• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

evolution

docta seuss

TRIBE Member
those wacky americans are at it again..

the state of georgia is seriously considering banning the word "evolution" from schools.

why don't they just take it one step further and start teaching their youth that the world is flat while they're at it¿


the united states of america is NOT a true democracy at all. (not that it took this relatively minor event to convince me of that.)
 

docta seuss

TRIBE Member
oh, by the way, five other states, including floridal, have never incorporated the word in their teachings..

backwards¿ so think i.
 

derek

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Adam
They described 'evolution' as a "buzzword".

Scary.
crazy. hears somemore buzz words they should ban: terror, resolve, freedom, evil, axis, creationism:rolleyes:
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

OTIS

TRIBE Member
Those states are always trying to entrench their biblical literalist influences in society any way they can.. this is nothing new as it ALWAYS pops up periodically -especially in the bible belt. Besides, it would be found unlawful anyhow, re: 1925 Scopes trial, and possibly unconstitutional.

But the real horror with this lies with the fact that there are influencial people out there that operate with a level of personal certaintyas to how life came about, which is, IMO, the highest echelon of arrogance one can acheive.
 

-Mercury-

TRIBE Member
i'm pretty sure they started doing this a few years ago in Kansas.

i remember some scientist being quoted (at the time this came out) as saying that this would be like teaching kids that the colour blue doesn't exist.

those fucking fundamentalist zealots must not be all that confident in their brainwshing methods anymore, and now have to resort to changing the schoolbooks........ thats pretty sad
 

derek

TRIBE Member
as long as they don't try and tell me christoper colombus didn't discover america in 1492, i'll be okay.:p
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Deep_Groove

TRIBE Member
Those damn fundamentalists...

Darwin's Theory of Evolution Disproved

By Dr. M. Karim Islamabadi

Darwin himself based his book descent of man, on the basis of structural resemblances between man and apes. He did not say that he had proved it. Just like when he was on the voyage of HMS Beagle on the Galapagos Islands he noticed different finches on neighbouring islands having minor differences from each other. He concluded that all these finches had evolved from a common ancestor. Similarly he noticed resemblances between man and monkey and concluded that both had evolved from a common ancestor.

If structural resemblance is the only criterion then we have a good resemblance with many other creatures as well. The wing of a bat, fin of a whale and arm of a man are bone and similar to each other yet these are totally different from each other and cannot be grouped together.

Similarly, as dissection of the frog’s body is taught to medical students the human beings have system for system, muscle for muscle nerve for nevre and vessel for vessel a resemblance with the frog. But can they be grouped together?

But are we similar to other creatures in features such as locomotive reproductive, respiratory, endocrine genito-urinary, cardiac and central nervous systems? But this does not mean that man and other creatures can be grouped together with a common ancestor.

The Encyclopedia Britanica has criticised the idea of having a common ancestor on the basis of structural resemblance. It says, “In the absence of a fossil record, structural and other adaptations have been projected back as an ancestral condition from living descendent species; but this is a very risky procedure that dismisses morphological transformation and adaptation and assumes stasis without complementary confirmation.”

As far as man’s resemblance with other creatures is concerned the Holy Qur’an says, “There is not an animal on earth nor a bird that flies on its wings but they are all communities like you.”

It is quite easy to understand that man has similarities with other creatures in various body systems although it is at variance with different species, yet man enjoys a unique position. Today there are one million species of animals and two hundred thousand species of plants. Scientists also say that todays’ existing species are just 0.1 percent of the total species that this earth ever witnessed.

It means that 99.9 per cent of species have already died out and became extinct. So, out of the 2 billion species that ever existed on earth why is man the only species which has such a highly developed brain? Why is he the only one who communicates with each other with the help of a complete verbal language. Why do no other species come closer to man in these characteristics? Darwin’s theory is based on natural selection, which means that the evolutionary process takes place only when there is a need for it. For example giraffes grew long necks as they needed to eat the leaves of tall trees.

The question is what was the need which made man to develop so fast and evolve in to such a remarkable intellectual and social creature that he is unmatched by the two billion species which ever existed on this earth.

If, according to Darwin, monkeys and apes had the same ancestors as mankind, then why did they not develop into creatures resembling man. Why did they remain so far behind whereas the environmental conditions and rules of evolution apply equally to all species.

In fact, from the evolutionary point of view man has shown some negative trends as compared to these species. For example, if at all man has evolved from a common ancestor of monkeys and apes, why is a new-born human infant so dependent on his parents for a relatively much longer time, as compared to the offspring of monkeys who are up and about in a much shorter time after birth. Remember that evolution is a process which improves the ability of a species to live in a better manner in an environment. It does not take away the already existing good features.

This obviously means that man and monkey have no link with each other as far as their ancestry is concerned. And here we should not forget that scientists hold the opinion that the human DNA is evolving at a much slower pace than in other species.

