I stand corrected, your stated view was that it is ok to teach evolution as a theory as long as creationism is also taught as a theory.

That works for some classes but not for science class unfortunately, atleast imo. But I do think exposing kids to more ideas does nothing but help them in the long run.

I'm glad he was let in. He now has one more year to run over the Dawgs! :razz:

Politics, religion and football! Could this thread possibly get any better?!

A picture of a shapely women would be nice. ;-)

(y)

But please make sure she's highly evolved. Nothing but genetic excellence. 8-)

Evolve one from Nancy Pelosi or Helen Thomas or Orpha Winfrey... I still would not touch it with a ten foot pole. So to speak.

No, you're looking at the wrong crowd JS! Let's evolve one from one of the Victoria Secret models.

Paleontologist Pr0n

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Fish fossil clue to origin of sex

It's clear that Dawg got his arguments for a young earth and for a biblical flood from Dr. Hovind. Dave Matson goes over each of Dr. Hovind's 'proofs' and disputes every one of them convincingly.

The whole article can be found here: How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments

Source: How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims
by Dave E. Matson

I thought the answer to this question was paricularly good, so I'm posting it.

General (D): Evolution is merely a theory.

Evolution (descent of life with modification) is a fact of life! That is to say, it may be deduced from the facts with near certainty. The fact of evolution is debated in the scientific community about as often as the roundness of the Earth! Both issues have been settled scientifically long ago. If you don't believe me, scan the world's leading scientific journals, such as Nature or Science, and tell me how many articles in the last 24 issues challenge the fact of evolution. After you have answered that question, then note how many articles are based on the fact of evolution. Thus, you will get some feeling as to what's going on in the real world of science. Legitimate scientific disagreement is not over descent with modification, but rather over how best to explain descent with modification. The better explanations constitute the theories of evolution. It is there we find the legitimate scientific debate which creationists are so fond of quoting, often out of context.

In the scientific world theory does not mean guesswork or speculation but rather a well tested concept which gives order and scientific meaning to a great many facts. (Reread the second paragraph of Topic "0" if you will.) Saying that evolution is only a theory is like saying that a car is only a Cadillac! It is a scientific compliment.

In the United States the chief opposition to the fact of evolution comes from a noisy, minority religious crusade cloaked in scientific jargon, whose ultimate goal is to enforce the teaching of fundamentalist doctrine in our schools.

Nice article. Add it to the fossil record. Thank God that internal fertilization evolved over time. Where would we be without that? ;-) And it occurred 365 million years ago.

This is for you djm.

Source same as above.

Let's compare real science to "scientific" creationism.

1. Real scientists, as did Darwin, usually spend some time pointing out the possible weaknesses they see in their theories. This is done not only to highlight areas which need further study but in order to strike a balanced presentation that will not mislead the reader. Truth is the overriding goal.

Creationists usually minimize or ignore the weaknesses in their theories unless the cat is out of the bag. Inserting their views into the public educational system is usually their goal.

2. Real scientists publish scientific literature, which can be very unorthodox, in refereed journals. This serves as a clearing house for ideas as well as a common testing ground.

Creationists, who apparently have nothing worth saying to the scientific community, invariably write for the layman. They have found it necessary to publish their ideas in special "creationist journals" because none of the hundreds of legitimate scientific journals find their work acceptable. Creationist journals mostly serve as a rallying point for the faithful, rarely as a means for criticizing their fellow believers.

3. Real scientists are quick to criticize their colleagues if they suspect an error. (Remember the cold fusion flap?) Catching errors improves their status in the scientific community even as it improves the level of science.

Creationists have a fortress mentality, and they are quick to circle their wagons. To admit error is considered bad form among creationists, and most of them must literally be smoked out before admitting any errors whatsoever. With no effective mechanism for weeding out error, errors are passed down like the family jewels. Today, one can buy many creationist books containing errors that should have been eliminated 20-30 years ago!

4. Real scientists are quick to test promising new ideas (however unorthodox) and those which don't pan out quickly disappear from the literature. Fame and fortune await any scientist who successfully advances a novel idea.

Creationists are largely concerned with protecting their dogma, not advancing new ideas that might question that dogma. Rejection is the likely lot of any creationist who questions the central dogma. Creationist arguments having serious errors, including arguments based solely on obsolete data, circulate indefinitely in the creationist literature.

5. Real scientists are often involved in meaningful laboratory and field work. They are looking for new data which might clarify, overturn, or confirm their views.

Creationists spend most of their time combing through books and technical journals for quotes with which to snipe at evolution, geology, astronomy, and other areas of science which challenge their central dogma. When they're not doing that, they can usually be found out on the stump drumming up support among the uneducated public.

