NationStates Jolt Archive

A couple of creationists are planning to sue University of California, Berkley for using National Science Foundation funds to build a website about evolution. They claim that public funds shouldn't be used to teach religious viewpoints. (but I'm sure they'd like their creationist viewpoint promoted with public funds)

They also don't seem to understand that evolution isn't religion, it's actual science.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1348226

But Science is not Religion.

And Religion is not Science.

It's not that hard.

So.. any one want to guess the odds they will succeed ?
And if that is with or without aid from the president himself ?

I'd put money on it :(

oh...my...god... I'm just glad I don't live in the US... thats all I'll say.

Evolution a religion :headbang:

They claim that public funds shouldn't be used to teach religious viewpoints.
:p :p ROTFLMFAO! :p :p

I'm a Creationist myself, but my position is, if there's no scientific evidence to back something up, it shouldn't be taught in a school. Hence, intelligence design has no place in a classroom. Creationism can be neither proven nor disproven scientifically, therefore it should not be taught in schools.

I'm a Creationist myself, but my position is, if there's no scientific evidence to back something up, it shouldn't be taught in a school. Hence, intelligence design has no place in a classroom. Creationism can be neither proven nor disproven scientifically, therefore it should not be taught in schools.

May I worship you ?

A couple of creationists are planning to sue University of California, Berkley for using National Science Foundation funds to build a website about evolution. ...

No they are not. From your link:
The plaintiffs are not proponents of "intelligent design" a theory that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher intelligence but they object to the teaching of evolution as scientific fact, Jeanne Caldwell said.

They claim that public funds shouldn't be used to teach religious viewpoints. (but I'm sure they'd like their creationist viewpoint promoted with public funds)


No, they didn't endorse promoting the creationist viewpoint either... From your link again:
A California couple has sued the operators of a University of California-Berkeley Web site designed to help teachers teach evolution, claiming it improperly strays into religion.

Jeanne and Larry Caldwell of Granite Bay say portions of the Understanding Evolution Web site amount to a government endorsement of certain religious groups over others... "

Perhaps you should read these articles before posting threads about them and accusing third party people that aren't even involved. :rolleyes:

Damn, now that's sad. I guess they're getting really desperate.

May I worship you ?

?

No they are not. From your link:
The plaintiffs are not proponents of "intelligent design" a theory that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher intelligence but they object to the teaching of evolution as scientific fact, Jeanne Caldwell said.



No, they didn't endorse promoting the creationist viewpoint either... From your link again:
A California couple has sued the operators of a University of California-Berkeley Web site designed to help teachers teach evolution, claiming it improperly strays into religion.

Jeanne and Larry Caldwell of Granite Bay say portions of the Understanding Evolution Web site amount to a government endorsement of certain religious groups over others... "

Perhaps you should read these articles before posting threads about them and accusing third party people that aren't even involved. :rolleyes:


Dude, what's your problem? It pretty obvious. By even bringing this suit at all there is an overt suggestion to DCDs point. You need to lighten up, and get those eyes checked before they get damaged from all that rolling.

?

People like you are rare. At least on this forum.

how could evolution win against this???
http://img321.imageshack.us/img321/2748/bushmuscle9ul.gif

No they are not. From your link:
The plaintiffs are not proponents of "intelligent design" a theory that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher intelligence but they object to the teaching of evolution as scientific fact, Jeanne Caldwell said.
They're still fucking retards. Evolution, like gravity, is taught as scientific theory, not "fact". Facts are gathered from evidence which supports a scientific theory.

Why can't people wrap their minds around this very simple process?

People like you are rare. At least on this forum.

What do you mean, "people like you?"

What do you mean, "people like you?"

Creationists who do not insist that evolution is a religious position, who are convinced ID is not a science, and do not believe that everyone should be forced to learn this truth.

Dude, what's your problem? It pretty obvious. By even bringing this suit at all there is an overt suggestion to DCDs point. You need to lighten up, and get those eyes checked before they get damaged from all that rolling.

The article explicitly denies exactly what DCD accuses the couple of... And your lack of reading comprehension applies when?

Creationists who do not insist that evolution is a religious position, who are convinced ID is not a science, and do not believe that everyone should be forced to learn this truth.
Actually, we're really not all that rare, especially on this forum. But it just so happens that because society paints a poor picture of "creationists" in general, we get slammed for it. That's the reason that a lot of people just try not to enter such discussions. I know that almost every time I do, despite the fact that I've studied both sides (an advantage many don't have), they just call me a religious nut.

Creationists who do not insist that evolution is a religious position, who are convinced ID is not a science, and do not believe that everyone should be forced to learn this truth.

Exactly. As I said, nothing should be taught unless there is evidence to support it. Although I don't believe in evolution, there is more evidence to support it than there is to support Creationism. Creationism depends solely on one's faith.

Exactly. As I said, nothing should be taught unless there is evidence to support it. Although I don't believe in evolution, there is more evidence to support it than there is to support Creationism. Creationism depends solely on one's faith.
Which is perfectly fine. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. Beliefs, like faith and religion, is a personal thing.

I am confused, why is Greenlander being criticized for actually reading the article and correcting some underlying false premises of this thread? Are we frustrated because what he said is untrue, or because what he said takes away from the stereotype we are so eager to hate?
- David Rau
Resident Rabble Rouser, Tyslan

The article explicitly denies exactly what DCD accuses the couple of... And your lack of reading comprehension applies when?

LOL. It's pretty funny how you go on the attack like that. Being a jerk doen't make you right, it just makes you a jerk. I did read the article, and of course I read the part about their denial. But, I dare you to name another personal belief that would so strongly influence a person as to move them to spend the money to file a lawsuit to challenge the building of a website that details the theory of evolution.

They also don't seem to understand that evolution isn't religion, it's actual science.

I think their showing up the anti-creationist side for a hypocracy on their part. They refuse to accept creationist models of the earths creation as science (Not talking about ID here, that is something else) but are happy to accpet their own models as fact. Both models have flaws and valid points, whats needed is a diologue, not both sides calling the other stupid and refusing to coperate

I am confused, why is Greenlander being criticized for actually reading the article and correcting some underlying false premises of this thread? Are we frustrated because what he said is untrue, or because what he said takes away from the stereotype we are so eager to hate?
- David Rau
Resident Rabble Rouser, Tyslan
It comes down to the fact that a whole lotta people skip reading the article and just take DCD's word as to what it's about, IMO. After all, there's a certain amount of trust one should be able to put in the thread starter to read the article and be informed about it. It happens all too freakin often.

What do you mean, "people like you?"
Don't worry - he is not insulting you.

I think it is meant as a compliment - and that he respects your view.

You have your faith and it seems you realise that your faith is yours and it does not seem you want to force your faith on others, just as i imagine you do not want others forced on you. you believe in creation - which is fair enough, but recognise that it is not science and hence should not be taught in a science class - which is a very reasonable view. For perspective some people on here who call themselves christians have a very different view where people should be taught creation as fact in a science class - and the attitude of many extreeme 'christians' on here gives christians a very bad name. On this forum it is rare to encounter christians who have views such as yourself and I very much doubt that the non-christian and more moderate christian groups on here have any desire to alienate you.

I for one welcome your position and awareness of what science is, and although i do not share your faith i respect your right to have it.

I am confused, why is Greenlander being criticized for actually reading the article and correcting some underlying false premises of this thread? Are we frustrated because what he said is untrue, or because what he said takes away from the stereotype we are so eager to hate?
- David Rau
Resident Rabble Rouser, Tyslan
I get frustrated with anyone who wishes to discuss science without a clear understanding of the basics. Like the difference between facts, hypothesis and scientific theories. :rolleyes:

Which is perfectly fine. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. Beliefs, like faith and religion, is a personal thing.

Agreed. And beliefs should not be imposed on others. Which is why I oppose the teaching of ID 100%.

Don't worry - he is not insulting you.

I think it is meant as a compliment - and that he respects your view.

I know, I was just wondering what he meant by it.

Exactly. As I said, nothing should be taught unless there is evidence to support it. Although I don't believe in evolution, there is more evidence to support it than there is to support Creationism. Creationism depends solely on one's faith.

Actually, the evidence is in simmilar quantities. The problem is that the evolutionist side refuse to give any credence at all to the creationist side, thus there evidence cannot be examined.

Actually, the evidence is in simmilar quantities. The problem is that the evolutionist side refuse to give any credence at all to the creationist side, thus there evidence cannot be examined.
OMG, do you actually believe that there's heaps of empirical evidence that supports ID? Does your "evidence" revolve around refuting evolution, or does it stand on its own?
Because I haven't seen God's trademark on any fossils lately, so I'd appreciate it if you'd clue me in, please.

LOL. It's pretty funny how you go on the attack like that. Being a jerk doen't make you right, it just makes you a jerk. I did read the article, and of course I read the part about their denial. But, I dare you to name another personal belief that would so strongly influence a person as to move them to spend the money to file a lawsuit to challenge the building of a website that details the theory of evolution.


Actually, if they win, it will cost nothing whatsoever, hell, they'll make a profit, how do you think the ACLU makes money? First Amendment challenges get paid for by the government.

It's pretty funny how you pick a fight and then whimper about making excuses of how you really just want to make a strawman and ad hominine attack the couple in the article so somehow you 'must' be right because you simply can’t ‘imagine’ how your stereotyping didn’t work out this time. :rolleyes:

Actually, the evidence is in simmilar quantities. The problem is that the evolutionist side refuse to give any credence at all to the creationist side, thus there evidence cannot be examined.

