To be honest with you that site remindeed me of some of those Van Daniken sites, but my research on von Daniken led me not to berlieve him because he is fukl of shit.nickm said:
Yet another fossil that will piss creationists off
- Thread starter Wibble
- Start date
why should science and religion be mutually exclusive anyway? Some things in this world can't be explained by either...nevertheless both are too closely intertwined...
False. Evolution is NOT about creating life from non-life. I have been very patient, but please STOP lying.Im red2 said:
Now a challenge for YOU: if I do a DNA test, it shows I'm more closely related to my grandfather than to my friend. If I do a similar DNA test, it shows I am ALSO more closely related to a monkey than a lizard.
WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?
Sorry Nickm I went a little over the top yesterday, Maybe I should not post after a few drinks. That last point above is good and one I will have to research before I comment on, because I really do't know the answer.nickm said:
I see you haven't evolved yetIm red2 said:
bill hicks, the legend himself on creationism...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fundamentalist Christianity - fascinating. These people actually believe that the the world is 12,000 years old. Swear to God. Based on what? I asked them.
"Well we looked at all the people in the Bible and we added 'em up all the way back to Adam and Eve, their ages: 12,000 years."
Well how fecking scientific, okay. I didn't know that you'd gone to so much trouble. That's good. You believe the world's 12,000 years old?
"That's right."
Okay, I got one word to ask you, a one word question, ready?
"Uh-huh."
Dinosaurs.
You know the world is 12,000 years old and dinosaurs existed, they existed in that time, you'd think it would have been mentioned in the fecking Bible at some point.
"And lo Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus... with a splinter in his paw. And O the disciples did run a shriekin': 'What a big fecking lizard, Lord!' But Jesus was unafraid and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus's paw and the big lizard became his friend.
"And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a loch for O so many years inviting thousands of American tourists to bring their fat fecking families and their fat dollar bills.
"And oh Scotland did praise the Lord. Thank you Lord, thank you Lord. Thank you Lord."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You ever noticed how people who believe in Creationism look really unevolved? You ever noticed that? Eyes real close together, eyebrow ridges, big furry hands and feet. "I believe God created me in one day" Yeah, looks liked He rushed it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fundamentalist Christianity - fascinating. These people actually believe that the the world is 12,000 years old. Swear to God. Based on what? I asked them.
"Well we looked at all the people in the Bible and we added 'em up all the way back to Adam and Eve, their ages: 12,000 years."
Well how fecking scientific, okay. I didn't know that you'd gone to so much trouble. That's good. You believe the world's 12,000 years old?
"That's right."
Okay, I got one word to ask you, a one word question, ready?
"Uh-huh."
Dinosaurs.
You know the world is 12,000 years old and dinosaurs existed, they existed in that time, you'd think it would have been mentioned in the fecking Bible at some point.
"And lo Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus... with a splinter in his paw. And O the disciples did run a shriekin': 'What a big fecking lizard, Lord!' But Jesus was unafraid and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus's paw and the big lizard became his friend.
"And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a loch for O so many years inviting thousands of American tourists to bring their fat fecking families and their fat dollar bills.
"And oh Scotland did praise the Lord. Thank you Lord, thank you Lord. Thank you Lord."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You ever noticed how people who believe in Creationism look really unevolved? You ever noticed that? Eyes real close together, eyebrow ridges, big furry hands and feet. "I believe God created me in one day" Yeah, looks liked He rushed it.
Proof is for alcohol, Red. Science deals with evidence.Im red2 said:
Your own words, even within that quote, speak volumes about the creationist perspective. You're asking for someone to prove evolution by explaining abiogenesis. It's an unrelated fileld. You'd be better off asking a chemist, than a biologist. These are some of the reasons that these 'challenges' to evolution exist. For example, Kent Hovind's (Dr Dino) $250,000 offer to anyone who can prove evolution is hopelessly loaded and has little to do with the process. He want's explanations about the big bang, the formation of the early solar system, geological phenomina and the like. These have nothing to do with evolution. It's a big set up for a showbiz showdown.
I've read the work of Jonathan Wells, he's no more a scientist than you are, Red. Sure, he's published for peer review; but not one of his works were about intelligent design. I've read all your other pin up's too. Dembski, Behe & Johnson. Their combined works amount to jack shit. Not a fecking theory between them. It's all layman, preaching to the choir, pedestrian crap that can be refuted by your average 'A' level biology student. They're making a living off the backs of people like you, Red. Don't let them fool you with their fancy-pants 'Irreducible complexity'. It's been busted.