6. Real scientists base their theories on the available evidence. They are not immune to the effects of prejudice, but they all understand that the facts dictate the conclusion. Conclusions are subservient to the data; data are not subservient to conclusions.

Creationists take their science straight from the Bible. Many creationist leaders have publicly stated, often in print, that any evidence at variance with their literal interpretation of the Bible should be rejected out of hand. Their a priori conclusions dictate what data are acceptable. That's not science!

7. No self-respecting scientist would ever think of signing an oath of allegiance to Darwinism as a condition for employment. Evidence is "king" in good science, and there is no room for competing loyalties.

Many creationist societies actually require a "loyalty oath," which is tantamount to an admission that their minds are closed! Such minds are slammed shut and rusted tight!

8. All good scientists admit that they might be wrong, that absolute certainty is not part of science. Scientists long ago recognized that our knowledge of the physical world is largely a product of inductive reasoning. In principle, inductive reasoning can yield a high degree of confidence, but it can never confer 100% certainty. The uncertainty of inductive reasoning follows from the fact that any set of observations can be explained, in principle, by an infinite number of hypotheses! One can never rule them all out no matter how much data one has. Thus, the proper scientific attitude includes a touch of humility no matter how great one's success.

Except for trivial details, creationists cannot conceive of the possibility that they are in error as that would take down their concept of biblical inerrancy. Since "scientific" creationism is really a branch of Bible apologetics, there is no room for compromise. "Scientific" creationism is there to defend the faith, not to probe the unknown.

9. Real scientists are often found in the great universities, where real science is done and advanced. None of those institutions take creationism seriously.

Creationists are usually associated with creationist societies. Those few "universities" where creationism is featured have either failed to get full accreditation or have done so only through the pulling of political strings. What discoveries have they made? Name their Nobel laureates!

10. Scientists build upon previous knowledge accumulated over the years, and only rarely participate in great, revolutionary breakthroughs.

Creationists fancy that they are in the process of overthrowing modern biology, geology, astronomy, anthropology, linguistics, paleontology, archaeology, oceanography, cosmology, physics, and numerous other branches of science. Some creationists (the flat-earth societies) would add the "grease-ball" theory of round-earth geography to that list. Anything that doesn't conform to their interpretation of the Bible is suspect and in need of revision.

lol, so you have an article scientist wrote to give pats on the a$$ for scientists and criticize Creationists. Big deal.

Besides most of the ten points are lies and fantasist thinking.

Oh, you forgot 11:

Real scientists have big butts and big heads and often suffer from the God complex, thinking as well they have it all figured out, when they really are ignoring the big picture, or in layman's terms, they can't see the forest for the tree.

Creationists may have the faith of a child, but they are a lot happier in life knowing their Father created them in His own image, each different and unique just as His snowflakes are unique.

There, see.

I knew it you would do that! You simply cannot make one post in these sensitive discussions threads that is not smug and condescending. So typical.

OH not at all, as long as you people post that dribble like you list of TOP TEN STUPID SCIENTIST EGO TRIPPERS list. You might as well be smoking crack to think that holds any water.

My #11 is just as salient and enlightening as your ten all thrown together.

See? You can't do it. You can't make one serious post in this thread. And that post was clearly aimed at djm as I thought he would appreciate it. I knew you wouldn't. And now it's my turn to be smug. You have no training in science so how do you know that list is wrong? What's wrong with it? Every scientist I know would agree with it 100%. Thank God people like Pastuer followed it's examples.

Whether you admit it or not, science runs your life, making it much easier to live in this day and age. Keeping you healthy and safe every day. Protecting your children from disease. Yet you are so venomous when it comes to acknowledging their hard work. I just don't understand it.

Specifically which, you mean? I'll take the bait. Point #10 is both wrong and right.

Omg, I appreciate science so much. I use it every day of my life. I get up and go to bed using science and its benefits. Its just that your stupid list there is so laughable, it is nothing but ten attacks on creationists. It reads like something someone wrote drunk one night to read at the local "Scientist Club" meeting.

No scientist worth his weight in test tubes would write that crap.

lol, read my prior post, but that ^^ is a flat out lie.

Ok, so take the creationist information out of the list. Is it still a bad list? The list was specifically written to refute creationists. That's why it's there. It was part of a document written to refute Dr. Hovines stuff on why the earth is young (younger than 10,000 years). It's a list that at it's very core is an explanation on why creationism shouldn't be allowed to be taught 'as science' in school. I like the list. I think it captures the frustration of biological scientists perfectly. If not a little smugly. Sure did get you going, though didn't it. The writer would appreciate that.