes. It doesn't, if anything it
leans the other way. If we are the higher echlon of all the life forms
before us shouldn't we have a non-functional fish gene, non-functional
bird gene......>
And this car analogy is further proof that you haven't a clue about
evolution. Seriously, get some real books about the subject, talk to some
real evolutionary scientists and educate yourself. Then come back and
talk about it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
10 Aug 2006 10:17:38 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44DAB05D.BE125469@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:12djvk24osm8n76@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Gl8Cg.110510$iU2.78068@fed1read01...
Random mutations cannot take you from dogs to cats because the cat
has a
complex, orderly, sophisticated design elements which are not in the
dog
DNA.
The fact that you would even say such a thing indicates how little
understanding you have of evolution. No scientist would ever claim
that
dogs could evolve into cats or vice versa. That's not how it works.
Only
creationists or those with virtually no understanding of evolution
would
even think such a thought.
No you think a cat evolving into a different cat enough times will make a
dog.
He does not think that nor does anyone else. You are really floundering
here.
No single case of macroevolution from one species to another through
mutations has ever been observed.
Your comparison to automotive technology with biological discoveries
has
no rational connection whatsoever. (What was it you whined about in
another thread? "Change the subject and run away?" Something like
that.
It went over your head, that's okay I will explain it to you. Claiming
that just because two two different species had a similar
non-functional
gene makes a case that man came from apes. It doesn't, if anything it
leans the other way. If we are the higher echlon of all the life forms
before us shouldn't we have a non-functional fish gene, non-functional
bird gene......>
And this car analogy is further proof that you haven't a clue about
evolution. Seriously, get some real books about the subject, talk to
some
real evolutionary scientists and educate yourself. Then come back and
talk about it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
12 Aug 2006 10:26:17 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44DAB05D.BE125469@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:12djvk24osm8n76@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Gl8Cg.110510$iU2.78068@fed1read01...
Random mutations cannot take you from dogs to cats because the cat
has a
complex, orderly, sophisticated design elements which are not in the
dog
DNA.
The fact that you would even say such a thing indicates how little
understanding you have of evolution. No scientist would ever claim
that
dogs could evolve into cats or vice versa. That's not how it works.
Only
creationists or those with virtually no understanding of evolution
would
even think such a thought.
No you think a cat evolving into a different cat enough times will make a
dog.
He does not think that nor does anyone else. You are really floundering
here.
No single case of macroevolution from one species to another through
mutations has ever been observed.
It's called the "fossil record"...
Your comparison to automotive technology with biological discoveries
has
no rational connection whatsoever. (What was it you whined about in
another thread? "Change the subject and run away?" Something like
that.
It went over your head, that's okay I will explain it to you. Claiming
that just because two two different species had a similar
non-functional
gene makes a case that man came from apes. It doesn't, if anything it
leans the other way. If we are the higher echlon of all the life forms
before us shouldn't we have a non-functional fish gene, non-functional
bird gene......>
And this car analogy is further proof that you haven't a clue about
evolution. Seriously, get some real books about the subject, talk to
some
real evolutionary scientists and educate yourself. Then come back and
talk about it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
14 Aug 2006 10:25:27 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44DE9BD9.2BDEFC3@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44DAB05D.BE125469@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:12djvk24osm8n76@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Gl8Cg.110510$iU2.78068@fed1read01...
Random mutations cannot take you from dogs to cats because the cat
has a
complex, orderly, sophisticated design elements which are not in
the
dog
DNA.
The fact that you would even say such a thing indicates how little
understanding you have of evolution. No scientist would ever claim
that
dogs could evolve into cats or vice versa. That's not how it works.
Only
creationists or those with virtually no understanding of evolution
would
even think such a thought.
No you think a cat evolving into a different cat enough times will
make a
dog.
He does not think that nor does anyone else. You are really floundering
here.
No single case of macroevolution from one species to another through
mutations has ever been observed.
It's called the "fossil record"...
Which is inferred, not observed.