The problem with doing that is that Myths are just that, Myths. If we lend "credence" to the Judeo Christian creation myth, then we also have to accept that the world might have been created by Odin, using the slain body of a giant. Or Ra rising from the waters of chaos (Nun). Or Gaia giving birth to bunch of cyclopses who were later imprisoned deep within her by a generation of gods who then created man out of clay. Do you think that any one of those myths is at all credible?

I They refuse to accept creationist models of the earths creation as science (Not talking about ID here, that is something else) but are happy to accpet their own models as fact. Both models have flaws and valid points, whats needed is a diologue, not both sides calling the other stupid and refusing to coperate
They do not accept creation as science because Creation is not Science, it is Religion. If Creationists could present their theory in a scientific manner which meets the requirements for a scientific theory then they may be able to get it taught as science - but due to it's nature Creationism cannot meet several requirements of scientific theory - mainly that it is not falsifable, it does not make predictions and it does not depend on natural pheonoma (amoung others). You can believe in it as faith, but it is not Science.

Teaching Creation in the Science class would be like teaching maths in an english class. Calling creationism science is like calling history art.

Actually, if they win, it will cost nothing whatsoever, hell, they'll make a profit, how do you think the ACLU makes money? First Amendment challenges get paid for by the government.

It's pretty funny how you pick a fight and then whimper about making excuses of how you really just want to make a strawman and ad hominine attack the couple in the article so somehow you 'must' be right because you simply can’t ‘imagine’ how your stereotyping didn’t work out this time. :rolleyes:

Where did I do that? I actually started off by telling you to lighten up before the vein in your head bursts, that's all. Then, you snapped at me (the funny part), and I asked you to think up an example. Where's the "strawman" or "ad hominine" in that? I didn't "attack" you, I did make light of you, but not attack. The difference, I admit, is subtle.

The problem with doing that is that Myths are just that, Myths. If we lend "credence" to the Judeo Christian creation myth, then we also have to accept that the world might have been created by Odin, using the slain body of a giant. Or Ra rising from the waters of chaos (Nun). Or Gaia giving birth to bunch of cyclopses who were later imprisoned deep within her by a generation of gods who then created man out of clay. Do you think that any one of those myths is at all credible?

Religions can never be proven or disproven scientifically. (Which, of course, is one of the main reasons they should not be taught in a science classroom, let alone a school.)

A couple of creationists are planning to sue University of California, Berkley for using National Science Foundation funds to build a website about evolution. They claim that public funds shouldn't be used to teach religious viewpoints. (but I'm sure they'd like their creationist viewpoint promoted with public funds)

They also don't seem to understand that evolution isn't religion, it's actual science.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1348226

Religion:

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Where did I do that? I actually started off by telling you to lighten up before the vein in your head bursts, that's all. Then, you snapped at me (the funny part), and I asked you to think up an example. Where's the "strawman" or "ad hominine" in that? I didn't "attack" you, I did make light of you, but not attack. The difference, I admit, is subtle.

Your reading comprehension shortcoming is showing again. You attacked the couple in the article with strawman and ad hominine attacks, not me.

Your reading comprehension shortcoming is showing again. You attacked the couple in the article with strawman and ad hominine attacks, not me.

And your reflexive irateness is showing (you reall should get that checked before it leads to heart problems). How did I do that? By saying that it was overt attempt to undermine science in favor of religious points of view? How is it not?

Where's the "strawman" or "ad hominine" in that? I didn't "attack" you, I did make light of you, but not attack.
Your reading comprehension shortcoming is showing again. You attacked the couple in the article with strawman and ad hominine attacks, not me.
AD. HOMINEM. Not "Hominine". If you two are going to accuse each other of rampant stupidity, at least try to come off as somewhat intelligent yourselves.

Simonist']AD. HOMINEM. Not "Hominine". If you two are going to accuse each other of rampant stupidity, at least try to come off as somewhat intelligent yourselves.

I'm just quoting his bad spelling. I don't want to be accused of putting words in his mouth after all the rest of this silliness.;)

Religion:

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

'...and faith'

'...and faith'
"Faith" is not limited to works of the divine

Greenlander, you've conveniently gotten sidetracked with bickering and haven't replied to my previous post. Care to discuss the difference between scientific theory and "facts"?

Greenlander, you've conveniently gotten sidetracked with bickering and haven't replied to my previous post. Care to discuss the difference between scientific theory and "facts"?

The point is, the article in question does not state exactly what parts of the web-page is being accused of partiality and or 'assumption' of truth without actual scientific rationale, therefore, we can't argue the case for them here.

The overall topic of Evolution does not seem to be the problem, the article said that the web-page essentially goes past proof and into an assumption of 'truth.'

But if you want to argue the merits of 'how' scientific theory can be mistaught in a high school setting, you could argue that a teacher who argues that the affects of gravity prove that gravitons exists (for example) would be in error because there is more than one theory about 'why' the measurements of gravity and it's affects occur (no one denies that they are real, only we don't know 'how' they are real and thus, they would be teaching a belief, not an evidence).

Thus, if the website takes a few steps 'past' the proven truths and suggests that evolution proves the origin of life (for example) it would go too far and be a 'belief' not a scientific 'evidence.'

Simonist']"Faith" is not limited to works of the divine

But it stops being faith when one has a reasonable amount of evidence.

But it stops being faith when one has a reasonable amount of evidence.
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
Source (http://m-w.com/dictionary/faith)

Wow, that's funny.....looks like there's more to it than religion to me :rolleyes:

So do "complete trust", "sincerity of intentions", "something that is believed especially with strong conviction", "allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY", and "fidelity to one's promises" also go out the window with a 'reasonable amount of evidence' of something?

The point is, the article in question does not state exactly what parts of the web-page is being accused of partiality and or 'assumption' of truth without actual scientific rationale, therefore, we can't argue the case for them here.

The overall topic of Evolution does not seem to be the problem, the article said that the web-page essentially goes past proof and into an assumption of 'truth.'

But if you want to argue the merits of 'how' scientific theory can be mistaught in a high school setting, you could argue that a teacher who argues that the affects of gravity prove that gravitons exists (for example) would be in error because there is more than one theory about 'why' the measurements of gravity and it's affects occur (no one denies that they are real, only we don't know 'how' they are real and thus, they would be teaching a belief, not an evidence).

Thus, if the website takes a few steps 'past' the proven truths and suggests that evolution proves the origin of life (for example) it would go too far and be a 'belief' not a scientific 'evidence.'

Well, you're right to assume then that the web site may be overstepping it's boundaries. That means they're leaving the realm of scientific process altogether. I think we'll be able to clarify once the web site is active. Until then, I'm not sure which side is being the douchebag.

Religion:

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Evolutionary theory is not a cause, a principle, or a "system of beliefs". It is not held to with "ardor and faith", at least not by scientists.

So, what exactly is your point?

Actually, the evidence is in simmilar quantities.

Not from a scientific standpoint. From a scientific standpoint, you can't take the Creationist route - which is to assume the conclusion and then try and find evidence to support it. Doing it that way, you can find evidence for *anything*.

http://www.kommy.net/~downtym/images/danielle/flatearthism.bmp

The point is, the article in question does not state exactly what parts of the web-page is being accused of partiality and or 'assumption' of truth without actual scientific rationale, therefore, we can't argue the case for them here.

The overall topic of Evolution does not seem to be the problem, the article said that the web-page essentially goes past proof and into an assumption of 'truth.'

The article said no such thing. Now who is making things up?

The article simply said that the people bringing the lawsuit claim it teaches religion in some way that "tries to modify the beliefs" of students and endorses certain religions over others.

There isn't a single mention of "goes past proof and into an assumption of 'truth'".

Point of contention from the couple:

For example, it challenges the site's linking to doctrinal statements from a variety of religions to demonstrate that ``most Christian and Jewish religious groups have no conflict with evolution.'' That amounts to a government endorsement of certain religious groups over others, the suit contends, and is an effort ``to modify the beliefs of public school science students so they will be more willing to accept evolutionary theory as true.''

And this isn't the first time the couple has sued:

Larry Caldwell, who has two children in Roseville schools, also has sued administrators in the Roseville Joint Union High School District in an evolution-related controversy. The suit stems from his efforts -- which he says were frustrated by the district -- to persuade the school board to give students material challenging Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. The Pacific Justice Institute, a Sacramento non-profit that focuses on religious freedom and parental rights, has joined Caldwell in preparing both lawsuits.

Science responds:

Roy Caldwell, director of the Museum of Paleontology and a professor of integrative biology at UC-Berkeley, sees a larger problem: ``The thing that disturbs me the most is that this is not just an attack on evolution; it's an attack on science.''
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/13262018.htm

If you want to have your kids ignorant in the field of science, fine. Take them out of public schools and put them in parochial schools where you can tell them whatever you want to.

I think their showing up the anti-creationist side for a hypocracy on their part. They refuse to accept creationist models of the earths creation as science (Not talking about ID here, that is something else) but are happy to accpet their own models as fact. Both models have flaws and valid points, whats needed is a diologue, not both sides calling the other stupid and refusing to coperate
Piffle.
There has been a lot of research and investigation into the theory of evolution none of which has, as yet, disproven it.
The argument for creationism, on the other hand, doesn't go any further than a few dickheads with no background in (or for that matter, understanding of) Paleantology dismissing every scrap of evidence that's been found to support the theory of evolution over the last couple of hundred years because it contradicts a literal intepretation of the old testament. people are entitled to believe whatever ridiculous bullshit they want to of course, but they have no business claiming its a science when it isn't anything of the sort, or demanding that it be taught as such in schools. That's absolutely indefensible on any level.

The article said no such thing. Now who is making things up?