Then why is it that a specie which, according to scientists, came into being only a few million years ago, became the most prominent creature of the world, whereas those species which have existed for the past 3.5 billion year are still at the stage of development where they had been before and have not shown any social or intellectual improvement?

If we compare the human being with other species one thing becomes clear; Most other species, such as the monkey, exist in sub-species.

Apes, orang-utans, gorillas all having anatomical differences with each other but there is only one specie, homo sapiens, living in the world. Although there are racial differences, anatomically we are all the same. Humans from all continents have the same bones, vessels, muscles, nerves and other anatomical features and there is no sub-species among them.

This is further proof that man did not evolve as suggested by Darwin but came into being by the will of God. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that his arrival on the earth was not a gradual conversion from apes.

---------------------------------------------

From:
http://www.islamicvoice.com/march.99/science.htm#DAR

P.S. this site is based in Bangalore, India, and considers itself A MODERATE VOICE OF ISLAM! Take a look - no mention of jihad, pro-women's rights, pro-secular education...

Just a friendly reminder that the distinction between "fundamentalist" and "moderate" in other parts of the world is not the same as it is in ours...

If you think the Christian fundamentalists have too much control over education in America, feast your eyes upon the vast swath of land from Morocco to Pakistan.

That is what objectivity and even-handedness means.

- Deep_Groove
 

Deep_Groove

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by -Mercury-
...those fucking fundamentalist zealots must not be all that confident in their brainwshing methods anymore, and now have to resort to changing the schoolbooks........ thats pretty sad
Actually:

"Superintendent Kathy Cox said the concept of evolution would still be taught under the proposal, but the word would not be used in the curriculum. The proposal would not require schools to buy new textbooks omitting the word evolution and would not prevent teachers from using it."

Source:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109939,00.html

A mere cosmetic change in the wrong direction by a few members of the willfully ignorant. It's not even close to being a ban on teaching the theory of evolution outright. NO ONE in America today would go that far.

On the other hand, in Pakistan:

The government of Zia-ul-Haq in 1987 introduced fundamentalist doctrines in the teaching of science at all levels, from primary schools to universities. The regime organized international conferences and provided funding for research on such topics as the temperature of hell and the chemical nature of jinns (demons).

Source:

http://www.meforum.org/article/306

Just thought y'all might like a little context...

- Deep_Grooev
 

docta seuss

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Deep_Groove

Just thought y'all might like a little context...

- Deep_Grooev
that doesn't really put things in perspective at all though. we all know that there are fundamentalist nations all over the world, but they have never included our scientific views in their teachings. This is a case of the UNITED STATES taking a step backwards, which is a whole different story.

it seems like you're downplaying this, and i agree, it is a seemingly trivial matter considering all the other troubles the world is dealing with right now, but this is not something to be ignored or downplayed in my opinion.

:)
 

OTIS

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Deep_Groove

Darwin's Theory of Evolution Disproved

By Dr. M. Karim Islamabadi

Darwin himself based his book descent of man, on the basis of structural resemblances between man and apes. He did not say that he had proved it. Just like when he was on the voyage of HMS Beagle on the Galapagos Islands he noticed different finches on neighbouring islands having minor differences from each other. He concluded that all these finches had evolved from a common ancestor. Similarly he noticed resemblances between man and monkey and concluded that both had evolved from a common ancestor.

If structural resemblance is the only criterion then we have a good resemblance with many other creatures as well. The wing of a bat, fin of a whale and arm of a man are bone and similar to each other yet these are totally different from each other and cannot be grouped together.

Similarly, as dissection of the frog’s body is taught to medical students the human beings have system for system, muscle for muscle nerve for nevre and vessel for vessel a resemblance with the frog. But can they be grouped together?

But are we similar to other creatures in features such as locomotive reproductive, respiratory, endocrine genito-urinary, cardiac and central nervous systems? But this does not mean that man and other creatures can be grouped together with a common ancestor.

The Encyclopedia Britanica has criticised the idea of having a common ancestor on the basis of structural resemblance. It says, “In the absence of a fossil record, structural and other adaptations have been projected back as an ancestral condition from living descendent species; but this is a very risky procedure that dismisses morphological transformation and adaptation and assumes stasis without complementary confirmation.”

As far as man’s resemblance with other creatures is concerned the Holy Qur’an says, “There is not an animal on earth nor a bird that flies on its wings but they are all communities like you.”

It is quite easy to understand that man has similarities with other creatures in various body systems although it is at variance with different species, yet man enjoys a unique position. Today there are one million species of animals and two hundred thousand species of plants. Scientists also say that todays’ existing species are just 0.1 percent of the total species that this earth ever witnessed.

It means that 99.9 per cent of species have already died out and became extinct. So, out of the 2 billion species that ever existed on earth why is man the only species which has such a highly developed brain? Why is he the only one who communicates with each other with the help of a complete verbal language. Why do no other species come closer to man in these characteristics? Darwin’s theory is based on natural selection, which means that the evolutionary process takes place only when there is a need for it. For example giraffes grew long necks as they needed to eat the leaves of tall trees.