There now follow a brief advert:
If, however, you really do have an interest in the subject. Why not pose some of your questions at the Internet Infidels Evolution/Creation forum? You'll find plenty of current biologists, paleontologists, zoologists and whatnot, to happily hand you your arse in a bag.
Advert over.
You know what, Red? I want you to succeed. I want you to tear down Darwin's theory. It's free, you know? You can get a copy online. It's out there in all its glory.
Grab yourself a copy. Read it. Understand it. Tear it to fecking pieces.
Obviously you won't be the first person to have a crack at knocking down Charlie's work. I mean, it's been there since 1859, and plenty of pretenders have come and gone since then. It's good science though; in fact, it's the only way science works. Put it up and wait for it to be knocked down.
Can you knock it down, Red? Can you, with your clear lack of training, reading and understanding of any part of the evolutionary process, conquer Charles Darwin?
Can you?
I'm getting Richard Dawkins 8 cans of Special Brew and then I'm sending him around your house with a pool cue.
It's because he's using evolution as a synonym for 'godless creation', and not on its own merits. He doesn't actually care about how evolution works, all he cares is it offers an explanation for life that does not require god. Therefore, to him, a proof of evolution is a proof of the non-existance of god. So it doesn't matter what evidence I present, he will deny it, because he HAS to.Furious George said:
Actually, he's completely wrong about that - evolution need not be about a denial of god - but he's been so steeped in fundamentalist propaganda and a fear of hell, he can't see it.
If he comes around the area where I live he will need more than a pool cue very dangerous here. Most likely it would be stolen along with any other possessions he has on him. No need to send any of that crappy special brew, if he arrives in one piece he will be treated to some top class Brauhaus bier from me. Thank you for the very interesting link George. Found this http://proofthatgodexists.org/ over there.Furious George said:
Nickm Hell is only the grave so as we are all going there someday anyways why should I be afraid?nickm said:
$250,000 isn't all that much money.
And Hovind probably doesn't have it - he owes the US government taxes.
And Hovind probably doesn't have it - he owes the US government taxes.
AgreedSpoony said:
He doesn't actually define what he wants proven. If his understanding of evolution is like yours, there's no point having the debate, because he'll want to include everything down to why United have not been able to win the Champions League since 1999.Im red2 said:Prove evolution and win 10,000 dollars
http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/2/PDF/FAQ.pdf
and no one takes up the challenge
Actually, he probably knows what evolution is. He's just lying through his teeth, like anyone associated with the creationist / intelligent design crowd. Talk about unChristian behaviour.
It is not possible for 2 separate species to breed and create a new species.
It would take millions of years for the eye to evolve and would not have benefited the organism or helped the survival of species one bit.
Any mathematiton will tell you the probability of the structure of dna happening by chance in one place in the universe is beyond obsurdity.
Its an overwhelming cry of creation...if you can see it or not...I dont give a feck as I am far more evolved than any of you thick neandertal baboons
in fact, YES!!! your father and mother were...to be blatently honest...MONKEYS!!!
It would take millions of years for the eye to evolve and would not have benefited the organism or helped the survival of species one bit.
Any mathematiton will tell you the probability of the structure of dna happening by chance in one place in the universe is beyond obsurdity.
Its an overwhelming cry of creation...if you can see it or not...I dont give a feck as I am far more evolved than any of you thick neandertal baboons
in fact, YES!!! your father and mother were...to be blatently honest...MONKEYS!!!
Wrong again. My parents shared a common ancestor with apes.tralala said:It is not possible for 2 separate species to breed and create a new species.
And this is what you understand Natural selction to mean is it?
Silly person.
It would take millions of years for the eye to evolve It did and would not have benefited the organism or helped the survival of species one bit Utter rubbish. Even a miniscule ability to detect light would give an individual an advantage when it comes to avoid predators.
Any mathematiton will tell you the probability of the structure of dna happening by chance in one place in the universe is beyond obsurdity.
What is beyond absurd is supposing that DNA sponateously arrived fully formed out of nowhere.
I know quite a few mathematicians and statistitions and none of them think that there is anything absurd in the process of selection that created DNA.
Its an overwhelming cry of creation...
No it is an overwhelming cry of "I'm too stupid to understand so it must have been God".
if you can see it or not...
See it through your evolved eyes you mean?