The article simply said that the people bringing the lawsuit claim it teaches religion in some way that "tries to modify the beliefs" of students and endorses certain religions over others.

There isn't a single mention of "goes past proof and into an assumption of 'truth'".

They said it right here missy. First paragraph... l never claimed they are right, I already said we don't know what they are refering to, AND I already quoted sections of the small article.

BERKELEY, Calif. Nov 26, 2005 — A California couple has sued the operators of a University of California-Berkeley Web site designed to help teachers teach evolution, claiming it improperly strays into religion.


You do know the mere usage of the word Evolution, does not make all things pure and impartial now does it?

They said it right here missy. First paragraph... l never claimed they are right, I already said we don't know what they are refering to, AND I already quoted sections of the small article.

BERKELEY, Calif. Nov 26, 2005 — A California couple has sued the operators of a University of California-Berkeley Web site designed to help teachers teach evolution, claiming it improperly strays into religion.


You do know the mere usage of the word Evolution, does not make all things pure and impartial now does it?
It merely states the fact that two religions have nothing against evolution.

Point of contention from the couple:

For example, it challenges the site's linking to doctrinal statements from a variety of religions to demonstrate that ``most Christian and Jewish religious groups have no conflict with evolution.'' That amounts to a government endorsement of certain religious groups over others, the suit contends, and is an effort ``to modify the beliefs of public school science students so they will be more willing to accept evolutionary theory as true.''

(a) The site does not link directly to doctrinal statements. Instead, it links to another national organization - The National Center for Science Education. If these people don't like the fact that someone has compiled different religious viewpoints on evolutionary theory, they should be suing the NCSE, not Berkely.

(b) Pointing out the very real fact that most religions do not find conflict with evolutionary theory does not in any way endorse those religions. It simply points it out. If I pointed out that most religions don't have a problem with eating pork, I have not promoted those religions above others. I have not condemned Judaism or Islam. I have simply pointed out that, in the scheme of things, most religions have no problem with eating pork.

They said it right here missy. First paragraph... l never claimed they are right, I already said we don't know what they are refering to, AND I already quoted sections of the small article.

BERKELEY, Calif. Nov 26, 2005 — A California couple has sued the operators of a University of California-Berkeley Web site designed to help teachers teach evolution, claiming it improperly strays into religion.

You do know the mere usage of the word Evolution, does not make all things pure and impartial now does it?

That doesn't even begin to say the same thing as:

The overall topic of Evolution does not seem to be the problem, the article said that the web-page essentially goes past proof and into an assumption of 'truth.'

Care to try again?

Meanwhile, it is rather easy to find out what they are referring to.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Check it out for yourself.

(a) The site does not link directly to doctrinal statements. Instead, it links to another national organization - The National Center for Science Education. If these people don't like the fact that someone has compiled different religious viewpoints on evolutionary theory, they should be suing the NCSE, not Berkely.

(b) Pointing out the very real fact that most religions do not find conflict with evolutionary theory does not in any way endorse those religions. It simply points it out. If I pointed out that most religions don't have a problem with eating pork, I have not promoted those religions above others. I have not condemned Judaism or Islam. I have simply pointed out that, in the scheme of things, most religions have no problem with eating pork.
Yes, I know.

That doesn't even begin to say the same thing as:



Care to try again?

Meanwhile, it is rather easy to find out what they are referring to.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Check it out for yourself.


Care to get your head out of your butt long enough to read the thread before posting to things already discussed?

That doesn't even begin to say the same thing as:



Care to try again?

Meanwhile, it is rather easy to find out what they are referring to.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Check it out for yourself.
It's obvious that he's saying two different things. And I checked out the site...

They're definitely shitstirring douchebags without a case. :rolleyes:

Care to get your head out of your butt long enough to read the thread before posting to things already discussed?

Wow. So you can't answer what I said. Instead, you're going to claim I haven't read the thread, which is, of course, untrue. Fun fun.

This wasn't "already discussed". No one else called you out on your fabrications. I did. Care to address them?

Religion:

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Context!

Sample: Simplicity was his religion.

Does that make simplicity a religion in the sense of organized religion? NO.

Context!

Sample: Simplicity was his religion.

Does that make simplicity a religion in the sense of organized religion? NO.
Some people are pretty organized about their simplicity...

Wow. So you can't answer what I said. Instead, you're going to claim I haven't read the thread, which is, of course, untrue. Fun fun.

This wasn't "already discussed". No one else called you out on your fabrications. I did. Care to address them?

Care to address what? That we are discussing what the article says. That the article says the couple is NOT Creationist/IDers, and that they are attacking the claimed religious motivations of the website. None of which concerns or addresses the crap you are posting about in this thread, which is to attack Creationist and IDers as sponsoring the lawsuit (unsubstantiated).

The entire article was pretty much already quoted verbatim here BEFORE your asinine objection to how I rephrased what was already said in quotes and had been discussed and was REPHRASED for a second time... :rolleyes:

oh...my...god... I'm just glad I don't live in the US... thats all I'll say.

Evolution a religion :headbang:
Amen to that! :fluffle: :p

Care to address what? That we are discussing what the article says. That the article says the couple is NOT Creationist/IDers, and that they are attacking the claimed religious motivations of the website. None of which concerns or addresses the crap you are posting about in this thread, which is to attack Creationist and IDers as sponsoring the lawsuit (unsubstantiated).

The entire article was pretty much already quoted verbatim here BEFORE your asinine objection to how I rephrased what was already said in quotes and had been discussed and was REPHRASED for a second time... :rolleyes:
There are no religious motivations on the website.

I'm a Creationist myself, but my position is, if there's no scientific evidence to back something up, it shouldn't be taught in a school. Hence, intelligence design has no place in a classroom. Creationism can be neither proven nor disproven scientifically, therefore it should not be taught in schools.
:fluffle: Finally a creationist with a fine head on their shoulders!!!
Thanks!!! :) :) :)

There are no religious motivations on the website.

I didn't claim that the couple suing the school's website will win, only stating what was in the article and what can and cannot be discerned from that information.

My guess is here are some of the things they have problems with about the site on the FAQ page.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#d1

Particularly the below.

Misconception:
"Evolution and religion are incompatible."

Response:
Religion and science (evolution) are very different things. In science, only natural causes are used to explain natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world.

The misconception that one always has to choose between science and religion is incorrect. Of course, some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science (e.g., the belief that the world and all life on it was created in six literal days); however, most religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution or other scientific findings. In fact, many religious people, including theologians, feel that a deeper understanding of nature actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and also accept evolution.

For concise statements from many religious organizations regarding evolution, see Voices for Evolution on the NCSE Web site.

There is also this site. It makes specifics references to ID and Creation since both challenges are likely to be seen by children aware of current events.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/controversy_faq.php

I can see the argument that this may seem a problem, but this is a site focused on educating teachers on evolution, what they teach and what they will encounter in the classroom.

Unfortunately, by pushing ID and Creation into the public sphere and creating this debate, part of preparing a teacher for the classroom has become giving the ability to address the fact that ID is not a scientific theory and evolution is not a theory that disproves any religious ideals (emperical evidence makes Creation and other religious beliefs contrary to science, not any of the theories that are born of emperical evidence). This couple is clearly attempting to prevent teachers from addressing current events. My guess is that this couples feels that if teachers point out the misconceptions about evolution that are capitalized on by ID and Literal Creation supporters that that their children might learn to look at things and make decisions for themselves.

Care to address what?

The fact that your "paraphrasing" is an assumption in and of itself, and is not a representation of anything stated in any article posted here.

That the article says the couple is NOT Creationist/IDers, and that they are attacking the claimed religious motivations of the website.

None of this has anything at all to do with your so-called "paraphrase".

None of which concerns or addresses the crap you are posting about in this thread, which is to attack Creationist and IDers as sponsoring the lawsuit (unsubstantiated).

Please point to a single post in which I have done this? I have not attacked Creationists or IDers. I have not attacked anyone at all. Seriously, are you imagining things?

The entire article was pretty much already quoted verbatim here BEFORE your asinine objection to how I rephrased what was already said in quotes and had been discussed and was REPHRASED for a second time... :rolleyes:

It was hardly a rephrase. It was an entirely different sentiment with only the slightest of backing in the actual article - something you were attacking the OP for from the start.

Some people are pretty organized about their simplicity...
:D

"The plaintiffs are not proponents of "intelligent design" a theory that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher intelligence but they object to the teaching of evolution as scientific fact, Jeanne Caldwell said."

Sounds like a creationist/IDer to me.....

http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=19966

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_Science_Education_for_All

http://qsea.org/_wsn/page3.html

Simonist']Actually, we're really not all that rare, especially on this forum. But it just so happens that because society paints a poor picture of "creationists" in general, we get slammed for it. That's the reason that a lot of people just try not to enter such discussions. I know that almost every time I do, despite the fact that I've studied both sides (an advantage many don't have), they just call me a religious nut.
Well said, Simonist.

Hmmm and the donate page mentions the ACLU, Americans United for the Seperation of Church and State, and the hostile mainstream media.

Nahhh they are not Creationists/IDers! :rolleyes:

http://qsea.org/_wsn/page6.html

"The plaintiffs are not proponents of "intelligent design" a theory that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher intelligence but they object to the teaching of evolution as scientific fact, Jeanne Caldwell said."

Sounds like a creationist/IDer to me.....

http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=19966

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_Science_Education_for_All

http://qsea.org/_wsn/page3.html

What do you know? Without looking at any article that outlined what they were objecting to, I quoted it. I wonder how I knew that. The problem is that the site is a supplement to teachers and they are going to need to address students questions that result from the claims of IDers. One of those questions is going to be "Why is evolution attacking religion?" The site gives the teacher information to help them address the question.

