|
|
|
|
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3051 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/10/2006 8:11:45 AM |
Evolution is a theroy(sic)
I see, you missed page one, msg. 2 -
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
- Laurence Moran
hen non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it?
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/10/2006 8:17:37 AM | 'Who cares?
It was a long time ago, know one will ever know what happened and doesn't really matter"
Really? Understanding the natural world is petty and unnecessary for you? That would include relativity (after all it involves immense scales of time and space, so how could we ever really know?) and quantum physics (after all it involves infinitesimally small scales, so how could we really know?) If that were the attitude of our progenitors we would still be running across the Savannah chasing zebra for our next meal. Since you find the study of the natural world so pointless, I'm assuming that you are not a hypocrite by using the technological advances that come from such intellectual pursuits and that you don't use, oh... let's say for instance.... a computer? And for the record, there are many avenues for rationally and logically unravelling details about the past, from neontological triangulation to paleontology, not to mention genetic science whereby we are slowly decoding the history of life, so you couldn't be more wrong, not only in your attitude, but in your claim that there is no way of gaining knowledge of the subject. As for the other issues raised, Enryk and Feral have already addressed them exceptionally well.
Enryk- I appreciate what you're saying about keeping the discussion on a layman's level, but I already explained my motive in that regard. I would be perfectly happy to return to a simple and civil discussion, so long as people stop denigrating concepts that they don't have the requisite knowledge to criticize. If someone wants to understand a concept better, fine- we will all try to explain it, but when people come on and attack straw men, and promulgate blatant misinformation, I'm going to be honest, it irks me. There is a world of difference between saying that a valid aspect of a theory doesn't ring true for me personally, and attacking the theory with a sweeping value judgement that is not based on anything the theory actually purports! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/10/2006 8:33:11 AM | WONKA:
Thank you for your opinion and your ability to twist what I said out of context.
Also I'd like to thank you for attacking my post in front of a forum Mod.
LATE:
This is what I was emailing you about earlier. I didn't do anything to warrant this attack. I offered an opinion that I didn't think it mattered how "time began" but he twisted it around and said all that gobbly gook directed at my statement.
----------------
To stick with the thread:
I do believe in the natural world and I support the Evolution platform of things due to the archeological findings and supportive data thats been unearthed and researched.
My point earlier was simply that I didn't see a point arguing over something we can't go back in time to prove.
My apologies for any misunderstanding and offenses I gave, but we are all free to offer an opinion without being judged or attacked. Please stick to the thread and leave your judgements at the door. If you can't play nice, then don't come in the room at all. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/10/2006 8:43:02 AM | Wonka didn't twist anything...
He took the quote, and expounded the reasoning and applied the reasoning to other areas of study. I think he demonstrated quite well the importance of the investigation.
Also, there is a difference between attacking an argument and attacking a person. If a person decides to voice their opinion in a thread, that opinion is open to debate...I know from personal experience that Wonka has engaged my posts before, yet we are civil and respect each other.
So when you say that "but we are all free to offer an opinion without being judged or attacked" I agree, and I imagine Wonka does as well. But that statement does not preclude your opinion itself from being addressed. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/10/2006 8:49:33 AM | "I didn't do anything to warrant this attack."
What attack? I precisely addressed your words, I didn't twist anything out of context, and I did not levy attacks against you personally, just your words and their logical consequences. If you meant something else than the study of life's origins "doesn't really matter," then why did you say it? I don't blindly attack people; I attack the content of their words. I've already clearly expressed what it will take to receive a civil response from me, and I am civil all the time. I don't consider unwarranted attacks on science to be civil, so I will respond in kind. Understand? I don't rail against religion, and I don't express vehement negative opinions about things I don't have requisite familiarity with, so I expect the same in return. You can be certain that if I am scathing, it is a reaction to something that struck me as offensive. If that was not your intention, and you simply did not express your statement with enough clarity, then I apologize, but you clearly said what you said.
"If you can't play nice, then don't come in the room at all."
I will play nice when others do. Again, blind misinformed attacks on science will receive attacks back from me. How about we all start from square one, and carry out a civil discussion without propagating misinformation, without attacking methodologies and theories we don't understand. If someone doesn't understand something about a subject, please just ask, instead of going off on a misinformed diatribe. You notice how differently I responded to davidmackie? He expressed his personal opinion as being just that, and asked a question about something he wasn't clear on. See the difference?