Your comparison to automotive technology with biological
discoveries
has
no rational connection whatsoever. (What was it you whined about
in
another thread? "Change the subject and run away?" Something
like
that.
It went over your head, that's okay I will explain it to you.
Claiming
that just because two two different species had a similar
non-functional
gene makes a case that man came from apes. It doesn't, if anything
it
leans the other way. If we are the higher echlon of all the life
forms
before us shouldn't we have a non-functional fish gene,
non-functional
bird gene......>
And this car analogy is further proof that you haven't a clue about
evolution. Seriously, get some real books about the subject, talk
to
some
real evolutionary scientists and educate yourself. Then come back
and
talk about it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
15 Aug 2006 10:54:36 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44DE9BD9.2BDEFC3@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44DAB05D.BE125469@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:12djvk24osm8n76@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Gl8Cg.110510$iU2.78068@fed1read01...
Random mutations cannot take you from dogs to cats because the cat
has a
complex, orderly, sophisticated design elements which are not in
the
dog
DNA.
The fact that you would even say such a thing indicates how little
understanding you have of evolution. No scientist would ever claim
that
dogs could evolve into cats or vice versa. That's not how it works.
Only
creationists or those with virtually no understanding of evolution
would
even think such a thought.
No you think a cat evolving into a different cat enough times will
make a
dog.
He does not think that nor does anyone else. You are really floundering
here.
No single case of macroevolution from one species to another through
mutations has ever been observed.
It's called the "fossil record"...
Which is inferred, not observed.
And supported and confirmed by genetics. See "molecular clock"...
Your comparison to automotive technology with biological
discoveries
has
no rational connection whatsoever. (What was it you whined about
in
another thread? "Change the subject and run away?" Something
like
that.
It went over your head, that's okay I will explain it to you.
Claiming
that just because two two different species had a similar
non-functional
gene makes a case that man came from apes. It doesn't, if anything
it
leans the other way. If we are the higher echlon of all the life
forms
before us shouldn't we have a non-functional fish gene,
non-functional
bird gene......>
And this car analogy is further proof that you haven't a clue about
evolution. Seriously, get some real books about the subject, talk
to
some
real evolutionary scientists and educate yourself. Then come back
and
talk about it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
10 Aug 2006 01:02:25 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
[snip]
No single case of macroevolution from one species to another through
mutations has ever been observed.
This is a circular definition. You're defining macroevolution in
terms
of species mutations. But species definitions are intentionally set
far apart. We see mutations. You don't define what limit there is
on the number or magintude of these mutations, nor suggest what
causes this limit. We see new organisms being created through
genetic mutations. What part of that do you dispute?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
09 Aug 2006 11:46:13 AM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:12djvk24osm8n76@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Gl8Cg.110510$iU2.78068@fed1read01...
Random mutations cannot take you from dogs to cats because the cat has a
complex, orderly, sophisticated design elements which are not in the dog
DNA.
The fact that you would even say such a thing indicates how little
understanding you have of evolution. No scientist would ever claim that
dogs could evolve into cats or vice versa. That's not how it works. Only
creationists or those with virtually no understanding of evolution would
even think such a thought.
No you think a cat evolving into a different cat enough times will make a
dog.
[snip]
I don't know of a single scientific theory that professes to
predict such
a phenomenon. By the time enough incremental changes had taken effect
to make such a large change, neither dogs nor cats would probably exist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
09 Aug 2006 11:57:18 AM |
|
|
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1155141973.043649.91720@n13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:12djvk24osm8n76@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Gl8Cg.110510$iU2.78068@fed1read01...
Random mutations cannot take you from dogs to cats because the cat
has a
complex, orderly, sophisticated design elements which are not in the
dog
DNA.
The fact that you would even say such a thing indicates how little
understanding you have of evolution. No scientist would ever claim
that
dogs could evolve into cats or vice versa. That's not how it works.
Only
creationists or those with virtually no understanding of evolution
would
even think such a thought.
No you think a cat evolving into a different cat enough times will make a
dog.
[snip]
I don't know of a single scientific theory that professes to
predict such
a phenomenon. By the time enough incremental changes had taken effect
to make such a large change, neither dogs nor cats would probably exist.