Care to address what? That we are discussing what the article says. That the article says the couple is NOT Creationist/IDers, and that they are attacking the claimed religious motivations of the website. None of which concerns or addresses the crap you are posting about in this thread, which is to attack Creationist and IDers as sponsoring the lawsuit (unsubstantiated).

The entire article was pretty much already quoted verbatim here BEFORE your asinine objection to how I rephrased what was already said in quotes and had been discussed and was REPHRASED for a second time... :rolleyes:
What does it matter? The couple in the article don't understand the difference between a scientific theory and religion, either way their case is retarded. Who cares if they're proponenets of intelligent design or not.

Hehe. Looks like they are in fact ID proponents. Sort of makes those individuals in the thread that claimed that DCD jumped to conclusions look a little silly. If I were one of them, this is where I would put in a rolls eyes smilie. Amusing, no?

"The plaintiffs are not proponents of "intelligent design" a theory that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher intelligence but they object to the teaching of evolution as scientific fact, Jeanne Caldwell said."

Sounds like a creationist/IDer to me.....

http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=19966

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_Science_Education_for_All

http://qsea.org/_wsn/page3.html
Actually, it seems that the part of the page they're objecting to isn't even really related to the science of evolution anyways.
According to the complaint, the site violates the clause through its assertion that most religious denominations find no conflict between their religious doctrine and evolutionary theory, citing a section of the site that dispels common misconceptions of evolution.

In the section, the site makes the claim that "religion and science (evolution) are very different things. In science, only natural causes are used to explain natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world."

The section also includes a cartoon of a priest holding a Bible and a scientist shaking hands at the bottom of the page, which the complaint also says misleads students into thinking the two co-exist without discrepancies. (from the first news article)

The complaint is because the peole who made the website strayed from the science and made a comment about religious beliefs that some people don't agree with.
Although I find the statement by Berkley to be true for the most part, except that crazy ass fundamentalists find the ideas incompatible... and I find the couple in question retarded still... but I can at least see where their objection comes from.

Weaknesses along with the strengths of ever-changing scientific theory should be taught in the classroom, not exempting the theory of evolution, according to the plaintiff.

Classes should be "teaching some of the scientific weaknesses of evolution. It ought to be about science not religion," Caldwell said.
This part is stupid too. We don't teach kids where the theory of gravity is lacking, why teach them where the theory of evolution is lacking in a highschool science class. If they want to learn more about it, they can pursue the education further. It just confuses the issue for students otherwise.

What does it matter? The couple in the article don't understand the difference between a scientific theory and religion, either way their case is retarded. Who cares if they're proponenets of intelligent design or not.
Exactly. This is Science defending itself from attackers that range from Creationists, to IDers to Flying Spaghetti Monsterologists. Whatever the title, this is about science upholding its dignity.

Hmmm and the donate page mentions the ACLU, Americans United for the Seperation of Church and State, and the hostile mainstream media.

Nahhh they are not Creationists/IDers! :rolleyes:

http://qsea.org/_wsn/page6.html

Read some of the "editorials" that support them:

In the case of evolution, that reason is the theory itself is little more than speculation unsupported by evidence.

I've been through the indoctrination camps in high school and in college. I remain thoroughly convinced that evolution is nothing more than a religious tenet of secular humanism – unsupported by facts and unsupportable by facts. I am hardly alone.



"Driven by an underlying worldview that does not allow for any type of 'intelligent designer,' those who advocate evolutionary theory are dead-set against America's students hearing more than one narrow perspective, and use any means at their disposal to suppress those whose views differ from their own," Hartwig continued.

Read some of the "editorials" that support them:

In the case of evolution, that reason is the theory itself is little more than speculation unsupported by evidence.

I've been through the indoctrination camps in high school and in college. I remain thoroughly convinced that evolution is nothing more than a religious tenet of secular humanism – unsupported by facts and unsupportable by facts. I am hardly alone.



"Driven by an underlying worldview that does not allow for any type of 'intelligent designer,' those who advocate evolutionary theory are dead-set against America's students hearing more than one narrow perspective, and use any means at their disposal to suppress those whose views differ from their own," Hartwig continued.

Now that was funny :D

Read some of the "editorials" that support them:

In the case of evolution, that reason is the theory itself is little more than speculation unsupported by evidence.

I've been through the indoctrination camps in high school and in college. I remain thoroughly convinced that evolution is nothing more than a religious tenet of secular humanism – unsupported by facts and unsupportable by facts. I am hardly alone.



"Driven by an underlying worldview that does not allow for any type of 'intelligent designer,' those who advocate evolutionary theory are dead-set against America's students hearing more than one narrow perspective, and use any means at their disposal to suppress those whose views differ from their own," Hartwig continued.

Show me emperical evidence for an intelligent designer and I will send money to QSEA right now. However, let me remind that citing claimed flaws in one theory does not support another contrary 'theory'. That means that if one of them has to be false but both of them can be. Only contradictory theories can be supported in such a way.

The complaint is because the peole who made the website strayed from the science and made a comment about religious beliefs that some people don't agree with.

The thing is, they never say, "All religions are compatible with science." They simply say that most are. It would be like saying, "Most religions are compatible with eating ham for a special occasion." That wouldn't be insulting to Judaism or Islam, as it doesn't say that all religions are compatible with it, just some.

In the case of evolution, that reason is the theory itself is little more than speculation unsupported by evidence.

If this is the case, you should be able to find evidence that clearly contradicts the theory and thus disproves it. Ready, set, GO!

I've been through the indoctrination camps in high school and in college. I remain thoroughly convinced that evolution is nothing more than a religious tenet of secular humanism – unsupported by facts and unsupportable by facts. I am hardly alone.

You are pretty alone, unless you are going to bring forth evidence that contradicts evolution.

I'm waiting.......

"Driven by an underlying worldview that does not allow for any type of 'intelligent designer,' those who advocate evolutionary theory are dead-set against America's students hearing more than one narrow perspective, and use any means at their disposal to suppress those whose views differ from their own," Hartwig continued.

Whoever Hartwig is, he's an idiot. There is nothing at all in evolutionary theory that excludes the possibility of an intelligent designer. It simply doesn't presuppose one.

That the article says the couple is NOT Creationist/IDers

these people are using creationist tactics and dressing them up in creationist talking points. quack quack.

Show me emperical evidence for an intelligent designer and I will send money to QSEA right now. However, let me remind that citing claimed flaws in one theory does not support another contrary 'theory'. That means that if one of them has to be false but both of them can be. Only contradictory theories can be supported in such a way.
Exactly! The "evidence" supposedly supporting ID is nothing more than criticism of evolutionary theory.
Just because one might find a mistake or contradiction within a theory like "the earth goes around the sun" doesn't mean that "the sun goes around the earth".
You'd think this much would be obvious, but the faithful never fail to suprise me.

The complaint is because the peole who made the website strayed from the science and made a comment about religious beliefs that some people don't agree with.

though that doesn't help the cdesign proponentsists. and i wouldn't say that they strayed from science at all. it actually made an empirical observation about religious beliefs - a perfectly scientific enterprise. similar to making observations about the general agreement on certain rules between bowling leagues.

:p :p ROTFLMFAO! :p :p
There should really be a limit on the length of acronyms.

these people are using creationist tactics and dressing them up in creationist talking points. quack quack.

Actually a little investigation of the couple shows they are in fact IDers.

Hehe. Looks like they are in fact ID proponents. Sort of makes those individuals in the thread that claimed that DCD jumped to conclusions look a little silly. If I were one of them, this is where I would put in a rolls eyes smilie. Amusing, no?

Now is the time for you to look up the word NOT in the dictionary, and then go read the other nincompoop who can't pass reading comprehension's quote about how the article says, they are NOT IDers and then it explains to the reader what an IDer IS.

What a ninny you are, as in, small horse horse-like animal ninny.

though that doesn't help the cdesign proponentsists. and i wouldn't say that they strayed from science at all. it actually made an empirical observation about religious beliefs - a perfectly scientific enterprise. similar to making observations about the general agreement on certain rules between bowling leagues.
That is true.

Ok. So that couple is really nothing more than a couple of fuckwits.

the couple is upset that the evolution website got a 400 000 dollar grant. as an EDUCATIONAL grant in all likelyhood. ok. any major religion in the states has tax exempt status, and therefore the religion as a whole probably gets to keep a good few million dollars a year that otherwise would have been for the government, and they're pissed off about an education grant that "strays into religion" this is why we need dictators people. we need someone with supreme authority to oversee these hearings. this couple needs to be publicly flogged for stupidty! :headbang:
urge to destroy rising...

Now is the time for you to look up the word NOT in the dictionary, and then go read the other nincompoop who can't pass reading comprehension's quote about how the article says, they are NOT IDers and then it explains to the reader what an IDer IS.

What a ninny you are, as in, small horse horse-like animal ninny.

And I can say I'm not a supporter of 2nd amendment rights while on my way to a RKBA rally.

While they don't directly come out and say it, they're waddling and quacking right along w/ the ID'ers.

No they are not. From your link:
The plaintiffs are not proponents of "intelligent design" a theory that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher intelligence but they object to the teaching of evolution as scientific fact, Jeanne Caldwell said.



No, they didn't endorse promoting the creationist viewpoint either... From your link again:
A California couple has sued the operators of a University of California-Berkeley Web site designed to help teachers teach evolution, claiming it improperly strays into religion.