And for the record- Late has had his scathing moments as well, so I think he understands where I'm coming from. I'll bet, even if he feels the dictates of his job as moderator supersede his personal feelings, he still sympathizes with my frustration. That being said, let's all try to start over. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/10/2006 9:07:59 AM | And for the record- Late has had his scathing moments as well, so I think he understands where I'm coming from. I'll bet, even if he feels the dictates of his job as moderator supersede his personal feelings, he still sympathizes with my frustration. That being said, let's all try to start over.
Attack the person = argumentum ad hominum = FLAME = forum rule violation
Challenge an opinion/argument = Debate = This IS a discussion forum.
Also, please note:
Off-topic/Chat posts will be deleted -
Use POF E-mail for this. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/10/2006 9:14:21 AM | | I would agree with Brain-In-A-Vat 100% on this one. I myself injoy reading wonkas posts . it kind of stimulates the mind so to speak. Plus i learn new words everyday. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3058 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/10/2006 9:22:20 AM |
If someone wants to understand a concept better, fine- we will all try to explain it, but when people come on and attack straw men, and promulgate blatant misinformation.............
Strawmen = Anything outside the terms of reference (science), re: the OP.
Use "bullshit", expect somebody to say, ..."Bullshit!".
Post #9 on page ONE addresses this well. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/10/2006 10:31:07 AM | Evolution is a theroy,
Creation is a fact
To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Statement made by Charles Darwin
Oops, the 'eye' misquote from another Creationist.
Maybe you should know what you're quoting, there, pointguard? Misquoting is basically lying, you know. It's a claim someone said something they didn't, or meant something they didn't.
"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."
[p. 217, Charles Darwin, 1859. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. John Murray, London, 1859 (published by Penguin Books, London, England, 1968, reprinted 1986 with an introduction and bibliography by J.W. Burrow]
Now, how about 'oops, I didn't know it was a misquote, I'm sorry' or something?
If Creationists were tasked to write a school paper on the subject, they'd all flunk for plagiarism and blatant misquoting. I mean, they don't even know what they're quoting, it's like children just repeating what their parents say mindlessly, isn't it?
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/10/2006 10:37:21 AM | | Sounds like he simply condensed an overly wordy quote quite well. We could stand a little more of that around here. The basic idea still came through. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/10/2006 10:47:47 AM | Coffee,
I am guessing that you are ignoring Tsur's production of the entire quote, which indicates the exact opposite of Pointguards post.
Pointguard was clearly trying to employ Darwin's quote to indicate that Darwin did not agree with evolution. Tsur made it clear that Darwin accepted the difficulty in accepting such a position, but that the evidence demanded such a position be accepted. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/10/2006 11:43:42 AM | | Despite the fact that this point has been made repeatedly in the last few pages, I'll try to remain unemotional and say it, in simple terms, again. Yes, Darwin expressed concern over certain aspects of nature that he felt were not adequately explained by his theory (which, by the way is what a good scientist does, so that further generations can address these issues.) And, yes, Darwin even made some errors. The theory that he presented a century and a half ago has been significantly expanded upon. The concerns he expressed are no longer concerns, and his errors have been corrected without needing to overturn the basic premise of his logic. In fact, Darwin made a few errors that his best advocate and friend Huxley pointed out to him not many years after publication. That is how science works. Again, all scientific theories are open ended, and collaborative. They are models, not isometric (or identical) representations of the phenomenon in question. They are basically algorithms in a sense, meaning that they represent, by a form of analogy, a vast wealth of data by uncovering unifying principles, just like a map represents a geographic area, but is not the geographic area itself. A map may contain local errors and still provide an overall accurate depiction of the whole area, and later cartographers can come in and adjust those errors, without throwing out the whole map. Does that make sense? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/10/2006 11:55:02 AM |
Its my understanding that DNA cannot function without at least 75 preexisting proteins, but proteins are produced only at the direction of DNA.
DNA dose require protiens to form, but protiens can form without DNA and so protiens are the precursur.
If evolution happened, which evolved first, DNA or its repair mechanism? Each requires the other.
While it is true that muliti celular life neads to have a repair mechanism in place to safely copy DNA, it is not true for cingle celled organisms.