I dont give a feck as I am far more evolved than any of you thick neandertal baboons
It doen't sound like you believe in evolution so how can you be more evolved (whatever than means)?
in fact, YES!!! your father and mother were...to be blatently honest...MONKEYS!!!
Where have all the creationists gone?
This thread needs reviving.
This thread needs reviving.
I've evolved to the next stage.
I'll have a go. We (playing Devil's Advocate) Creationists will have the last laugh 'cos we're now in your kids' science lessons. Read below...and you think we won't win in the long run? Ha! The American Constitution might have thwarted us over the pond, but we've got Opus Dei' s Ruth Kelly in charge here at the Min. Ed'n and good 'ol Catholic boy Tony B at the top.Clueless said:Where have all the creationists gone?
This thread needs reviving.
INDEPENDENT 12th October 2006
Does creationism have a place in the classroom?
Secondary schools are being lobbied by a new group that attacks Darwin's theory of evolution. Some teachers are planning to adopt the creationist materials, others are fighting them. Nick Jackson reports
Published: 12 October 2006
Does creationism have a place in the classroom? Creationists are targeting schools
A creationist group, Truth in Science, has targeted thousands of secondary schools in the UK with an information pack that is being used by believers and unwary teachers to bring religious dogma into science classrooms.
It is falling on fertile ground. In January a poll revealed that less than 48 per cent of Britons believe in the theory of evolution, 39 per cent believe in creationism or intelligent design by God as a better explanation, and more than 40 per cent believe that these theories should be taught in schools. Truth in Science claims to have received hundreds of responses from teachers saying they plan to use the packs.
Ridiculed in the scientific community and condemned by the US courts as a religiously motivated movement, you would expect advocates of intelligent design to be keeping a low profile. But believers in the supernatural creation of life on earth look stronger than they have for many years in the UK. Which is why scientists are so concerned about what looks like the beginning of a new "soft power" offensive by creationists here.
How can they get away with it? Intelligent design has been denounced by scientific bodies across the world as religion masquerading as science, and Truth in Science's pack has been condemned by the Royal Society and the Department for Education and Skills. However, the Government cannot control what resources schools use and Truth in Science has cleverly exploited an apparent loophole in the national curriculum, which encourages teachers to discuss and criticise scientific theory, to argue that the Government supports the teaching of the intelligent design "controversy".
Some teachers welcome the opportunity to give exposure to intelligent design. Nick Cowan, former head of science and now a chemistry teacher at the Blue Coat School, a grammar school in Liverpool, wants the packs used in lessons there. "Darwinism is a religion," says Cowan, a creationist and head of the Christian Institute, a charity devoted to the promotion of Christian faith in the UK. "The debate between evolution and intelligent design is not a debate between science and religion, it's between religion and religion."
The pack has also been met with outright scorn. Graham Wright, head of science at North Bridge House, an independent school in north London, says the pack sent to him went straight into the bin. But he is concerned that some well-meaning teachers, convinced by talk of changes in the national curriculum, will include the pack in lessons. "If I showed this to children, of course they would be convinced," he says. "There's no doubt about that at all."
Other schools are being more open-minded. Before receiving the pack, Maria Fidelis, a state-funded Roman Catholic convent school in Camden, north London, did not teach intelligent design. Now they plan to use the videos.
Ann Marie Horrigan, a chemistry teacher, reviewed one of the DVDs for the school. Before looking at it, the department was suspicious, but Horrigan was impressed. "I thought it was excellent," she says. "I'd recommend it. The graphics were excellent. We'll probably teach it at A-level."
The pack, seen by The Independent, consists of two DVDs and a leaflet. In the leaflet, Truth in Science claims that the Government and the national curriculum encourages students to study intelligent design as a criticism of Darwin.
But the Department for Education and Skills says that while students are encouraged to consider alternative scientific theories of evolution, intelligent design is not one of them, for the simple reason that intelligent design is not science. "We wouldn't endorse these packs," says a spokesperson. "The fossil record is evidence of evolution. Creationism and intelligent design are not scientific theories."
The Royal Society agrees. "The theory of evolution is supported by the overwhelming majority of scientists, based on evidence acquired through experiment and observation," says Professor Michael Reiss, director of education. "It would therefore be misleading for school pupils to be given the impression that there is scientific controversy."
...part2 follows
...Part 2
Truth in Science claims that "the theory of intelligent design is the current number one alternative to Darwinism as a scientific theory of origins", despite the fact that it has not yet produced any original scientific research. It is only the first misleading statement of many in the research packs, says Chris Hyland, a biology PhD at Leeds University and anti-creationist activist who has reviewed the packs. He has found 21 factual errors, misrepresentations, and flawed arguments in the DVDs. "They show fancy graphics," he says. "But there's no positive evidence put forward in support of design."