Jeanne and Larry Caldwell of Granite Bay say portions of the Understanding Evolution Web site amount to a government endorsement of certain religious groups over others... "

Perhaps you should read these articles before posting threads about them and accusing third party people that aren't even involved. :rolleyes:
Hmmmm.... read the bolded part. Now what were you saying about you not claiming that they don't support ID/creation?

BERKELEY, Calif. Nov 26, 2005 — A California couple has sued the operators of a University of California-Berkeley Web site designed to help teachers teach evolution, claiming it improperly strays into religion.

You do know the mere usage of the word Evolution, does not make all things pure and impartial now does it?
What has evolution got to do with religion?

Now is the time for you to look up the word NOT in the dictionary, and then go read the other nincompoop who can't pass reading comprehension's quote about how the article says, they are NOT IDers and then it explains to the reader what an IDer IS.

What a ninny you are, as in, small horse horse-like animal ninny.

Actually, since we're giving classes in reading comprehension, the article DOES NOT say they aren't IDers. It quotes one of their supporters saying "they are not IDers and explaining to the reader what an IDer IS". That is a HUGE difference. Your twisting of the facts do not make your case look any stronger nor do your rather pathetic insults.

Now is the time for you to look up the word NOT in the dictionary, and then go read the other nincompoop who can't pass reading comprehension's quote about how the article says, they are NOT IDers and then it explains to the reader what an IDer IS.

What a ninny you are, as in, small horse horse-like animal ninny.
First of all, you should really stop making ad hominem attacks. It's flaming and it's against forum rules.

Second, the article said they're not IDers, but it didn't deny that they're creationists. ID is a different flavor of creationism that's dressed up in pseudoscientific jargon in order to confuse those who don't know anything about science. Creationism is that old time religion.

Third, if they're not creationists, as I stated in my thread title, why are they running this organization?

Quality Science Education for All (QSEA) is a non-profit creationist foundation focused on challenging evolution as taught in public schools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_Science_Education_for_All

Oh, before you decide to insult me over this little tidbit, I'm aware that wikepedia calls them ID proponents as well as creationists.

I don't trust Wikopedia. Anyone can change it to whatever they want. The word cupcake has been changed twice today.

A couple of creationists are planning to sue University of California, Berkley for using National Science Foundation funds to build a website about evolution. They claim that public funds shouldn't be used to teach religious viewpoints. (but I'm sure they'd like their creationist viewpoint promoted with public funds)

They also don't seem to understand that evolution isn't religion, it's actual science.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1348226


:eek: You gotta be kidding me....
Only in Jesusland....:rolleyes: :headbang: :gundge: :sniper: :mp5:

Now is the time for you to look up the word NOT in the dictionary, and then go read the other nincompoop who can't pass reading comprehension's quote about how the article says, they are NOT IDers and then it explains to the reader what an IDer IS.

What a ninny you are, as in, small horse horse-like animal ninny.

Just stop man, you've lost. They are IDers, do your research. They are saying one thing and doing another. Get over yourself.

Just stop man, you've lost. They are IDers, do your research. They are saying one thing and doing another. Get over yourself.

Got yourself a new screen name I see.

I am ashamed that there are so many Religous Taliban runing around in America . Religion should be banned from school !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You can belief in anything you want but please don't be a devil and try to make your beliefs a common thing. Science is neutral and works with facts , so proofen things no beliefs or so. I mean if you teach ID in school and I am for example Buddhist, can my Versoin of ID also be thought in school?????NO and so all Christian sects also should be banned from teaching the people, recognized facts about the world which are expected all over the world! So please all ID er or Creationist, stay at home and belief in whatever you want but let the people live and be educated!

A couple of creationists are planning to sue University of California, Berkley for using National Science Foundation funds to build a website about evolution. They claim that public funds shouldn't be used to teach religious viewpoints. (but I'm sure they'd like their creationist viewpoint promoted with public funds)

They also don't seem to understand that evolution isn't religion, it's actual science.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1348226

evolution is actually a theory. Obviously one could say the same about creationism...

...Time Dec 18/95 had a good article on parts of the bible which are factually correct in case you are ever interested in reading about it...

Got yourself a new screen name I see.

Nope, same one I've had since june. Look back a few pages, I've been here already. Remember me "making light of you"? Maybe you're the one who can't read....

Actually, the evidence is in simmilar quantities. The problem is that the evolutionist side refuse to give any credence at all to the creationist side, thus there evidence cannot be examined.

There is evidence for creationism? :eek:
Where?

evolution is actually a theory. Obviously one could say the same about creationism...

...Time Dec 18/95 had a good article on parts of the bible which are factually correct in case you are ever interested in reading about it...
Jesus Christ, what is it with you people? How much did you sleep through in elementary school science class?

Evolution is a theory like "the earth goes around the sun" is a theory.
Learn the difference between a scientific theory and the street term, which is something completely different. :rolleyes:

I don't trust Wikopedia. Anyone can change it to whatever they want. The word cupcake has been changed twice today.
After all, the squirrels didn’t turn into chipmunks (let alone elephants); they remained squirrels, albeit with different features. The finches didn’t turn into ostriches (let alone whales or butterflies); they remained finches with different kinds of beaks.

I suspect the apparent scarcity of convincing evidence for macro evolution is one of the reasons why most people can discern a fairly obvious distinction between the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution.


Quote from a letter by Larry Caldwell, one of the litigants in the case who claims not to be an IDer. The letter is on this ID site.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1209

He clearly doesn't believe that evolution has occured. It seems as creationism evolves it has changed from young earth creationism to the old earth species, to ID, and now to "stealth" creationism.

The word cupcake has been changed twice today.
Seriously?

evolution is actually a theory. Obviously one could say the same about creationism...

...Time Dec 18/95 had a good article on parts of the bible which are factually correct in case you are ever interested in reading about it...
Creationism is not a scientific theory. It cannot be falsified, therefore, it is not a scientific theory.

evolution is actually a theory. Obviously one could say the same about creationism...

...Time Dec 18/95 had a good article on parts of the bible which are factually correct in case you are ever interested in reading about it...
One cannot say that creationism is a scientific theory because it relies on a supernatural explanation. Science doesn't resort to "god did it". Science uses falsifiable claims and tests them. Until we can build a "god detector" god will remain outside the realm of science and firmly in the realm of religion.

Some parts of the Bible are true, but so are some parts of Tom Clancy novels. Still a nuclear weapon hasn't exploded in Colorado, a Japanese airline pilot hasn't crashed into the capitol building, and nobody's ever released Ebola into convention centers accross the USA. I have no more reason to believe that Jesus raised the dead than to believe that Jack Ryan saved the USA from biological and nuclear destruction.

It seems as creationism evolves it has changed from young earth creationism to the old earth species, to ID, and now to "stealth" creationism.

but if evolution is true, why are there still young earthers? [/snark]

ID er or Creationist are just like those extreme Islamists. They think the bible is the only true thing and it is completly right in all terms. It is so right that it can be considered science LOL. Wow to extreme Religion was always a problem with stepping forward in the culture of human beings. If the church would still be the almighty authority we still would burn people and think the earth is flat LOL. Only true scienitst are questining things and there not only saying something, they actually like to proof it like Christoph Columbus.I don't hate Religion at all but its a PERSONAL thing and should be lived at home or in church, temple etc. Christianity is not the only "true" Religon out there. If every Religion claims that their ID should be thaught in school , it would be really messed up so just ban all extremists from school and let the people make their own minds and let them think for themselfs. Without logic we couln't come so far and if you think a scientific theory is wrong, make a new one and proof it with alot of evidence and or logical facts. All over the world Science is important and thaught at school. Without science we still would live in caves and eat uncooked meat... its said that there are still uneducated people and remember if you don't know anything you have to belief everything so get alot of DIfferent sources and make our own desicion

"The plaintiffs are not proponents of "intelligent design" a theory that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher intelligence but they object to the teaching of evolution as scientific fact, Jeanne Caldwell said."

Sounds like a creationist/IDer to me.....
*snip*

http://qsea.org/_wsn/page3.html


How the hell is that Creationism? All I did was read the "Mission" statement... Here:

The mission of Quality Science Education, “Q.S.E.A.,” is reflected in its name –to secure and defend the right of all students in America to receive a quality science education.

By "Quality Science Education," we mean a science education that exposes students to the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory.

A Quality Science Education will help students develop critical thinking skills -- to teach students “how to think” instead of “what to think.”

Students receiving a Quality Science Education will be more scientifically literate; they will be better informed citizens in science-related public policy debates.

We strive to equip, educate and help parents, teachers, students and other citizens to achieve Quality Science Education in their local public schools.

When necessary, we will take legal action to secure and defend their right to do so.

Please join us in transforming science education in America!

Sincerely,

Larry Caldwell, J.D.,
President and Founder

No they are not. From your link:
The plaintiffs are not proponents of "intelligent design" a theory that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher intelligence but they object to the teaching of evolution as scientific fact, Jeanne Caldwell said.


Hmmmm.... read the bolded part. Now what were you saying about you not claiming that they don't support ID/creation?

Read it again yourself...

BTW: Perhaps you would make more sense if you simply said you don't believe the claim that they are not IDers, like these guys I'll quote below who said it in completely logical refutations of scorn towards the claim that they are not IDers And I can say I'm not a supporter of 2nd amendment rights while on my way to a RKBA rally.

While they don't directly come out and say it, they're waddling and quacking right along w/ the ID'ers.
these people are using creationist tactics and dressing them up in creationist talking points. quack quack.


Your posts about claiming it doesn't say what it clearly says are just idiotic.

(I have no problem with the claim of disbelief, they are probably right, but the article flatly denies it so that's the quote we have to deal with in this thread, and you don't seem to be able to comprehend)..