The question is what was the need which made man to develop so fast and evolve in to such a remarkable intellectual and social creature that he is unmatched by the two billion species which ever existed on this earth.

If, according to Darwin, monkeys and apes had the same ancestors as mankind, then why did they not develop into creatures resembling man. Why did they remain so far behind whereas the environmental conditions and rules of evolution apply equally to all species.

In fact, from the evolutionary point of view man has shown some negative trends as compared to these species. For example, if at all man has evolved from a common ancestor of monkeys and apes, why is a new-born human infant so dependent on his parents for a relatively much longer time, as compared to the offspring of monkeys who are up and about in a much shorter time after birth. Remember that evolution is a process which improves the ability of a species to live in a better manner in an environment. It does not take away the already existing good features.

This obviously means that man and monkey have no link with each other as far as their ancestry is concerned. And here we should not forget that scientists hold the opinion that the human DNA is evolving at a much slower pace than in other species.

Then why is it that a specie which, according to scientists, came into being only a few million years ago, became the most prominent creature of the world, whereas those species which have existed for the past 3.5 billion year are still at the stage of development where they had been before and have not shown any social or intellectual improvement?

If we compare the human being with other species one thing becomes clear; Most other species, such as the monkey, exist in sub-species.

Apes, orang-utans, gorillas all having anatomical differences with each other but there is only one specie, homo sapiens, living in the world. Although there are racial differences, anatomically we are all the same. Humans from all continents have the same bones, vessels, muscles, nerves and other anatomical features and there is no sub-species among them.

This is further proof that man did not evolve as suggested by Darwin but came into being by the will of God. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that his arrival on the earth was not a gradual conversion from apes.

Beware of the fools that use the presence of a gap in man's knowlege of the universe as proof of God's existence.
 

Deep_Groove

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by docta seuss
that doesn't really put things in perspective at all though. we all know that there are fundamentalist nations all over the world, but they have never included our scientific views in their teachings. This is a case of the UNITED STATES taking a step backwards, which is a whole different story.:)
You obviously don't get what I'm driving at here.

If there are whole NATIONS in the world that use entirely different categories of fundamentalism and moderation, of justice and injustice, or truth and falsehood - what should make us assume that the most violent, radical elements among them are operating from an (even remotely) correct or rational appraisal of the state of the world when they criticize American principles, culture, or policies?

When an Islamic Jihad member screams about "the occupation", we mustn't assume that his definition of "occupation" is the same as ours. For someone like bin Laden, for instance, all of Arabia is "occupied territory" because the Saudi authorities haven't fully instituted shari'a to the last letter. Witness his interpretation of "true political justice" - the Taliban wackjobs who harbored him in Afghanistan. For people whose ideal goal is the rule of their religion over all mankind, we are not even sharing the same universe of moral discourse. Nothing can satisfy these guys; EVERYTHING we have EVER done that they have not fully agreed with is taken as an "affront to Islam" because they feel they cannot possibly be wrong.

What you miss when you criticize "Christian conservatives" is that these are still modern-day American citizens who are taught from birth to respect the rights of all human beings, including that essential right of FREE SPEECH. They still believe, somewhere deep down, in the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. They may feel that secular educators have an agenda in their teaching of biology, but they're not eager to use government power to ban or kill those teachers. This is a fundamental difference between those nations that believe in the rule of law and those which believe in the rule of religion.

Am I saying: "Don't criticize American fundamentalist Christians?" Not at all. I am merely saying: "When criticizing some group, make sure the energy you expend in addressing it is proportionate to the distance by which it falls short of the moral standard".

By this criteria, there are many regions of the world where governments and religious authorities deserve FAR more attention and criticism than America.

- Deep_Groove
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

OTIS

TRIBE Member
Things Creationists Hate:

Geology
Even before Darwin, it was geologists who began to establish that the Earth is much older than old Jim Ussher said it was. And modern geology stubbornly refuses to yield up proof of a universal flood, or the recent and coeval existence of all creatures, living and extinct.


Charles Darwin
Well, duhh....


Physics
...has all those embarrassing laws, like decay rates of isotopes, the non-decaying speed of light, the refraction of light to produce rainbows, etc., which have to be ignored, twisted, or denied to defend Genesis. And to add insult to injury, physicists can't seem to see the truth that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics --a "fact" that every good creationist knows, even without a degree in physics!


The Scientific Method
Creationists detest it so much that they've apparently invented their own, improved version, with the following highly logical rules:
* Take as a given fact all those parts of the Bible we tell you to.
* Use not the null hypothesis; make no attempt to disprove any creationist hypothesis; report not any negative findings.
* Quote as authoritative anything a fellow creationist writes, regardless of his qualifications or subsequent discrediting of his methods or results.
* Misquote or quote out of context famous "evolutionists" so that they appear to admit evolution isn't real.
* Continue to repeat your old “evidence,” long after you’ve been publicly shown to have the facts dead wrong. Your new marks—oops, faithful followers—won’t know that you were proven wrong and that you’re now lying.
* Don't waste your time with actual laboratory or field experiments. All the answers are in the Bible.