But then who knows, it's only a theroy, afterall.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd King" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
09 Aug 2006 05:00:00 PM |
|
|
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:OtoCg.16$rT5.4@fed1read01...
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1155141973.043649.91720@n13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:12djvk24osm8n76@corp.supernews.com...
No you think a cat evolving into a different cat enough times will make
a
dog.
[snip]
I don't know of a single scientific theory that professes to
predict such
a phenomenon. By the time enough incremental changes had taken effect
to make such a large change, neither dogs nor cats would probably exist.
But then who knows, it's only a theroy, afterall.
LOL!! And, once again, the fact that you would say "only a theory" reveals
how little you understand about science in general.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
09 Aug 2006 05:42:55 PM |
|
|
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:12dkmn0hl7rp84f@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:OtoCg.16$rT5.4@fed1read01...
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1155141973.043649.91720@n13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:12djvk24osm8n76@corp.supernews.com...
No you think a cat evolving into a different cat enough times will make
a
dog.
[snip]
I don't know of a single scientific theory that professes to
predict such
a phenomenon. By the time enough incremental changes had taken effect
to make such a large change, neither dogs nor cats would probably exist.
But then who knows, it's only a theroy, afterall.
LOL!! And, once again, the fact that you would say "only a theory"
reveals how little you understand about science in general.
LOL, got ya
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "*_Host_*" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
10 Aug 2006 12:42:20 PM |
|
|
People love to dwell on the Creation vs. Evolution issue.
I guess folks think that if one part of the Bible is in error then the whole
thing must be wrong.
In the end tho, this debate has nothing to do with how people live their
lives and treat one another.
It is a moot debate, worthless, a complete waste of time and effort.
In the end it only creates division.
And, of course, neither will ever be proven to a T.
Quit wasting your time folks.
Host.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd King" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
10 Aug 2006 02:52:34 PM |
|
|
"*_Host_*" <host@home.com> wrote in message
news:194b3$44db6f3c$4088c253$14045@EVERESTKC.NET...
People love to dwell on the Creation vs. Evolution issue.
I guess folks think that if one part of the Bible is in error then the
whole
thing must be wrong.
In the end tho, this debate has nothing to do with how people live their
lives and treat one another.
It is a moot debate, worthless, a complete waste of time and effort.
In the end it only creates division.
And, of course, neither will ever be proven to a T.
Quit wasting your time folks.
Everybody needs a hobby. And a good laugh.
.
|
|
|
| User: "*_Host_*" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
11 Aug 2006 12:17:24 AM |
|
|
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:12dn3k5915bqe66@corp.supernews.com...
"*_Host_*" <host@home.com> wrote in message
news:194b3$44db6f3c$4088c253$14045@EVERESTKC.NET...
People love to dwell on the Creation vs. Evolution issue.
I guess folks think that if one part of the Bible is in error then the
whole
thing must be wrong.
In the end tho, this debate has nothing to do with how people live their
lives and treat one another.
It is a moot debate, worthless, a complete waste of time and effort.
In the end it only creates division.
And, of course, neither will ever be proven to a T.
Quit wasting your time folks.
Everybody needs a hobby. And a good laugh.
Maybe.
Evolutionists believe we evolved through natural selection.
Yet man does everything contrary to nature.
We fight natural selection on a daily basis through medication and
technology.
We have done a great job of stripping the Earth of resources and wiping out
species by the score.
Maybe we need to go back to a natural selection way of life.
Whether you want to call it Natural selection or God's grace though, you can
bet we are not just animals. We have risen above the Earthly plane.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
11 Aug 2006 06:08:12 AM |
|
|
"*_Host_*" <host@home.com> wrote in message
news:1ec17$44dc1223$4088c253$6216@EVERESTKC.NET...
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:12dn3k5915bqe66@corp.supernews.com...
"*_Host_*" <host@home.com> wrote in message
news:194b3$44db6f3c$4088c253$14045@EVERESTKC.NET...
People love to dwell on the Creation vs. Evolution issue.