How the hell is that Creationism? All I did was read the "Mission" statement... Here:

The mission of Quality Science Education, “Q.S.E.A.,” is reflected in its name –to secure and defend the right of all students in America to receive a quality science education.

By "Quality Science Education," we mean a science education that exposes students to the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory.


anybody who thinks there are 'weaknesses' in evolutionary theory that are worth fighting to have specifically included in non-college level classes is automatically either a creationist or has unthinkingly swallowed creationist lies. anybody heading an organization to fight that fight is obviously a creationist.

I've been through the indoctrination camps in high school and in college. I remain thoroughly convinced that evolution is nothing more than a religious tenet of secular humanism – unsupported by facts and unsupportable by facts. I am hardly alone.

Evolution seems pretty well supported by facts in my eyes, what with all them fossils et all. The idea that someone, a creator or designer created us isn't solving the eternal question "how did it all begin" because you're just moving the goalpost away from your own existance into the existance of something else.

I like Occam's razor, the most simple explication is often the most correct one, and in this case evolution seems by far the most plausible & logical one.

(I have no problem with the claim of disbelief, they are probably right, but the article flatly denies it so that's the quote we have to deal with in this thread, and you don't seem to be able to comprehend)..

fuller quote from the mercury news (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/13262018.htm)

But the Granite Bay couple who filed the Web site suit, Jeanne Caldwell and her husband, Larry Caldwell, who is representing her in the lawsuit, say they are not proponents of intelligent design. They object to the teaching of evolution as scientific fact.

``Yes, I'm a Christian,'' said Jeanne Caldwell, ``but I would not categorize myself as an ID proponent. I believe God created the world.''

of course, id is just creationism trying to get around constitutional prohibitions. so really, they are outdated creationists.

How the hell is that Creationism? All I did was read the "Mission" statement... Here:


Read the other links.

Even the donation link suggests otherwise. Somebody who is concerned about kids getting a good education would not mention the ACLU, Americans United and the "evil liberal" media.

I imagine India is thrilled with the current Christian fundamentalism in the US. PErhaps you could speed up the process by moving out of your towns & into caves, and abandoning everything but Christian-flavoured madrasses? I wager they'd appreciate that even more :)

Read it again yourself...

BTW: Perhaps you would make more sense if you simply said you don't believe the claim that they are not IDers, like these guys I'll quote below who said it in completely logical refutations of scorn towards the claim that they are not IDers

I noticed you cut out the part I, Jocabia, bolded. And left in the part you bolded. Lying also doesn't help your point. Your caught, admit it.

Here's what it really said:
No, they didn't endorse promoting the creationist viewpoint either... From your link again:
A California couple has sued the operators of a University of California-Berkeley Web site designed to help teachers teach evolution, claiming it improperly strays into religion.

Jeanne and Larry Caldwell of Granite Bay say portions of the Understanding Evolution Web site amount to a government endorsement of certain religious groups over others... "

Perhaps you should read these articles before posting threads about them and accusing third party people that aren't even involved. :rolleyes:
Hmmmm.... read the bolded part. Now what were you saying about you not claiming that they don't support ID/creation?

Your posts about claiming it doesn't say what it clearly says are just idiotic.

(I have no problem with the claim of disbelief, they are probably right, but the article flatly denies it so that's the quote we have to deal with in this thread, and you don't seem to be able to comprehend)..

It doesn't say they aren't IDers. It says their lawyer said they aren't. Again, lying. Their organization, founded by them, is pushing to teach ID in schools. Maybe if you keep shouting that this is the moon, we'll believe it.

I noticed you cut out the part I, Jocabia, bolded. And left in the part you bolded. Lying also doesn't help your point. Your caught, admit it.

Here's what it really said:

It doesn't say they aren't IDers. It says their lawyer said they aren't. Again, lying. Their organization, founded by them, is pushing to teach ID in schools. Maybe if you keep shouting that this is the moon, we'll believe it.

Are you entirely dim-witted? Calling you a DFL mascot is an insult to Jackasses everywhere...

This is what it says, in it's entirety:
BERKELEY, Calif. Nov 26, 2005 — A California couple has sued the operators of a University of California-Berkeley Web site designed to help teachers teach evolution, claiming it improperly strays into religion.

Jeanne and Larry Caldwell of Granite Bay say portions of the Understanding Evolution Web site amount to a government endorsement of certain religious groups over others because the site is partly funded through a public money grant from the National Science Foundation.

In the lawsuit filed last month, the Caldwells contend the site is an effort "to modify the beliefs of public school science students so they will be more willing to accept evolutionary theory as true."

The plaintiffs are not proponents of "intelligent design" a theory that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher intelligence but they object to the teaching of evolution as scientific fact, Jeanne Caldwell said.

The site is run by UC Berkeley's Museum of Paleontology and paid in part by a $400,000 grant from the National Science Foundation. Two university scientists and a foundation official were named as defendants.

An attorney representing the Berkeley scientists said the courts have repeatedly rejected the argument that teaching evolution in itself is teaching a religious idea.


On the Net:

Understanding Evolution: http://evolution.berkeley.edu


Information from: San Jose Mercury News, http://www.sjmercury.com

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

J. Caldwell is one of the plaintiffs, dumbass.

Notice the bolding mascot boy? She says she is not an IDer, from her own mouth. Perhaps, as others have pointed out and you still don’t understand, because she's probably too much of a fanatic to think ID goes far enough for her, but your are a nitwit and a bald-faced liar who doesn't or can't comprehend simple linguistics.

Are you entirely dim-witted? Calling you a DFL mascot is an insult to Jackasses everywhere...

This is what it says, in it's entirety:
BERKELEY, Calif. Nov 26, 2005 — A California couple has sued the operators of a University of California-Berkeley Web site designed to help teachers teach evolution, claiming it improperly strays into religion.

Jeanne and Larry Caldwell of Granite Bay say portions of the Understanding Evolution Web site amount to a government endorsement of certain religious groups over others because the site is partly funded through a public money grant from the National Science Foundation.

In the lawsuit filed last month, the Caldwells contend the site is an effort "to modify the beliefs of public school science students so they will be more willing to accept evolutionary theory as true."

The plaintiffs are not proponents of "intelligent design" a theory that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher intelligence but they object to the teaching of evolution as scientific fact, Jeanne Caldwell said.

The site is run by UC Berkeley's Museum of Paleontology and paid in part by a $400,000 grant from the National Science Foundation. Two university scientists and a foundation official were named as defendants.

An attorney representing the Berkeley scientists said the courts have repeatedly rejected the argument that teaching evolution in itself is teaching a religious idea.


On the Net:

Understanding Evolution: http://evolution.berkeley.edu


Information from: San Jose Mercury News, http://www.sjmercury.com

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

J. Caldwell is one of the plaintiffs, dumbass.

Notice the bolding mascot boy? She says she is not an IDer, from her own mouth. Perhaps, as others have pointed out and you still don’t understand, because she's probably too much of a fanatic to think ID goes far enough for her, but your are a nitwit and a bald-faced liar who doesn't or can't comprehend simple linguistics.

She said (yes, I slipped and said their lawyer, but the point holds). The article didn't say they aren't IDers. They said it. It's a HUGE qualitative difference. The article quoted her. She is however an IDer. Her and her husband sued their local school district after they brought in Dr. Cornelius G. Hunter to dispute a textbook with him. He claimed to be an unbiased expert on evolution. He has written two books. Both promote ID. Both mention Jesus Christ as the savior. Caldwell is an IDer. It's plain. It's simple. I can claim to be a black woman, but since one can examine the evidence and figure out otherwise, it really doesn't matter what I CLAIM. Again, your insults don't help your point. They merely expose you as someone incapable of supporting his debate with evidence and so resorting to weaker tactics.

I noticed you completely avoided the FACT that you were claiming they weren't creationists and bashing DCD for calling them that when they are in fact creationists.

Are you entirely dim-witted? Calling you a DFL mascot is an insult to Jackasses everywhere...

This is what it says, in it's entirety:
BERKELEY, Calif. Nov 26, 2005 — A California couple has sued the operators of a University of California-Berkeley Web site designed to help teachers teach evolution, claiming it improperly strays into religion.

Jeanne and Larry Caldwell of Granite Bay say portions of the Understanding Evolution Web site amount to a government endorsement of certain religious groups over others because the site is partly funded through a public money grant from the National Science Foundation.

In the lawsuit filed last month, the Caldwells contend the site is an effort "to modify the beliefs of public school science students so they will be more willing to accept evolutionary theory as true."

The plaintiffs are not proponents of "intelligent design" a theory that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher intelligence but they object to the teaching of evolution as scientific fact, Jeanne Caldwell said.

The site is run by UC Berkeley's Museum of Paleontology and paid in part by a $400,000 grant from the National Science Foundation. Two university scientists and a foundation official were named as defendants.

An attorney representing the Berkeley scientists said the courts have repeatedly rejected the argument that teaching evolution in itself is teaching a religious idea.


On the Net:

Understanding Evolution: http://evolution.berkeley.edu


Information from: San Jose Mercury News, http://www.sjmercury.com

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

J. Caldwell is one of the plaintiffs, dumbass.

Notice the bolding mascot boy? She says she is not an IDer, from her own mouth. Perhaps, as others have pointed out and you still don’t understand, because she's probably too much of a fanatic to think ID goes far enough for her, but your are a nitwit and a bald-faced liar who doesn't or can't comprehend simple linguistics.