And Stephen Reese reminds us that creationists can't seem to abide peer review. They must REALLY hate it because no one has ever seen a trace of creationist peer review.


Each Other
Old-Earth creationists think the Young-Earthers are too zealous and dogmatic, even for them. Young-Earthers know the Old-Earthers and Multiple-Catastrophists have given in to "liberal" (if not to say Satanic) influences. Some years there are multiple "Ark-hunting" expeditions to Turkey, each of which thinks the others are obstructing the progress of "Bible science."


The Holy Bible
That old Book persists in saying things that the creationists, who claim to take it as literal truth, have to admit are metaphorical (like the "doors" in the firmament that let the rain through). That means, of course, that they have to arbitrarily decide which parts are literally literal, and which are only metaphorically literal (and can't they twist the English language!). I've never yet read a justification for who gets to make that determination and how, so I'll summarize it thus: Everything is literal except things that even we creationists can't stomach.

Even worse, the "scientifically accurate" Bible reveals not a single fact about nature that wasn't commonly known at the time. If only it had revealed the atomic structure of matter, or the inverse square law, or the existence of bacteria--or even the heliocentric solar system!

Still doubt that creationists hate the Bible? Ask several if they've ever read it--all the way through, cover-to-cover. 97% of the time the answer will be no. They're sure every word is literally true, and the divine message of God, but somehow they've never quite found the time to actually read the thing. Is this irony thick enough yet?


Bats
Somehow, quite perversely, they changed from "fowls" to mammals between the time Moses (according to literalists) wrote the Pentateuch and now.


The Human Mind
...just to be ornery, has moved from the heart, where it resided through New Testament times, into the brain.


Stars
...somehow have grown a lot bigger and moved much farther away, so that by now it seems foolish to expect a sizable fraction of them to fall to Earth, as predicted in Revelation.


The Earth
...on the other hand, to test Man's faith in the literal veracity of scripture, has shrunk to become much smaller than the sun, and has taken to circling the latter, instead of vice versa, as originally established. Furthermore (confirming its sinful nature), it has floated up off its pillars or foundations, lost its four corners, and become a silly ball, on which there just is no possible mountaintop from which one could see all nations of the Earth.


Plate Tectonics
Since this is such a new development in geophysics, creationists don't seem to have much to say about it yet. (They haven't been told yet that they can't believe in it.) Though they may not have heard it excoriated from the pulpit yet, it surely makes them uneasy, since it just doesn't jibe with young-Earth or Flood geology.
Update: Creationists seem to have missed the boat on the plate tectonics question. Since it was around for a number of years without being denied by creationists, by the time they got around to considering it, it was too late to deny (if it was wrong, why didn't they say so from the start?). So recently I've seen several creationist attempts to somehow work plate tectonics into their fantasy, and even use this ultimate account of an ancient and evolving planet as proof of a recent creation!


Original Thought
Creationism is about believing without question a particular interpretation of scripture. Indeed, in a belief system of that nature, any questioning or original thought about the revealed knowledge is not only incorrect, it is sinful. (In genuine science, on the other hand, questioning and testing of accepted or authoritative beliefs is the method--it's what you're supposed to do. No wonder creationists detest and distrust science, and almost always fail to understand how it works.)


Pi
...has inexplicably changed its value from a nice, neat 3 (reflecting the trinity, no doubt) in Solomon's time, to a messy 3.14159... today. Despite some legal attempts in some state legislatures to return it to the divine purity of 3, pi has hardened its heart and refused to conform to the biblically prescribed norm.


Universal Gravitation
Although "just a theory," universal gravitation continues to be, well, universal. It holds true in all places, under all conditions, so it renders the brainless quip about evolution being "just a theory" a bit specious, at best.


Micro-organisms
Why did they have to show up? They're never mentioned in the Bible at all, so creationists have to do some creative rewriting of Genesis to account for their day of creation, and their presence or absence on the Ark.


Ice Ages
Very inconvenient! They have to have occurred since the Flood, since, according to creationists, the surface of the Earth was reworked by the Flood (to create, for instance, the Grand Canyon practically overnight), which would have messed up all those marks of glaciers on the landscape. That means mile-thick ice sheets had to advance and retreat again and again, across half the Northern Hemisphere, with the speed of freight trains. (As with plate tectonics, some creationists seem to have abandoned complete denial of ice ages [even though they're never mentioned in the Bible {How could the true history of the world miss those?}], and acknowledged a single ice age, which had to have occurred within historical times.)


