CrackerJax
New Member
That pic makes me think intelligent design might be on to something.
Then again......
out.
Then again......

out.

Interesting read.
But still doesn't give rise to life from non-life. Copying Genetic Material is quite different from actually Generating It.
So you guys want the truth then, EH? Well, about 4,000 years ago, some dudes came from "space" and planted a couple in the garden, told them to breed and then, came back and planted some others in the garden so the offspring could breed, Then they left, and come back periodically to check on our status and to keep us from destroying their experiment. I doubt they are pleased with the way we have progressed. They may have inplanted a species in the apes of the time, and allowed them to mature into the beings we have become, hence the similarities in our DNA, But from primordial goo, I have serious doubts.
I don't think evolution or intelligent design are the problems. If people weren't forced to fund Public schools they could send their kids to a school that has the curriculum they are most comfortable with or teach their kids themselves rather than argue what is the proper approach.
How frustrating it is to be forced to fund something you want no part of...THAT is the problem to me.
TBT, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, it's about the diversity of life.
The mystery does nothing to invalidate the theory of evolution. If that's your best argument... fail.![]()
Watch the movie "Expelled"
Actually the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the Diversity of Life, that would be Evolution by itself.
The Theory of Evolution is just a theory to explain Evolution.
So denying that the Theory of Evolution is accurate is not the same as denying Evolution.
ID is just another theory used to explain Evolution.
Though I read a random off the wall theory that states that we're looking at the entire thing backwards, that life has been going from many different species to fewer.
I don't know the accuracy of it (completely off the wall theory that obviously has no serious researchers.)
Though I don't think it'd fit with the dinosaurs and the mass extinction at the end of the Phanerozoic/Cambrian so much.
Science isn't 'what you're most comfortable with'. The problem is one is psuedo science with no evidence to back up the claims, the other is REAL science with observational data and testable ideas. One thinks it deserves the recognition as the other. The real underlying factor in all this is the ID guys want CHRISTIANITY taught to your kids in public schools, not just ID. ID is a subversive tactic designed (no pun) to try to sneak past people and look like real science.
Someone tell me the difference between creationism and intelligent design.
I agree with your definition of science and your assertion that those who believe in one over the other would love to teach your kids the "truth".
My personal belief is evolution makes alot of sense, but I'd never deny anyone the right to teach their kids something else despite my conviction they are indulging in wishful thinking.
The problem comes down to choice...we often don't have any. If public schools were not force funded you'd be able to send your kids to a school in line with your beliefs. If you didn't agree with their dogma...get a new dog.
sgr42o - I think you may have misunderstood my post. I am not advocating a public funding of the all the various curriculums, religious schools, garden gnomeology etc.
In an earlier post I said I am opposed to "forced funding" of public schools. The present controversy over what will be taught illustrates my point, ...one person wants this form of education, another wants that.
YOU don't want to pay for something that conflicts with your belief, neither do I, I simply extend that principle to others even those I don't agree with. It's not "obvious" to them that evolution is correct, so why should they be forced to pay for it? Yet that is what public schools do, force you to pay for something you may not want. I'm suggesting that maybe there shouldn't BE public schools or at least those that wish not to participate (garden gnomologists?) have the freedom to put their kids and their money elsewhere. To insist people pay for something that they don't want to participate in or have religious objections to is what? Freedom? I think not.
That's nice but what if a the folks in Montana don't think Calculus is "obvious" enough?
No, whether private or public, the "best" available theorems and proofs need to be taught. It's not about assuaging ppl's perceptions, it's about getting the best and most current education possible.
Does Publik do this better than Private?....certainly not. But it's not the ciricuulum that's the problem, it's the quality of the delivery system.