Despite my, as well as other moderators warnings for you to knock off the insults, you continue to snipe at Jocabia and the rest of the people in this thread. This, along with a lot of your previous posts warrant this warning. Perhaps you'll get the idea that this is serious.

Greenlander: Official Warning for Flaming

One cannot say that creationism is a scientific theory because it relies on a supernatural explanation. Science doesn't resort to "god did it". Science uses falsifiable claims and tests them. Until we can build a "god detector" god will remain outside the realm of science and firmly in the realm of religion.

Some parts of the Bible are true, but so are some parts of Tom Clancy novels. Still a nuclear weapon hasn't exploded in Colorado, a Japanese airline pilot hasn't crashed into the capitol building, and nobody's ever released Ebola into convention centers accross the USA. I have no more reason to believe that Jesus raised the dead than to believe that Jack Ryan saved the USA from biological and nuclear destruction.

nor do i believe that two balls of mass combined to make dna and rna in a oxygen-rich climate where they cannot survive

nor do i believe that two balls of mass combined to make dna and rna in a oxygen-rich climate where they cannot survive
umm... the atmosphere wasn't oxygen enriched until after life had started...

umm... the atmosphere wasn't oxygen enriched until after life had started...

so life, which requires oxygen to begin, existed before oxygen and dna existed

tnx for the clearing-up there!

so life, which requires oxygen to begin

where did you get that idea?

ID er or Creationist are just like those extreme Islamists. They think the bible is the only true thing and it is completly right in all terms. It is so right that it can be considered science LOL. Wow to extreme Religion was always a problem with stepping forward in the culture of human beings. If the church would still be the almighty authority we still would burn people and think the earth is flat LOL. Only true scienitst are questining things and there not only saying something, they actually like to proof it like Christoph Columbus.I don't hate Religion at all but its a PERSONAL thing and should be lived at home or in church, temple etc. Christianity is not the only "true" Religon out there. If every Religion claims that their ID should be thaught in school , it would be really messed up so just ban all extremists from school and let the people make their own minds and let them think for themselfs. Without logic we couln't come so far and if you think a scientific theory is wrong, make a new one and proof it with alot of evidence and or logical facts. All over the world Science is important and thaught at school. Without science we still would live in caves and eat uncooked meat... its said that there are still uneducated people and remember if you don't know anything you have to belief everything so get alot of DIfferent sources and make our own desicion

err, no on many counts. first of all, you claim that we would all believe the world is flat. however, there are many different denominations of religion, and you have obviously overlooked the fact that it was a catholic pope, not a protestant man or even the faith, that believed the world was flat. you also apparently refused to learn that the catholic church officially pardoned Galileo and all of those that followed his beliefs only a short decade ago.

you also refuse to believe in christian scholars. you would probably point this out to be hypocritical. however, christian scientists do not falsify or flat out deny their own proof. the entire belief behind science is to find the truth, no matter the bias. however, you and many other seculars refuse to believe research, much of it by secular scientists such as Einstien, ironically, and therefore stall scientific advance significantly.

also, you claim that we should all look at different sources for our information. why dont you or any of you read the bible and look for historical implications, rather than watch the discovery channel and watch "how the earth was created?" i find it rather fascinating that christian scholars spend years researching secular sciences, but secular scholars dont even pick up the bible.

nor do i believe that two balls of mass combined to make dna and rna in a oxygen-rich climate where they cannot survive

As opposed to an old guy yelling abracadabra and Adam appeared?

where did you get that idea?

hmm... quite possibly from science. i dunno...

which public high school did you go to? the very air you breathe in (o2), carbon dioxide (co2) you breathe out, and water you drink (h20) is filled with oxygen, which is toxic to a dna molecule.

As opposed to an old guy yelling abracadabra and Adam appeared?

yes, thats intelligent design... some random guy yelling abracadabra. this is the exact secular bias i hate to see.

why dont you pick up a bible and read a few things or study something from a christian scholar?

yes, thats intelligent design... some random guy yelling abracadabra. this is the exact secular bias i hate to see.

why dont you pick up a bible and read a few things or study something from a christian scholar?

Well sweety I have done that already and I have quite a few books from Christian scholars. Reading Demski at the moment.

So what "secular" books have you read?

Well sweety I have done that already and I have quite a few books from Christian scholars. Reading Demski at the moment.

So what "secular" books have you read?

oh, ive only studied einstein's theories about the expansion rate of the universe and how they pertain to this subject.

ive also read about how even he did not want to believe what he discovered. rather, he created a "cosmological constant" which he added to both sides of his expansion rate equation. it was complete nonsense - well, provided that gravitational pull somehow grows when two objects are further apart.

he even called it "the biggest mistake of my life."

yes, thats intelligent design... some random guy yelling abracadabra. this is the exact secular bias i hate to see.

why dont you pick up a bible and read a few things or study something from a christian scholar?
Wait wait wait...the line of plausability lies on the difference between "Let there be light" and "Abracadabra?"

oh, ive only studied einstein's theories about the expansion rate of the universe and how they pertain to this subject.

ive also read about how even he did not want to believe what he discovered. rather, he created a "cosmological constant" which he added to both sides of his expansion rate equation. it was complete nonsense - well, provided that gravitational pull somehow grows when two objects are further apart.

he even called it "the biggest mistake of my life."

That's interesting. I like to read about Albert myself. A friends dad was one of his assistents. Many stories to tell.

Now since the article was about evolution and not abiogensis; what have you read in the biological/evolution/physical anthropological world?

Wait wait wait...the line of plausability lies on the difference between "Let there be light" and "Abracadabra?"

no, the line of plausability lies on these two theories:

1)god created all life. or

2)somehow, in some way, the universe has been infinite and, perchance, two balls of mass came together to form what we now know as our solar system. by an incredible large change (1 times a thousand to the trillionth against one) we were created by this sort of "big bang"

the line of plausibility, stated quite shortly, since i must be off to sleep, for school is tomorrow.

if there is some way, some how, to prove either evolution has been the father of us, then it is proven. if there is a way to prove (cant elaborate here, not enough time) that there was an intelligent design, then it is proven. however, if we cannot prove or disprove either way that we were created by god or by a big bang, then they are both theories.

for now, good night... and heres something to think about while im away:

1)is the universe infinite? and if so, does it prove/disprove evolution or intelligent design?
2)look up einstein's equation for the expansion of the universe. it cannot be infinite, proving that the universe was created from a sort of "singularity."

oxygen, which is toxic to a dna molecule.

right...

no, the line of plausability lies on these two theories:

1)god created all life. or

2)somehow, in some way, the universe has been infinite and, perchance, two balls of mass came together to form what we now know as our solar system. by an incredible large change (1 times a thousand to the trillionth against one) we were created by this sort of "big bang"

the line of plausibility, stated quite shortly, since i must be off to sleep, for school is tomorrow.

if there is some way, some how, to prove either evolution has been the father of us, then it is proven. if there is a way to prove (cant elaborate here, not enough time) that there was an intelligent design, then it is proven. however, if we cannot prove or disprove either way that we were created by god or by a big bang, then they are both theories.

for now, good night... and heres something to think about while im away:

1)is the universe infinite? and if so, does it prove/disprove evolution or intelligent design?
2)look up einstein's equation for the expansion of the universe. it cannot be infinite, proving that the universe was created from a sort of "singularity."

Interesting.....

However, how do you disprove or prove the involvement let alone the existence of God/Intelligent Designer?

no, the line of plausability lies on these two theories:

1)god created all life. or

2)somehow, in some way, the universe has been infinite and, perchance, two balls of mass came together to form what we now know as our solar system. by an incredible large change (1 times a thousand to the trillionth against one) we were created by this sort of "big bang"

the line of plausibility, stated quite shortly, since i must be off to sleep, for school is tomorrow.

if there is some way, some how, to prove either evolution has been the father of us, then it is proven. if there is a way to prove (cant elaborate here, not enough time) that there was an intelligent design, then it is proven. however, if we cannot prove or disprove either way that we were created by god or by a big bang, then they are both theories.

for now, good night... and heres something to think about while im away:

1)is the universe infinite? and if so, does it prove/disprove evolution or intelligent design?
2)look up einstein's equation for the expansion of the universe. it cannot be infinite, proving that the universe was created from a sort of "singularity."
When weighing two theories you usually weigh the evidence, repeatable experiments, and observastions that both theories have. If, say, on theories evidence seems to make too much mention of the other theory and not enough of its own evidence then favor is given to the one with its own evidence.

I mean, I can theorise that everything is done by my six foot tall imaginary bunny friend. I have a book that says he exists, even a movie. You can't prove he doesn't exist. I say that he layed the universe like an egg. Does my theory now carry as much weight because you can't prove my invisible bunny friend didn't lay a universe egg? I've heard some pretty compelling theories from homeless folks in People's Park-can't prove them wrong in the same way we can't prove the 'clap hands' theory wrong.

The problem that we're having is that you have a hard time believing something that has observable evidence to it but you are completely willing to believe "Let there be light," which has a book. It seems like a jagged line.

no, the line of plausability lies on these two theories:

1)god created all life. or

2)somehow, in some way, the universe has been infinite and, perchance, two balls of mass came together to form what we now know as our solar system. by an incredible large change (1 times a thousand to the trillionth against one) we were created by this sort of "big bang"

the line of plausibility, stated quite shortly, since i must be off to sleep, for school is tomorrow.

if there is some way, some how, to prove either evolution has been the father of us, then it is proven. if there is a way to prove (cant elaborate here, not enough time) that there was an intelligent design, then it is proven. however, if we cannot prove or disprove either way that we were created by god or by a big bang, then they are both theories.

for now, good night... and heres something to think about while im away:

1)is the universe infinite? and if so, does it prove/disprove evolution or intelligent design?
2)look up einstein's equation for the expansion of the universe. it cannot be infinite, proving that the universe was created from a sort of "singularity."
Wow you know absolutely nothing about the scientific theories behind the origins of the universe, abiogensis and evolution what so ever.