The Sky
...has evaporated! In Adam's time it was clearly a solid dome, a "firmament," which was firm enough to separate waters above it from those below on the Earth. By Noah's time it was still solid enough to have windows in it that had to be opened to let the rain through. I think that creationists that try to rationalize (weasel) their way out of this one by calling it "poetic metaphor" have given in to the godless materialists! The Bible really is literal, in the true sense of the word. The sky was a hard firmament with windows in it--but at some time since then it evaporated. Anybody who says different is a mealy-mouthed evolution-sympathizer. [Paul Murray adds the footnote] The word "firmament," according to Strong's Concordance (word 7549) is a translation of the Hebrew "raqiya." "Raqiya" means a canopy, as in "Hast thou with him spread out the sky?," and "that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in."


A Pile of Sand
So the universe comes from randomness, and order only comes as a result of a conscious intent? When sand trickles down into a pile, the pile is conical. Now a cone is an ordered shape. Does God, therefore, organize each collision of one grain against another so as to fulfill his purpose that the pile be conical? Is there some reason why He goes to all that trouble? It's a mystery, no doubt. Or maybe, just maybe, dissipative systems like this can exhibit spontaneous order-forming behavior. Other dissipative systems include crystal growth, snowflake formation and--horrors--organic life itself.
-Paul Murray

And Burt Ward adds one more in the same vein: Cans of mixed nuts and bags of potato chips. Those awful, incovenient examples of a steady application of energy promoting order instead of chaos. Big nuts and large chips go to the top, small nuts and crumbs go to the bottom. Don't those silly containers know that the odds of that happening BY CHANCE ALONE is trillions to one against? It's against the second law of thermodynamics !


The Apostle Paul
Dustin Huwe points out that in 1 Timothy 1:4 and Titus 3:9, Paul advises us to ignore "fables and endless genealogies." The genealogies of Gen 10, Chr 1-9, Mt 1, and Lk 3 are one of the key ways creatonists have 'proved' the Earth to be about 6,000 years old.
Secondly, in Titus 1:14, Paul tells us to ignore Jewish fables. Wouldn't that mean most of the Old Testament, if not all of Genesis?
2 Corinthans 3:6 "He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."


Fossils
...have always been a thorn in the side of creationism. First of all, extinct creatures shouldn't even exist in a perfect Creation, since their very extinction implies that they were not so perfect. And there are so darn many of them, of so many different kinds. Every excuse they come up with for why there even are fossils of extinct organisms makes creationists look silly. And the very fact that they've come up with so many different, mutually exclusive explanations would seem to indicate that, essentially, they're clueless. I have personally been offered all these sound, creation-scientific explanations of what fossils are and how they got there:

* Dinosaurs were too big to go on the Ark, so they got buried in the mud of the Flood. (How about extinct smaller creatures--and what about the "fact" that Noah collected pairs of all animals?)
* Extinct creatures were on the Ark. They died out later. (How many seismosaurs, T. rexes, mastodons, and megatheria can you fit on the head of a pin? And why rescue them if their immediate future reads "extinction"?)
* Fossils never were animals. They're a hoax by Satan and/or materialistic science.
* Fossils never were animals. They're a hoax by God to test your faith. (And I will go to hell for falling for a trick pulled by the Almighty Himself? Doesn't that seem just a bit petty?)


Transitional Fossils
...can't possibly exist, since nothing ever gradually evolved into anything else. Less sophisticated creationists handle the issue by merely spouting the slogan "There are no transitional fossils." They heard that from a good, born-again fundamentalist, so it must be true--no further research necessary. The few who are vaguely aware of the vast range of fossils that have been found, including beautiful examples of transitional series, merely draw lines: everything on that side of the line is ape, and everything on this side is human. If another fossil turns up with features exactly between the two, no problem--just assign it to one side or the other. No matter how fine the gradation, creationists will never admit seeing transition, because they know ahead of time that it can't exist. Amusingly, however, in series such as the hominid line leading to us, different creationist "experts" draw the line between ape and human in different places !


DNA
Nasty stuff. It's really a shame that it had to turn up and confirm predictions of relationships made by evolutionary theory perfectly. And what a dirty trick to have human DNA fit right into the distribution, right next door to the chimps'! It's just not fair. It almost looks like Someone arranged the whole thing just to make evolution appear to be true. Worse yet, this ultimate blueprint for building entire human beings turns out to be just plain chemicals, with nothing magical or even particularly unusual that sets humans aside from other living things. And those geneticists can even tinker with the stuff, and build new creatures. They can replace defective genes in people, and even put human genes into pigs. Why wasn't something put into Leviticus to forbid such ungodliness?


Honesty and Moral Behavior
...among evolutionists. It must really irk creationists that the great majority of us "evolutionists" are basically upright, moral folks. We shouldn't be, because belief in evolution "destroys our faith in the Bible," so naturally we have "no moral guide" and "no fear of eternal damnation," and since "we think we came from monkeys," we see ourselves as "animals with no eternal souls." I'll confess it right now: my basically upright, honest, cleanly-lived life is all a sham. I'm part of the One World Government Evolutionist Conspiracy (OWGEC), and my apparent morality is merely a deception to lure unsuspecting young creationists over to the Dark Side! (And yes, I've signed Satan's black book, I have a barcode on my left arm [just like "Dr." Kent Hovind says] with which I pay for groceries, and I am in personal email contact daily with the Antichrist. I admit all that, so accuse me of something original.)