Viruses for example have no nead for a repair mechanism, and some do not even use DNA, relying on RNA instead. Bateria also do not require a repair mechanism for DNA, as most mistakes will result in the death of the cell, (note that not all mistakes do so, some provide new advantageous mutations, thus explaining the higher mutation rate of single celled organisms) and any newlly formed cells that fail and die, can be reabsorbed and used to create another copy until a viable one is formed. Multi celular life dose not have the option to do this, it would be akin to eating your miscaried baby and become pregnant again!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evolutionists claim that life originated by natural processes, when one organism changed into another solely by chance. They propose that successive species of life arose over eons of time to produce the vast complexity and diversity of life we see in the world today. However, upon closer examination of these "natural processes," one finds the statistical probability of life originating by chance to be incredibly small and unlikely.
This old chestnut again.
This would be true if it were a random proces, but it is not. The staistical chance of amino acids forming protiens of certain lengths is 1:1. It is a natural phenomena and is easily observable.
As for the chirality question, I have answered this before.
The only part of that equation that takes any random chance, is the formation of key structures within a cell. But I shall talk about that letter, no time just now. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/10/2006 12:10:01 PM |
Sounds like he simply condensed an overly wordy quote quite well. We could stand a little more of that around here. The basic idea still came through.
Not at all. But I think I see where you got hung up, Coffeeholic. It was probably the last sentence:
the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."
Note that it says the "difficulty of believing... can hardly be considered real." -not- "believing... can hardly be considered real." It is very misleading to condense this long quote!
Seriously, coming from a former Creationist, reading what many Creationists resort to is like watching a drowning man grabbing for anything to keep his head above water, whether it be thin string or worse, a wet noodle. If one carefully reads the well supported posts by Wonka, Bright, Late, Feral, and company, one just might learn something... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:01:58 PM | "I'm afraid I disagree. I do not immediately, upon encountering a mosquito or a planarian or a marsupial, assume common ancestry."
Feral, I meant to address this and forgot. Of course if you take a human and a mosquito in isolation, shared ancestry may not be so obvious, but I am talking about the tree-like structure of all organisms in terms of morphology. When you take into account the shared characteristics amongst closely related species, then ratchet the resolution down a notch, if you will, and note the similarities and differences shared by different genus and on down in the taxonomic ladder to kingdom, shared ancestry is visible to the naked eye. One could argue that this only shows shared basic constituents, but the arrow of time is also visible to the naked eye. Nowhere in nature have we discovered a true chimera- an animal with characteristics that would contradict taxonomy temporally. There are no centaurs or griffins. Every shared trait follows logically from the temporal direction of speciations and extinctions. Clearly every animal was not created synonymously. But we are fortunate that we need not even rely on such speculative induction, because we are blessed with a wealth of empirical evidence from various fields that also corroborate the theory. Morphometrics, Genetics, Paleontology and even Chaos and Complexity theory all converge on the issue. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/10/2006 3:39:58 PM | Perhaps God created the universe and used evolution as his/her tool,,hmmmmmmmm??
iswasandwillalwaysbe | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/10/2006 4:02:55 PM | | uncle- no one in this thread, to my recollection, has ever said that isn't a possibility. It's not my personal conviction, but there's nothing about that notion that is contradicted by empirical evidence or scientific theory, so there's really no debate inherent (relevant to the thread at least) in your statement. I don't think anybody here would feel compelled to argue against it. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3068 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/10/2006 4:03:56 PM | As this concept has no bearing on the science, it has no place in a course of study inclusive of science = moot point in the context of the OP.
(one minute late™)
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/10/2006 4:44:38 PM | wonkavision hmmm I beg to differ
The thread was "created" and is titled creation VS evolution. And thus suggests the two are opposing views. I am suggesting perhaps the two are not so opposing ideas and that both sides may have valid points.
Within the boundries of the original post my post is quite relevent.
The arguement of creation vs evolution is usually an endless round and round debate result in stalemate and both sides convinced theirs is right.
My injection here that perhaps evolution and creation are a combined force as opposed to opposing is to perhaps stir an evolution of a static arguement.
As for your own convictions,,,I did not post it in response to your convictions and have no opinion on them.
cheerswas | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/10/2006 5:57:36 PM | Who cares?
It was a long time ago, know one will ever know what happened and doesn't really matter.
That is as far as most people get in their reasoning process to understand natural phenomena in general. Its good enough for some, but not for all.