Wow you know absolutely nothing about the scientific theories behind the origins of the universe, abiogensis and evolution what so ever.
*cough*
Internet discussion forum
*cough*

Face the facts, a lot of people Google their own snarky responses. I'm not saying whether or not this person did, because I don't care enough to actually attempt to read between the lines, but you have to consider....it's even easy to come off as well-read with a simple search string on Amazon. You can't take everybody's supposed intellect at their word. Not even mine (though I think that lying about your own learning in order to make yourself seem superior to a person that you only know behind a screen name, and especially when you seem to take offense to their challenges, is base and ridiculous....)

When weighing two theories you usually weigh the evidence, repeatable experiments, and observastions that both theories have. If, say, on theories evidence seems to make too much mention of the other theory and not enough of its own evidence then favor is given to the one with its own evidence.

I mean, I can theorise that everything is done by my six foot tall imaginary bunny friend. I have a book that says he exists, even a movie. You can't prove he doesn't exist. I say that he layed the universe like an egg. Does my theory now carry as much weight because you can't prove my invisible bunny friend didn't lay a universe egg? I've heard some pretty compelling theories from homeless folks in People's Park-can't prove them wrong in the same way we can't prove the 'clap hands' theory wrong.

The problem that we're having is that you have a hard time believing something that has observable evidence to it but you are completely willing to believe "Let there be light," which has a book. It seems like a jagged line.

Donnie Darko?

Donnie Darko?
I was actually thinking of Harvey (http://imdb.com/title/tt0042546/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnx0dD0xfGZiPXV8cG49MHxrdz0xfHE9aGFydmV5fGZ0PTF8bXg9MjB8bG09NTAwfGNvPTF8aHRtbD0xfG5tPTE_ ;fc=3;ft=11;fm=1).
Those later sects corupted the word of the Giant Invisible Bunny. ;)

no, the line of plausability lies on these two theories:
1)god created all life. or

2) <Long, and utterly wrong, rant about how incredibly complicated & unlikely everything seems>

I'm sorry, but those two things were you being unbiased? If you had been truely unbiased, you'd instead have written something like this:

1) A being we can't fathom, can't observe & whose influences on any & everything are indeterminable, created everything.

2) Somehow, a singularity exploded, the effects of which we can see everywhere in the universe.

Which is more unlikely? Something extrodinary for which we have absolutely no shred of evidence, or another extrodinary thing, for which we have veritable mountains of evidence?

oh, ive only studied einstein's theories about the expansion rate of the universe and how they pertain to this subject.

ive also read about how even he did not want to believe what he discovered. rather, he created a "cosmological constant" which he added to both sides of his expansion rate equation. it was complete nonsense - well, provided that gravitational pull somehow grows when two objects are further apart.

he even called it "the biggest mistake of my life."
Can you provide the context within which you studied Einstien. And also the relevence of him to evolution. And why it seems he is the "only" scientist you have studied.

It just seems bizzarre that someone would study one (and only one) scientist in great depth, and even more odd that this would be done by someone who believes a Non-Scientific idea (not a theory, an idea) is science. Also I wonder at the motives of someone who seems to have serious flaws in their knowlege of what science is going to the effort to study one paticular scientist to the level where they understand the cosmological constant and how it operates.

the couple is upset that the evolution website got a 400 000 dollar grant. as an EDUCATIONAL grant in all likelyhood. ok. any major religion in the states has tax exempt status, and therefore the religion as a whole probably gets to keep a good few million dollars a year that otherwise would have been for the government, and they're pissed off about an education grant that "strays into religion" this is why we need dictators people. we need someone with supreme authority to oversee these hearings. this couple needs to be publicly flogged for stupidty! :headbang:
urge to destroy rising...
How's a religion supposed to use cash?

How's a religion supposed to use cash?
Weeeell, you know.. Charities like alterwine & such.

oh, ive only studied einstein's theories about the expansion rate of the universe and how they pertain to this subject.

ive also read about how even he did not want to believe what he discovered. rather, he created a "cosmological constant" which he added to both sides of his expansion rate equation. it was complete nonsense - well, provided that gravitational pull somehow grows when two objects are further apart.

he even called it "the biggest mistake of my life."

You're right he did do that, but do you know why?

The astronomers of Einsteins time though the universe was stationary, i.e. not expanding or contracting. Einsteins equations led him to beleive that the universe was expanding but to synch in with what the astronomers thought they saw he added extra terms that would balance out the expansion and lead to a station ary universe.

So Einstein was right in the first place, it was just the astronomers who where held viewpoints that are no longer thought to be true.

so life, which requires oxygen to begin, existed before oxygen and dna existed

tnx for the clearing-up there!
Look at the bacteria living near deep sea volcanic vents. They live off of sulphur compounds and don't require free oxygen to survive.

hmm... quite possibly from science. i dunno...

which public high school did you go to? the very air you breathe in (o2), carbon dioxide (co2) you breathe out, and water you drink (h20) is filled with oxygen, which is toxic to a dna molecule.
Only O2 would have been toxic to those early cells. Compounds containing oxygen would have been food. For example, you can eat salt, but put a lump of sodium in your mouth, or inhale prue Chlorine and you won't feel so good.

hmm... quite possibly from science. i dunno...

I highly doubt that anyone who has studied biology at all told you that life requires oxygen. Only aerobic life - obligate aerobes to be specific - require oxygen. There are organisms which cannot live in an environment with much oxygen. They are referred to as obligate anaerobes. There are organisms which can live with or without oxygen. And then there are organisms, like human beings, who require oxygen to live.

The idea that oxygen would be necessary for the start of life is laughable, considering how much of life simply doesn't need it.

which public high school did you go to?

One could ask you that question, since you seem to have missed so much of biology.

the very air you breathe in (o2), carbon dioxide (co2) you breathe out, and water you drink (h20) is filled with oxygen, which is toxic to a dna molecule.

This is rather irrelevant to your claim that all life requires oxygen. You are aware that not all organisms exist in the air?

Meanwhile, oxygen itself is not at all "toxic to a DNA molecule." Reactive oxygen species, such as O2-, H2O2, etc. are harmful to most molecules, including DNA. Of course, your cells have mechanisms to neutralize these species.


if there is some way, some how, to prove either evolution has been the father of us, then it is proven. if there is a way to prove (cant elaborate here, not enough time) that there was an intelligent design, then it is proven. however, if we cannot prove or disprove either way that we were created by god or by a big bang, then they are both theories.

What high school did you go to again? The ability to prove something has nothing to do with whether or not it can be a scientific theory. It must be possible to disprove something in order to be a scientific hypothesis or theory. The idea of intelligent design - that we were created by some God-like power, cannot be disproven, as God cannot be tested for and disproven. Thus, ID cannot be a scientific theory.

Evolution a religion

Wait, what?

no, the line of plausability lies on these two theories:

1)god created all life. or

Stop right there, if we originate from some god dude, where did he originate from?

Awnser that question *before* trying to use plausability

2)somehow, in some way, the universe has been infinite and, perchance, two balls of mass came together to form what we now know as our solar system. by an incredible large change (1 times a thousand to the trillionth against one) we were created by this sort of "big bang"

the line of plausibility, stated quite shortly, since i must be off to sleep, for school is tomorrow.

Occam's razor:
What is most plausible:
1) A "god" poofed into existance and decided to create everything
2) We don't know how it begun, but we think something went boom, oh, and we evolved from chemical/electrical reactions into single celled life into multi celled life & finally came out as humans.

I'll go with 2, it's a honest awnser, and doesn't move the goalpost to a magical entity that decided to make us

if there is some way, some how, to prove either evolution has been the father of us, then it is proven.

Fossil remains & genetic simularities, there ya go

if there is a way to prove (cant elaborate here, not enough time) that there was an intelligent design, then it is proven. however, if we cannot prove or disprove either way that we were created by god or by a big bang, then they are both theories.

Yea, but where did god come from? And what caused the big bang? And what's so scary about "i don't know" that some people resolve themselves into religion?

for now, good night... and heres something to think about while im away:

1)is the universe infinite? and if so, does it prove/disprove evolution or intelligent design?

I think it is, and it proves nothing.

2)look up einstein's equation for the expansion of the universe. it cannot be infinite, proving that the universe was created from a sort of "singularity."

It's not proven, it's a theory

hmm... quite possibly from science. i dunno...

which public high school did you go to? the very air you breathe in (o2), carbon dioxide (co2) you breathe out, and water you drink (h20) is filled with oxygen, which is toxic to a dna molecule.


Sorry, I know this has been covered but, why bother asking this guy what high school he went to? It's obvious he's not even in middle school yet, if he hasn't learned something basic like...I dunno...Plants use CO2, water and sunlight to create their food? Oxygen is a waste product of a plant. You don't even need to mention stuff living off sulphur, He's probably got counter-examples in his kitchen.

so life, which requires oxygen to begin, existed before oxygen and dna existed

tnx for the clearing-up there!
Life doesn't always require oxygen. There are many anaerobic bacteria, for instance. It wasn't until the rise of photsynthetic bacteria that the atmosphere started to become enriched with oxygen. This also provided a huge advantage to the aerobic bacteria, who could survive in oxygen, while much of the anaerobic bacteria died off due to exposure to said oxygen. They effectively killed off their competition for resources. Quite ingeneous, really.