Ribs
...human ribs, that is, present a real problem. I've been told, on good authority (by creationists, whose scientific authority is the Bible, and what could be more authoritative?), that men have one less rib than women, because one of Adam's ribs was removed to mold into Eve. My creationist informant has generally become confused upon being asked if that means one less pair of ribs, or just one rib missing from one side. Then my instructor in human origins becomes red in the face and defensive, if not to say hostile, when asked if he has ever actually counted ribs on male and female human skeletons, living or deceased. None that I've met have ever actually tried this simplest of scientific experiments, which could go a long way toward proving a testable prediction of creationism. (For members of the Republic of Texas Militia: men have exactly the same number of ribs as women.)

NEWSFLASH: I've just been informed by a rock-solid creationist that the latest discovery of "creation science" is that men used to have fewer ribs than women, but they don't anymore! Perhaps creationists have unearthed a whole bunch of ancient skeletons, with all the males being short a rib. An appeal: PLEASE reveal this evidence to the rest of the world, so that we all can be brought into the Light of True Bible Science! (Dang, I posted this back in '98, and not a single creationist has written me about that archaeological Shocking Proof of the Genesis Story! I so wanted that one tangible piece of evidence that would prove that evolution is a sham.)

LATEST NEWS from Joseph Armstrong in Australia: I don't supposed men (gasp) evolved the extra rib? Is this a classic case of cretinist "micro-evolution"?

Ron Buckallew, a biologist is...
...well aware of DNA, genetic diversity, and how cloning fits into the picture. Now, if Eve were made out of Adam's rib, it would seem that Eve is a clone of Adam. Since these two were the parents of all mankind, and they had the same genetic structure, then there is absolutely no way to account for the wide range of genetic diversity present in the human race. Even if you were to concede that Adam's rib only played a small part in Eve's make up, and she had her own genetic structure, with different DNA, the union of only two individuals to form all of mankind [only 6,000 years ago] would still lead to a very limited genetic diversity (unless of course you allow mutations to play a role to diversify our genetic structure - but then, if you do, you have let in - dare I say it? - evolution).

And for those creationists Who Don’t Quite Get it: I know that an acquired trait like a removed rib would not be a heritable trait. Don’t write me about that—tell your fellow creationists, some of whom do, in fact, still spout such idiocy.


Viruses
Viruses hardly fit into the creationist's view of the world at all. In the first place, nothing even remotely like them is even remotely alluded to in either Testament. About the only "biblical" disease that anyone can remember is leprosy (a bacterial disease), and there's no clue that any of the writers that mentioned it knew that it was caused by any sort of micro-organism. Egyptian cattle suffered a "murrain"-- with no apparent cause other than a divine curse. A blight on crops is mentioned in a place or two, which, if it were naturally caused, might be a viral disease, but again only the disease is mentioned, not any organic cause. Then there are the "emerods" (hemorrhoids) with which God afflicted some folks he was miffed at. I have been told both of the following by "creation scientists":

* The Devil created viruses.

* Viruses are not in the Bible because they are "imperfect."

But the really disturbing thing about viruses is that they occupy the twilight zone between living and dead, a zone that would seem ought not to exist in a creation in which creatures were "given life," or have "the breath of life." Of course, the creationist may arbitrarily assign them to either the "living" or "dead" category, but either assignment is a forced fit. Can they be alive if they don't move, breathe, eat, excrete, or metabolize at all, and can even be crystallized, like other non-living chemicals? Can they be dead if they can self-replicate (reproduce) using the same basic methods as other living things, parasitize other creatures, and are made of nearly the same proteins and nucleic acids as we are? Evolutionary theory doesn't demand that there be a sharp distinction between living systems and nonliving molecules. That's the premise of abiogenesis, which creationists insist on lumping in with evolution, so what the heck... we'll take it. Evolutionary theory can also explain where viruses came from, or why they exist. The fact that there are presently several tentative explanations in no way threatens the structure of evolutionary theory; we're perfectly happy with hypotheses until the preponderance of evidence clearly favors one over all others. In evolutionary theory (with abiogenesis) there should be some hazy area between living and nonliving, and viruses are dwellers of that twilight zone.


The Order of Creation
...is a bottomless can of worms for literal creationists, especially if one takes literally and in their most obvious meanings both Genesis 1 and 2, which don't match in many particulars. But consider just a couple of minor difficulties in the first chapter. For one, the light of day is created before the sun from which it comes. If we assume it was some divine form of light, requiring no material source, then what need of the sun? In the same curious order were plants created before the sun, which is needed for photosynthesis (especially confounding to the day-age folks).
(suggested by Ron Tolle)


Insects
...which have so many generations of nasty babies so often that in just a few years they can change. Those ugly boll weevils, for instance, develop resistance to pesticides; and those filthy peppered moths in England (Darwin's home--coincidence? I don't think so.) change the shade of their camouflage. Evolutionists want to call those piddlin' changes "evolution"--which just shows that they don't even know what the term means. So we creationists have to tell them that "evolution" means apes popping out human babies. You'd think them evil-utionists'd have that straight by now. (For folks who trust Rush Limbaugh to ever get any facts right: the above is sarcasm.)