If you look at the wide scientific implications of the theory and the enormous amount of applications that can and have been derived from such research, you will see that it does matter.
As far as no one ever knowing what happened in reference to evolution, you obviously haven't read the thread, and aren't very familiar with the theory and the material that substantiates it.
And how is it that you came to be able to judge what matters for everyone else in general? I am not ready concede that you have such authority. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/10/2006 6:16:56 PM | if one would like to bringing themselves up to the debate level, taxonomic which seems to being the center of the above debate, please read http://www.borg.com/~lubehawk/taxonmy.htm#taxsci%20ans which is toxonomy 101. taxonomic ladder to kingdom maybe a little misleading as the scale provided is an x,y graph with taxonomy as the tiltle and kingdom is a value on x. Toxonomy is defined as live organism structure in groups of similuarlities of structure or origin. When you refer back to the site above, the definition to that person is The Classification of Living Things - Taxonomy.
For you to join this debate to the levels which it has been up to lately, please browse the 5 kingdoms http://www.borg.com/~lubehawk/kingdms.htm which further defines kingdom above. As far as i can read and understand there is no "wealth of emprirical evidence from various fields that also corroborate the theory. Morphometrics, Genetics, Paleontology and even Chaos and Complexity theory all converge on the issue." This site also provides a Word Bank so one can familiarize themselves with some of the words used here. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3072 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/10/2006 8:37:17 PM |
The arguement of creation vs evolution is usually an endless round and round debate result in stalemate and both sides convinced theirs is right.
The specific argument is whether the two ideas belong in the same course of study, specifically the science of biology.
Or,
Does creationism stand up to the terms of reference of science, or is this just a ploy to loophole Christianity into a school's specific course of study that is EXCLUSIVE of any theology Christian or otherwise -
Or,
(The query posed by the OP)
So I ask where is the proof?
(and please before you all start with the bible quotes, remember they too fall into the "someone told me" catagory)
Where is the beef?
Show me the money?
Why should the idea of creation be taught out side of Sunday School?
Faith does not require that the premise fit the evidence, it discards the evidence that doesn't fit the premise.
Conversely: Science discards the premise that doesn't fit the evidence.
The two are different frames of reference, different terms of reference, IOW, not on the same page.
This site also provides a Word Bank so one can familiarize themselves with some of the words used here.
Here's a good reference for spotting the many dishonest arguments coming from the creationist/ID proponants:
http://www.daltonator.net/durandal/creationism/fallacies.shtml | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/11/2006 1:50:55 AM | Here's a good reference for spotting the many dishonest arguments coming from the creationist/ID proponants:
http://www.daltonator.net/durandal/creationism/fallacies.shtml
this location is as latetm has wrote, however it depends where one sits at the table of ideas. calling creationist/ID proponants those who have dishonest arguments holds true for both sides. How high is the probability evolutionist's are the ones with dishonest arguments? Can I give evolutionsist 5% for probably beging correct? Probably yes. Their theories haven't proved to be true but some of the basis like charting the progess of their theories even using sciences that don't dwell in Darwinism are probabaly correct.
This location is highly anti-christian and I would venture to say anti-God.
"To deny the truth of Creationism is to deny the Word of God Himself. If you don't accept God, you will be condemned to Hell to suffer for eternity."
Then the site proceeds to explain how to overcome these type remarks.
No logic. No argument. No reason. No intelligence. Just bigotry and self-righteousness. This is one of the most bigoted (intolerance) statement within this web site. It displays how they themselves see their righousness over us who believes to live our lives within the laws of Moses, the good values, morals and the New Covenant taught to us through Jesus Christ. My righteousness like many others I hope doesn't become a means to an end and doesn't step on the toes of evotionists except when they harp over and over again their theories are to eliminate God totally from the big picture. Our daily arguments are to gain those spectators sitting on the sidelines to move themselves left or right. Granted if the arugments move to much from the center it becomes a joust.
Those who wish to believe eveloution believes so on someone's elses authority and power. Therefore you will be lead for the rest of your lives forever looking for another new theory proving your leadership still gains the followers within their flock.
Then there is us. Free will and free thinkers but gives credit where credit is do. One does not soar to new heights without a rock solid foundation in confidence and free will. Those who believe in evolution has only bought themselves a one way ticket and their confiendence and free will comes to a halt when they find difficulity in promotioning evolution. Not so for the free willed and free thinkers for we will always grab the gold and run for a true and proven touchdown, success today.