I guess folks think that if one part of the Bible is in error then the
whole
thing must be wrong.
In the end tho, this debate has nothing to do with how people live
their
lives and treat one another.
It is a moot debate, worthless, a complete waste of time and effort.
In the end it only creates division.
And, of course, neither will ever be proven to a T.
Quit wasting your time folks.
Everybody needs a hobby. And a good laugh.
Maybe.
Evolutionists believe we evolved through natural selection.
Evolutionists accept the ecientific, fact supported, conclusion of
evolution.
"Beliefs" are for religions and philosophers.
Yet man does everything contrary to nature.
We fight natural selection on a daily basis through medication and
technology.
We have done a great job of stripping the Earth of resources and wiping
out
species by the score.
Maybe we need to go back to a natural selection way of life.
Whether you want to call it Natural selection or God's grace though, you
can
bet we are not just animals. We have risen above the Earthly plane.
Your own evidence contradicts that meaningless claim!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
12 Aug 2006 10:47:28 PM |
|
|
*_Host_* wrote:
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:12dn3k5915bqe66@corp.supernews.com...
"*_Host_*" <host@home.com> wrote in message
news:194b3$44db6f3c$4088c253$14045@EVERESTKC.NET...
People love to dwell on the Creation vs. Evolution issue.
I guess folks think that if one part of the Bible is in error then the
whole
thing must be wrong.
In the end tho, this debate has nothing to do with how people live their
lives and treat one another.
It is a moot debate, worthless, a complete waste of time and effort.
In the end it only creates division.
And, of course, neither will ever be proven to a T.
Quit wasting your time folks.
Everybody needs a hobby. And a good laugh.
Maybe.
Evolutionists believe we evolved through natural selection.
Yet man does everything contrary to nature.
Which is entirel a different matter and there are examples in nature
where a species acts seemingly contradictory to the species' benefit.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060808091758.htm
When pregnant, dominant female meerkats subject their subordinates to
escalating aggression and temporary eviction causing them to become overly
stressed and as a result infertile, a new study finds.
...
We fight natural selection on a daily basis through medication and
technology.
We have done a great job of stripping the Earth of resources and wiping out
species by the score.
Maybe we need to go back to a natural selection way of life.
Whether you want to call it Natural selection or God's grace though, you can
bet we are not just animals. We have risen above the Earthly plane.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
12 Aug 2006 10:40:47 PM |
|
|
*_Host_* wrote:
People love to dwell on the Creation vs. Evolution issue.
I guess folks think that if one part of the Bible is in error then the whole
thing must be wrong.
When you postulate inerrancy, that's all it takes.
In the end tho, this debate has nothing to do with how people live their
lives and treat one another.
It is a moot debate, worthless, a complete waste of time and effort.
In the end it only creates division.
And, of course, neither will ever be proven to a T.
Evolution has been proven for some time now.
Quit wasting your time folks.
Host.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
09 Aug 2006 11:05:02 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1155141973.043649.91720@n13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:12djvk24osm8n76@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Gl8Cg.110510$iU2.78068@fed1read01...
Random mutations cannot take you from dogs to cats because the cat
has a
complex, orderly, sophisticated design elements which are not in the
dog
DNA.
The fact that you would even say such a thing indicates how little
understanding you have of evolution. No scientist would ever claim
that
dogs could evolve into cats or vice versa. That's not how it works.
Only
creationists or those with virtually no understanding of evolution
would
even think such a thought.
No you think a cat evolving into a different cat enough times will make a
dog.
[snip]
I don't know of a single scientific theory that professes to
predict such
a phenomenon. By the time enough incremental changes had taken effect
to make such a large change, neither dogs nor cats would probably exist.
But then who knows, it's only a theroy, afterall.
Which fits the facts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
10 Aug 2006 10:15:23 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44DAB06E.AF6F5330@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1155141973.043649.91720@n13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:12djvk24osm8n76@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Gl8Cg.110510$iU2.78068@fed1read01...