Footprints
...especially human ones, which creationist "investigators" keep discovering in the same strata as dinosaur bones or footprints, and paleontologists keep demonstrating are nothing of the sort. It's been my experience that creationist authorities (oxymoron) usually end up admitting that they weren't really human prints after all. But they are somewhat lax in passing that information on to their flocks of True Believers, with the result that your average grassroots creationist is under the impression that the fossil record is replete with human footprints, clear back to the beginning (suggested by Floyd Waddle). (To my knowledge, there are NO "manprints" in mesozoic strata that are claimed as such by the main creationist organizations. It's only a few fringe crackpots that continue to make those claims, and embarrass the "mainstream" creationists, who have to eventually denounce them. Your pot has to be SERIOUSLY cracked to get even your fellow creationists to admit you're over the top.)

=================
Hundreds more hi-lariuous sources of hate for creationists here!
 

AdRiaN

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by docta seuss
the united states of america is NOT a true democracy at all.
How do you figure? This proposal gives school boards (ie., elected officials) the choice of introducing alternative perspectives on the development of life on Earth and allowing the curriculum to provide a critique of evolution. The proposal does not remove evolutionary theory and does not force school boards to change their curriculum. How is that considered undemocratic?

Besides, if the proposal is indeed unconstitutional as decided by the courts, then the democratic system of checks and balances is working. Although I cannot see any legal problem with introducing other viewpoints as long as evolution is still being taught ... even if the actual word "evolution" is not used.

By the way, the alternative to evolutionary theory is not simply biblical creationism. For example, I went to Catholic school and we learned all about Darwin and natural selection. The only difference is that God created the universe and set into motion the development of life as part of a divine "plan". It was basically a more specific version of the Intelligent Design theory.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Re: Re: evolution

Originally posted by AdRiaN
How do you figure? This proposal gives school boards (ie., elected officials) the choice of introducing alternative perspectives on the development of life on Earth and allowing the curriculum to provide a critique of evolution. The proposal does not remove evolutionary theory and does not force school boards to change their curriculum. How is that considered undemocratic?
The alternative is non-scientific. In fact, it's religious. It is fine to criticize the weaker/finer points of evolution, however the specific proposal was not to create choice, but to remove scientific terminology (and thus the concepts underpinning it) from the curriculum:

Much of the state's 800-page curriculum was adopted verbatim from the "Standards for Excellence in Education," an academic framework produced by the Council for Basic Education, a nonprofit group. But when it came to science, the Georgia Education Department omitted large chunks of material, including references to Earth's age and the concept that all organisms on Earth are related through common ancestry. "Evolution" was replaced with "changes over time," and in another phrase that referred to the "long history of the Earth," the authors removed the word "long." Many proponents of creationism say Earth is at most several thousand years old, based on a literal reading of the Bible.
How does this create choice? And furthermore, how does this create choice that is scientific (or even logically) sound? And, how is this in any way democratic, especially given the generally-accepted notion of separation of church and state?

Thx. k bye.


Besides, if the proposal is indeed unconstitutional as decided by the courts, then the democratic system of checks and balances is working in this particular instance.
Yep.


Although I cannot see any legal problem with introducing other viewpoints as long as evolution is still being taught ... even if the actual word "evolution" is not used.
Withholding the use of the word is like withholding a concept, and withholding a concept is creating a separation of the student's understanding and that of the rest of the scientific community.


By the way, the alternative to evolutionary theory is not simply biblical creationism. For example, I went to Catholic school and we learned all about Darwin and natural selection. The only difference is that God created the universe and set into motion the development of life as part of a divine "plan". It was basically a more specific version of the Intelligent Design theory.
Yes, this argument is all so very old and absolutely fucking stupid. No sense in getting into it here, because it doesn't have a leg to stand on. John Davies is a HUGE proponent of the above-described theory, because he is unable to justify to himself the idea that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. lol.
 

docta seuss

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Deep_Groove
You obviously don't get what I'm driving at here.

- Deep_Groove
no, no, i believe it is you that is having difficulties.

i realize their are fundamentalist states all over the world, and i realize that many of them are responsible for much of the evil in the world today, but why does that have to be used by you to downplay this. if you're concerned about an issue, by all means, share it with us, but this thread is about the removal of a very important word from some schools in the United States. apparently this is no huge thing for you, but it's an infringement on peoples basic rights.
a human rights abuse, however small you think, and most definitely not the first one, commited by our loving neighbor, and the most powerful and influential nation in the world.

and no, this is obviously not the most serious abuse of human rights we've had to deal with lately, especially when taking the entire world into consideration, but i'm sure you'd agree that any abuses, no matter the size, have to be dealt with.