Central to the argument is the figure of Dr Michael Behe, a biochemist convert to intelligent design. In the DVDs he argues his theory of irreducible complexity, the claim that some organisms are too complex to have evolved. Last year Dr Behe had to admit in a US courtroom not only that such organisms could be the result of evolution, but that intelligent design had the same scientific legitimacy as astrology. Hyland is worried. "The packs are done in a way that if you look at it and don't understand the subject well it could be quite convincing," he says.
In the DVDs, the bacterial flagellum, a tiny molecular motor, is put forward as an example of this discredited irreducible complexity.
Hyland is disturbed, as are other scientists, by the fact that an argument, dressed up in scientific language but with no scientific credibility, is being sold to schoolchildren. "Key Stage 4 is not the place for new theories that are not that accepted," he says. Peer review does not count if it is done by 14-year-olds.
Professor Andy McIntosh, head of Truth in Science and a thermodynamics professor at Leeds University, defends the initiative. He claims his organisation is first and foremost a scientific, not a religious one. "We're not flat earthers," he says. "We're just trying to encourage good scientific discussion. We want to see an open discussion of these matters." He blames intelligent design's failure to achieve academic respectability on a cabal of evolutionists at the top of the scientific hierarchy.
If this really is about opening up scientific debate, then where is the harm? The strategy of teaching the "controversy" of intelligent design is very familiar in the US. When a Pennsylvania school board tried to introduce the controversy last year it was slammed by the courts. "The tactic is at best disingenuous, at worst a canard," said US federal judge Judge Jones, a Republican and a Christian. "The goal of IDM [the intelligent design movement] is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution that would supplant evolutionary theory."
The controversy in the US has largely been fomented by the Discovery Institute, a non-profit educational foundation funded by evangelical Christians. The DVDs distributed by the British company feature several prominent members of the Discovery Institute. In 1999 a leaked Discovery Institute fundraising document revealed the group's aim to be to defeat scientific materialism and its "destructive" moral, cultural, and political legacies.
And Professor McIntosh's comments on scientific discussion sit uneasily with remarks he made in the Evangelical Times in 2004, around the time he was setting up Truth in Science. Then he said that he could not accept any other account of the origins of life than the creation recorded in Genesis. Getting creationism into schools was, he argued, the best way to convert non-Christians.
"How do we reach these complete outsiders?", he asked. "We have to define and declare these biblical concepts from square one. That is why creation becomes important, because it immediately declares God's ownership of the world and ourselves." Truth in Science says these are simply Professor McIntosh's personal opinions.
Steve Layfield is another of Truth in Science's six directors and head of science at Emmanuel College in Gateshead. In a speech at the Second Conference of Creation Activists in 1998, Layfield gave advice to evangelical teachers who wanted to slip creationism on to the agenda without consulting parents, governors, or the Government. The speech ended with a quote from Corinthians: "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."
In 2000 Layfield explained why bringing God into the origins of life was so important to him. "A proper awareness of this show of Divine power inspires humility and awe-filled worship in all who are confronted by it," he said. Layfield was unavailable for comment. Truth in Science claims he has since changed his mind, but then the media was never part of the softly-softly tactics he advocated.
The British Humanist Association argues that this religious agenda in school science must be stopped. It is calling on the Government to make its position clearer to schools. As schools minister, Jacqui Smith denounced intelligent design's scientific credentials. Intelligent design is not part of the curriculum. But examination guidelines do encourage criticism of scientific theories that could be used to include teaching intelligent design.
The BHA wants Alan Johnson to get the message across that creationism has no place in school science. "The Government shouldn't be lax about this," says Andrew Copson, in charge of education at the BHA. "They need to tell teachers and change the guidelines to make this clear." Until the Government spells out its position, creationism looks like making a comeback.
************************************
All joking aside, it's actually a worrying development for the sane amongst us. This link to some letters earlier in the month in the Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2392177.html
Truth in Science claims that "the theory of intelligent design is the current number one alternative to Darwinism as a scientific theory of origins", despite the fact that it has not yet produced any original scientific research. It is only the first misleading statement of many in the research packs, says Chris Hyland, a biology PhD at Leeds University and anti-creationist activist who has reviewed the packs. He has found 21 factual errors, misrepresentations, and flawed arguments in the DVDs. "They show fancy graphics," he says. "But there's no positive evidence put forward in support of design."
