Whoop! Read it again. You're referring to djm2.

I know you hate it, but that is what he advocates, in the same style of other failed socialist regimes.

So show me the link between me and animals. If it can be proven with out doubt. If it is proven then why is it theory?

And I have studied Evolution maybe not as indepth as you have but I have spoken to many who have studied it and they say its debunked also.

I saw the sun come up this morning and it was simply marvelous only God himself could create something of this magnitude.

There is no way on earth that you can be a christian and believe anything else. We all just keep saying the same thing. You believe your religion (Theory) and I believe my God. I am done. No sense and continuing with the nonsense.

See ya. I tried Dawg, I really did. I presented evidence. And references. You choose not to read or understand those references. All you can do is spout the nonsense that comes out of the Discovery Institute.

Edit: Dawg, you are Young Earth Creationist. You believe that the earth and all things on it were created 6 to 10,000 years ago. You don't believe in carbon dating. You don't believe that the dinosaurs walked the earth a hundred million years ago. You don't believe that biological forms can evolve over time. So really, there's nothing else I can say to you to try to convince you otherwise.

Wow. Someone has really been drinking the kool aid.

Hahaha, yes. You follow a strict pattern in your demand to impose your will on others.

You are just too myopic in your views to recognize it.

I can't help myself. Ok, how about the fact that the DNA in your cells are not similar, but EXACT copies of those found in animals. How about the fact that most of the genes found in your body are not similar, but EXACT copies of what is found throughout the animal kingdom? If that doesn't prove a link, what will? What about the fossil record clearly showing transitional forms over the last several million years?

Reposting what a scientific theory actually is, since obviously Dawg has forgotten or chose not to read the earlier post. I get so sick and tired of the 'it's just a theory' comment. This comment only comes from non-scientists.


Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that a theory never becomes a law unless it was very narrow to begin with. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science.

Can't we all just get along? Maybe we should just teach nothing and avoid the problem.

I'm still for allowing people to make their own decisions no matter how rational or irrational they may seem.

True democracy would allow school districts to vote on what should be taught. If the results are stupid kids coming from one area then so be it.

We don't live in a democracy, why should we allow it to be voted on?

You should know that.

Or is that just something you also believe? :-(

is there something wrong with beliefs? I do see yours thrown throughout this thread....

certainly not evidence.

Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural de·moc·ra·cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dxxx275;mokratia, from dxxx275;mos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a: government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2: a political unit that has a democratic government
3capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>
4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges


Main Entry: re·pub·lic
Function: noun
Etymology: French république, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public — more at real, public
Date: 1604
1 a (1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c: a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>
2: a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity <the republic of letters>
3: a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Yugoslavia

I'm sensing some sarcasm here. :smile: I trust you don't really believe this. It's this kind of thinking that is dropping the United States ever lower in the Math and Science skills needed to generate useful technology. The US has always been in the forefront of scientific discoveries. Which is amazing given our short history.

Don't worry mriff, we'll just find out who is smart and import them.

Lol. That's self limiting though. We really need a strong science and technology base in our schools and colleges. I'm not saying that the rest of the globe is behind us, as there are important advances in science from many developed countries. We just don't want to get too far behind. The fact that we are even having an argument over whether or not to teach evolution in school makes us look stupid.

I was being somewhat sarcastic but you know I like the idea of all ideas being presented. If you present all ideas then the ones with evidence and science to go with it will certainly be given more time and emphasis. - my own perfect world.

mriff the consequences could be a set back when it comes to math and science but if you allow power to the people (per the definition above) then bad choices will sometimes be made. even evolution makes bad choices sometimes.
Kind of like the Palestinians voting Hamas, French electing Robespierre or even Illinois electing the hair idiot.

but there is no doubt the our rankings in science will fall if we were to remove evolution from schools, but I think that people are fully capable to make that decision.

Check with the person who started this thread and debate here.

Whoop! :shock::razz::oops:;-)

Your contributions to the thread are for the most part, meaningless. Which is strange to me JSanders, as you seem like a very bright guy. But you have contributed absolutely nothing to the debate. Except gibberish.

One must strive for excellence test. The global demand for advances in technology demand it. Your methods will only lead to mediocrity.

Just another little piece of the ever unfolding puzzle.

Draft of Neanderthal's genetic blueprint revealed - USATODAY.com

Passionate debates and discussions are a good thing, provided that it remains civil and you come to some sort of conclusion, closure, or agreement. Even if it's to agree to disagree.

But to argue just for the sake of arguing is not productive. As it is said, a dog returns to his own vomit, So a fool repeats his folly.

Sadly, narcissism and entitlement run rampant these days, especially in the younger generations. Humility is a very rare thing today. The scientific community is no exception. We should never see ourselves as wise in our own eyes. There will always be some undiscovered truth or knowledge in life that eludes us. We would be foolish to think otherwise.

Regardless of what you believe, in the end, when you die, the truth shall be revealed. Someone will be wrong, and someone will be right. One of them will have much more to regret than the other.

This about somes it up for me. DAWG and I share a lot of the same beliefs. If I am wrong in my faith, in the end, I know I won't have anything to regret.