Originally posted by Deep_Groove

Am I saying: "Don't criticize American fundamentalist Christians?" Not at all. I am merely saying: "When criticizing some group, make sure the energy you expend in addressing it is proportionate to the distance by which it falls short of the moral standard".
- Deep_Groove
are you for real¿

i wrote one message on the tribe message board. when compared to the amount of time i've spent addressing more urgent matters, is that really a disproportionate amount of energy spent?

so, basically by saying this, it sounds as though my one message on tribe should not have been written, as this would be spending a disproportionate amount of energy on this issue in comparison to what you deem to be more pressing matters, therefore i suppose i should have just shut up let this issue slip by, unnoticed by many¿

(i realize this isn't what you actually meant, by you argued yourself into a hole:))
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

AdRiaN

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by ~atp~
How does this create choice? And furthermore, how does this create choice that is scientific (or even logically) sound? And, how is this in any way democratic, especially given the generally-accepted notion of separation of church and state?
Okay ... so what does this mean: "The proposal would not require schools to buy new textbooks omitting the word evolution and would not prevent teachers from using it."

Sounds like a choice to me.

I'm actually glad that you, in particular, responded because I want to pose a question. If you were a parent and your kids were being taught about global warming in science class (and specifically that man-made emissions were responsible), do you feel it would be undemocratic for you to demand a change in the curriculum from your elected school board trustees?
 

docta seuss

TRIBE Member
Re: Re: evolution

Originally posted by AdRiaN
Okay ... so what does this mean: "The proposal would not require schools to buy new textbooks omitting the word evolution and would not prevent teachers from using it."

Sounds like a choice to me.

ok, since apparently it needs explaining, i'll try to enlighten you.

WHY THE HELL do you think they would bring up the issue at all if they were interested in keeping the teaching of evolution in the curriculum? the fact is that they are sparing the school boards the cost of replacing all their textbooks, because they don't have the means to do so, and they are leaving the decision up to the teachers whether to use the word 'evolution' or not, but seeing as how a large portion of the population of georgia are creationists, and any new books purchased would not include the word 'evolution', wouldn't it be logical that all they're doing is a slow phasing out of the word?

being a predominantly christian state, do you think teachers on the more fundamentalist side of things would include the word in their teachings if given the option. of course not.

how is this a choice when the teacher alone can make the decision based on their beliefs¿? a choice for the teacher, but for absolutely no one else.

i can't see how you could possibly argue this. it's quite rediculous.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Re: Re: evolution

Originally posted by AdRiaN


Okay ... so what does this mean: "The proposal would not require schools to buy new textbooks omitting the word evolution and would not prevent teachers from using it."
Right, but it's like saying that the government is going to ban all future sales of "electronic" music, but they will not prevent anyone from listening to such music or sharing it with others. The school board wants to remove the terminology (language) of evolution; while they aren't necessarily enforcing teachers to refrain from using the language, the board is implicitly giving teachers and students alike the go-ahead to ignore evolution as though it doesn't exist.

I think the problem is context here--I reject the idea of them removing the language and I reject the idea that it is (implicitly) based on religious pretexts.


I'm actually glad that you, in particular, responded because I want to pose a question. If you were a parent and your kids were being taught about global warming in science class (and specifically that man-made emissions were responsible), do you feel it would be undemocratic for you to demand a change in the curriculum from your elected school board trustees?
Fair question.


The answer is no, for two reasons: Primarily, I wouldn't ask them to remove any language/concepts from future curriculums. I would ask that both views be presented. The second reason, and the most important one, is that the alternative view that I would propose be part of the curriculum is not in any way based on a religious pretext. It is founded in science.


I would expect that the educational system teach things that are "true" within the context of rationalism and other universal concepts, not something so incredibly subjective as religion.

Religion is dangerous shit yo.
 

docta seuss

TRIBE Member
of course they would never get away with saying, "you can't use this word", but how is this any better. at least if they banned the word, it would be a more clear violation of the rights of the students, and people would stir up much more of a fuss than they currently are...

you explain to me why this issue would be brought up at all if it wasn't meant to sabotage the teaching of evolution. why was the word 'creation'not banned in the new texts as well? what is the purpose of banning a word unless it's harmful?
 

docta seuss

TRIBE Member
Re: Re: Re: evolution

Originally posted by ~atp~

Religion is dangerous shit yo.
not that i'm a communist, but sometimes i agree with their, "religion is poison" philosophy. not in all cases mind you, but i'd say more often than not.

the shunning of facts which we can prove through scientific means, for the incorporation of certain ideas and explanations for which their is no proof of any sort...

seems kinda nutty to me, but i still wouldn't ban any words from any new texts purchased for students unless they were harmful, regardless of how backwards i think they are. that wouldn't be democratic now, would it?
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories
Top