Random mutations cannot take you from dogs to cats because the cat
has a
complex, orderly, sophisticated design elements which are not in
the
dog
DNA.
The fact that you would even say such a thing indicates how little
understanding you have of evolution. No scientist would ever claim
that
dogs could evolve into cats or vice versa. That's not how it works.
Only
creationists or those with virtually no understanding of evolution
would
even think such a thought.
No you think a cat evolving into a different cat enough times will
make a
dog.
[snip]
I don't know of a single scientific theory that professes to
predict such
a phenomenon. By the time enough incremental changes had taken effect
to make such a large change, neither dogs nor cats would probably
exist.
But then who knows, it's only a theroy, afterall.
Which fits the facts.
As does Creation Science
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
12 Aug 2006 10:25:12 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44DAB06E.AF6F5330@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1155141973.043649.91720@n13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:12djvk24osm8n76@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Gl8Cg.110510$iU2.78068@fed1read01...
Random mutations cannot take you from dogs to cats because the cat
has a
complex, orderly, sophisticated design elements which are not in
the
dog
DNA.
The fact that you would even say such a thing indicates how little
understanding you have of evolution. No scientist would ever claim
that
dogs could evolve into cats or vice versa. That's not how it works.
Only
creationists or those with virtually no understanding of evolution
would
even think such a thought.
No you think a cat evolving into a different cat enough times will
make a
dog.
[snip]
I don't know of a single scientific theory that professes to
predict such
a phenomenon. By the time enough incremental changes had taken effect
to make such a large change, neither dogs nor cats would probably
exist.
But then who knows, it's only a theroy, afterall.
Which fits the facts.
As does Creation Science
HAHHAH - How? How without invoking evolution?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
09 Aug 2006 12:09:05 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1155141973.043649.91720@n13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
[snip]
No you think a cat evolving into a different cat enough times will make a
dog.
[snip]
I don't know of a single scientific theory that professes to predict such
a phenomenon. By the time enough incremental changes had taken effect
to make such a large change, neither dogs nor cats would probably exist.
But then who knows, it's only a theroy, afterall.
Which is a bit like saying it's "only" a thermonuclear bomb.
A theory is a fairly high standard of accomplishment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
09 Aug 2006 12:29:22 PM |
|
|
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1155143345.358928.275160@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1155141973.043649.91720@n13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
[snip]
No you think a cat evolving into a different cat enough times will
make a
dog.
[snip]
I don't know of a single scientific theory that professes to predict
such
a phenomenon. By the time enough incremental changes had taken effect
to make such a large change, neither dogs nor cats would probably
exist.
But then who knows, it's only a theroy, afterall.
Which is a bit like saying it's "only" a thermonuclear bomb.
A theory is a fairly high standard of accomplishment.
No, you can prove it is a thermonuclear bomb. A scientific Theory is
accepted as the truth, A scientific Law is the truth. You don't see many
people debating the law of gravity, do ya. A few drunk ones trying to
disprove it maybe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd King" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
09 Aug 2006 05:07:38 PM |
|
|
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:SXoCg.21$rT5.10@fed1read01...
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1155143345.358928.275160@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1155141973.043649.91720@n13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
[snip]
No you think a cat evolving into a different cat enough times will
make a
dog.
[snip]
I don't know of a single scientific theory that professes to
predict such
a phenomenon. By the time enough incremental changes had taken effect
to make such a large change, neither dogs nor cats would probably
exist.
But then who knows, it's only a theroy, afterall.
Which is a bit like saying it's "only" a thermonuclear bomb.
A theory is a fairly high standard of accomplishment.
No, you can prove it is a thermonuclear bomb. A scientific Theory is
accepted as the truth, A scientific Law is the truth. You don't see many
people debating the law of gravity, do ya. A few drunk ones trying to
disprove it maybe.
The "theory of gravity" and the "law of gravity" are two different things.
The "law", as described by Newton, is simply that all objects in the
universe attract each other with blah blah blah force, etc. The "theory" is
the description of how and why that works.
Similarly, the "law of evolution" could be stated as "populations of living
organisms change over time". The "theory" is merely the description of why
that is and how it happens. It's not a guess that evolution happens - that
is established and observed fact.