Central to the argument is the figure of Dr Michael Behe, a biochemist convert to intelligent design. In the DVDs he argues his theory of irreducible complexity, the claim that some organisms are too complex to have evolved. Last year Dr Behe had to admit in a US courtroom not only that such organisms could be the result of evolution, but that intelligent design had the same scientific legitimacy as astrology. Hyland is worried. "The packs are done in a way that if you look at it and don't understand the subject well it could be quite convincing," he says.
In the DVDs, the bacterial flagellum, a tiny molecular motor, is put forward as an example of this discredited irreducible complexity.
Hyland is disturbed, as are other scientists, by the fact that an argument, dressed up in scientific language but with no scientific credibility, is being sold to schoolchildren. "Key Stage 4 is not the place for new theories that are not that accepted," he says. Peer review does not count if it is done by 14-year-olds.
Professor Andy McIntosh, head of Truth in Science and a thermodynamics professor at Leeds University, defends the initiative. He claims his organisation is first and foremost a scientific, not a religious one. "We're not flat earthers," he says. "We're just trying to encourage good scientific discussion. We want to see an open discussion of these matters." He blames intelligent design's failure to achieve academic respectability on a cabal of evolutionists at the top of the scientific hierarchy.
If this really is about opening up scientific debate, then where is the harm? The strategy of teaching the "controversy" of intelligent design is very familiar in the US. When a Pennsylvania school board tried to introduce the controversy last year it was slammed by the courts. "The tactic is at best disingenuous, at worst a canard," said US federal judge Judge Jones, a Republican and a Christian. "The goal of IDM [the intelligent design movement] is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution that would supplant evolutionary theory."
The controversy in the US has largely been fomented by the Discovery Institute, a non-profit educational foundation funded by evangelical Christians. The DVDs distributed by the British company feature several prominent members of the Discovery Institute. In 1999 a leaked Discovery Institute fundraising document revealed the group's aim to be to defeat scientific materialism and its "destructive" moral, cultural, and political legacies.
And Professor McIntosh's comments on scientific discussion sit uneasily with remarks he made in the Evangelical Times in 2004, around the time he was setting up Truth in Science. Then he said that he could not accept any other account of the origins of life than the creation recorded in Genesis. Getting creationism into schools was, he argued, the best way to convert non-Christians.
"How do we reach these complete outsiders?", he asked. "We have to define and declare these biblical concepts from square one. That is why creation becomes important, because it immediately declares God's ownership of the world and ourselves." Truth in Science says these are simply Professor McIntosh's personal opinions.
Steve Layfield is another of Truth in Science's six directors and head of science at Emmanuel College in Gateshead. In a speech at the Second Conference of Creation Activists in 1998, Layfield gave advice to evangelical teachers who wanted to slip creationism on to the agenda without consulting parents, governors, or the Government. The speech ended with a quote from Corinthians: "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."
In 2000 Layfield explained why bringing God into the origins of life was so important to him. "A proper awareness of this show of Divine power inspires humility and awe-filled worship in all who are confronted by it," he said. Layfield was unavailable for comment. Truth in Science claims he has since changed his mind, but then the media was never part of the softly-softly tactics he advocated.
The British Humanist Association argues that this religious agenda in school science must be stopped. It is calling on the Government to make its position clearer to schools. As schools minister, Jacqui Smith denounced intelligent design's scientific credentials. Intelligent design is not part of the curriculum. But examination guidelines do encourage criticism of scientific theories that could be used to include teaching intelligent design.
The BHA wants Alan Johnson to get the message across that creationism has no place in school science. "The Government shouldn't be lax about this," says Andrew Copson, in charge of education at the BHA. "They need to tell teachers and change the guidelines to make this clear." Until the Government spells out its position, creationism looks like making a comeback.
************************************
All joking aside, it's actually a worrying development for the sane amongst us. This link to some letters earlier in the month in the Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2392177.html
I want Thor to be taught as the religious explanation for the weather, in geography lessons. Forecasts are so unreliable nobody can take them seriously as scientific. A cabal of meteorologists are forcing their materialist agenda on the rest of us, and blocking alternative theories. Anyone who disagrees is against teaching the controversy.
Sweet.nickm said:
Can we have Spiderman and the Incredible Hulk taught as well?
Fascinating stuff. I was searching for this story this morning to no avail so thank you for the links!
Wow, what a find that is. Quite remarkable.