If one is generally a positive person, a couples of weeks debating this most negative issue, see how ones outlook is changed to the point where one must take time off to meditate oneself back to a positive being.
 | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3074 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/11/2006 2:52:41 AM | Nothing new here, fallacy, co-opting meaning, mostly though: Not getting it.
Take a look at ANY Creationist/ID website, you will find within it a : Statement of Faith
Here's a typical example from probably the leading proponents of C/ID:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp
A) PRIORITIES
1. The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
2. The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
but are secondary
There you have it, all that's left on the table is: Petitio Principi
but are secondary
This in and of itself recluses them from any validity in a scientific course of study, by being intolerant of it, Anti-Science if you will. Yet they want to be inclusive of science.
The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary
What they are saying in plain english is: We will abide by the rules unless they don't suit our agenda.
Just as those in this debate who aren't served by logic, and reasoned discourse.... abandon it for the soft comfy chair of fallacy.
If logic won't back them up, abandon it and fill the screen with meaningless bad prose.
QED
This is one of the most bigoted (intolerance) statement within this web site.
Why, because it accurate? I can't find a thing in your post that actually adds up, makes sense or resembles anything approaching reason or critical thinking, ...only meaninless non sequiturs for the most part.
It displays how they themselves see their righousness over us who believes to live our lives within the laws of Moses, the good values, morals and the New Covenant taught to us through Jesus Christ.
Wrong, it's merely a primer for those who want to recognize the bullshit rhetoric when they see it.
My righteousness like many others I hope doesn't become a means to an end and doesn't step on the toes of evotionists except when they harp over and over again their theories are to eliminate God totally from the big picture.
The "Strawman" fallacy, .....yes, but y'know you can put a whole quart of whipped cream on a turd, it may look pretty, but those who can see what the topping hides aren't going to mistake it for dessert. DO you have a cite for this "harping" or did this just fall out of the back end of a steer?
Our daily arguments are to gain those spectators sitting on the sidelines to move themselves left or right. Granted if the arugments move to much from the center it becomes a joust.
100% pure grade "A" non-sequitur, meaningless to the topic at hand.
Those who wish to believe eveloution believes so on someone's elses authority and power.
Who's authority? What power? ....I think thou dost project too much. The authority is called "Critical Thinking, the power is called "Reason".
Therefore you will be lead for the rest of your lives forever looking for another new theory proving your leadership still gains the followers within their flock.
Yes, cursed to wander the world forever trying to learn new things, .....Oh! the humanity!
Then there is us. Free will and free thinkers but gives credit where credit is do. Then there is us. Free will and free thinkers but gives credit where credit is do. One does not soar to new heights without a rock solid foundation in confidence and free will. Those who believe in evolution has only bought themselves a one way ticket and their confiendence and free will comes to a halt when they find difficulity in promotioning evolution. Not so for the free willed and free thinkers for we will always grab the gold and run for a true and proven touchdown, success today.
Still batting 1000, nothing but fallacy and non-sequitur so far. What's left?
f one is generally a positive person, a couples of weeks debating this most negative issue, see how ones outlook is changed to the point where one must take time off to meditate oneself back to a positive being.
And sometimes the debate fails to even show up in even one sentence and is crowded out by nonsense, and so upon reading it, leaving one only a single recourse:
 | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/11/2006 2:58:11 AM | In light of it all:
OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD:
CC:
* DOVER SCHOOL BOARD (PENNSYLVANIA) -- crossed out
* OHIO STATE SCHOOL BOARD
* RIO RANCHO SCHOOL BOARD (NEW MEXICO)
* GRANTSBURG SCHOOL BOARD (WISCONSIN)
* COBB COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD(GEORGIA)
* SHELBY COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD(TENNESSEE)
* CHARLES COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD(MARYLAND)
* NAPERVILLE SCHOOL BOARD(ILLINOIS)
* DARBY SCHOOL BOARD (MONTANA)
* BLUFFTON-HARRISON SCHOOL BOARD (INDIANA)
I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.
Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.
It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.
Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.
I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.
You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.
undefined
http://www.venganza.org
In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.
Sincerely Yours,
Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.
P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.
http://www.venganza.org/
| |
|
|
| Page 123 of 156
|
116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156 |
|
Home
login 