A scientific theory is an explanation. The theory of how a disk drive works
is not a wild-assed guess about how this magical device works, it's just a
description of how it works.
You are *seriously* in need of education on this stuff. But then, there are
a lot of people like you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
09 Aug 2006 05:42:23 PM |
|
|
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:12dkn59rg4038c1@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:SXoCg.21$rT5.10@fed1read01...
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1155143345.358928.275160@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1155141973.043649.91720@n13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
[snip]
No you think a cat evolving into a different cat enough times will
make a
dog.
[snip]
I don't know of a single scientific theory that professes to
predict such
a phenomenon. By the time enough incremental changes had taken
effect
to make such a large change, neither dogs nor cats would probably
exist.
But then who knows, it's only a theroy, afterall.
Which is a bit like saying it's "only" a thermonuclear bomb.
A theory is a fairly high standard of accomplishment.
No, you can prove it is a thermonuclear bomb. A scientific Theory is
accepted as the truth, A scientific Law is the truth. You don't see many
people debating the law of gravity, do ya. A few drunk ones trying to
disprove it maybe.
The "theory of gravity" and the "law of gravity" are two different things.
The "law", as described by Newton, is simply that all objects in the
universe attract each other with blah blah blah force, etc. The "theory"
is the description of how and why that works.
Similarly, the "law of evolution" could be stated as
Could be if there was such a thing as "the law of evolution"
"populations of living
organisms change over time". The "theory" is merely the description of
why that is and how it happens. It's not a guess that evolution happens -
that is established and observed fact.
It is not a fact, it is the "best guess"
A scientific theory is an explanation. The theory of how a disk drive
works is not a wild-assed guess about how this magical device works, it's
just a description of how it works.
There is no such thing as the "theory of disk drives" to my knowledge.
You are *seriously* in need of education on this stuff. But then, there
are a lot of people like you.
People like you seem to be in a need as well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd King" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
10 Aug 2006 11:20:36 AM |
|
|
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ixtCg.51$y61.50@fed1read05...
"Lloyd King" <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
news:12dkn59rg4038c1@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
The "theory of gravity" and the "law of gravity" are two different
things. The "law", as described by Newton, is simply that all objects in
the universe attract each other with blah blah blah force, etc. The
"theory" is the description of how and why that works.
Similarly, the "law of evolution" could be stated as
Could be if there was such a thing as "the law of evolution"
There is. I stated it: "Populations of living organisms change over time".
Write it down. Memorize it.
"populations of living
organisms change over time". The "theory" is merely the description of
why that is and how it happens. It's not a guess that evolution
happens - that is established and observed fact.
It is not a fact, it is the "best guess"
No, it's is observed fact.
A scientific theory is an explanation. The theory of how a disk drive
works is not a wild-assed guess about how this magical device works, it's
just a description of how it works.
There is no such thing as the "theory of disk drives" to my knowledge.
Key phrase: "to my knowledge". And given your display of knowledge, I'd
have to say I'm not surprised.
But yes, there is "theory" regarding almost everything. And in fact, there
are LOTS of "theories" about technologies involved in disk drives, including
Bernoulli's principle, metallurgy, magnetism, all sorts of physics, etc.
They key here is your misunderstanding of the term "theory", and that's what
people have been trying to tell you. You think of "theory" as meaning "a
guess about how things work", and there *is* such a meaning to the word.
But that's NOT the scientific meaning, and it's not the meaning of the word
when used in the term "Theory of Evolution".
It's as if you're arguing that a huge tank of water can't be a "tank"
because a "tank" has treads and a big gun on top. One word may have several
meanings, and you clearly don't understand the meaning of the word "theory"
when it comes to science.
Matter of fact, there is no single thing that is the "Theory of Evolution",
there is a lot of theory involved, as with disk drives or any other complex
concept. And all that theory needs to hang together. And in the fields of
biology, medicine, genetics, paleontology, etc. etc. etc evolutionary theory
DOES work together.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
