Anti-Evolution Stickers Out

[Magnetic Poles]

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/education/10569476/detail.html

 

[LeBuick]

I don't see the problem, it is a theory.

 

[Daisy]

I don't see the problem, it is a theory.

And a fact. The theory explains the facts.

 

[Bro. James Reed]

There really is no need for the stickers if the teachers are teaching evolution correctly.

The fact is, it is a theory, and an "evolving" one at that.

So long as the teachers are making known to the students that the majority of scientists, through research, agree that this is how life could have and could be forming/changing on earth, then I don't have a big issue. It is science, after all.

However, if the teachers are telling the students that evolution, in whatever way, is fact, then they are deceiving themselves and their students.

Science can only predict what might have occurred in the past. It can not literally look back in time to see what, if any, changes happened over time. That is the key to teaching evolution.

A true scientist would never believe that they are absolutely correct in their research. There are no absolutes in science.

 

[hillclimber1]

Quote from the article:
A federal judge ordered the stickers removed in 2005, saying they amount to an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. The school board appealed, but a federal appeals court sent the case back, saying it did not have enough information.

How could anyone construe this to be "endorsing religion", and evolution not be an endorsement of religion?

 

[777]

Evolution's NOT a fact, it's a discredited theory.

Believe in it 'til you drop, the word belief is the key, neo-Darwinism is the basis for secularism. Junk science.

 

[Bro. James Reed]

Hello, 777.

Just curious about your profile. Who is the pastor at Sharon Primitive Baptist Church and where is it?

I'm at Spring Grove Primitive Baptist in Houston.

 

[tinytim]

Quote from the article:
A federal judge ordered the stickers removed in 2005, saying they amount to an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. The school board appealed, but a federal appeals court sent the case back, saying it did not have enough information.

How could anyone construe this to be "endorsing religion", and evolution not be an endorsement of religion?

Which religion were they endorsing....
I know some Atheists that would agree with the stickers.

 

[LeBuick]

Which religion were they endorsing....
I know some Atheists that would agree with the stickers.

Exactly my point, just because one doesn't endorce evolution doesn't make them religeous.

 

[hillclimber1]

Which religion were they endorsing....
I know some Atheists that would agree with the stickers.

I couldn't name a specific one, but it would be closely aligned with secular humanism. Many people believe in evolution, and treat it as a religion. Carl Sagan would have qualified. I believe it takes more "faith" to believe in evolution that in creation. IMO

 

[tragic_pizza]

I think evolution makes a lot of sense to a point. It explains very concisely changes within species, adaptation to environment, etc.

If God chose to create using some of these principles, it doesn't make God less God, does it?

Oh, wait, I forgot who I was talking to...

 

[Bro. James Reed]

I think evolution makes a lot of sense to a point. It explains very concisely changes within species, adaptation to environment, etc.

If God chose to create using some of these principles, it doesn't make God less God, does it?

Oh, wait, I forgot who I was talking to...

I believe in creation as spelled out in Genesis.

However, I also believe that there are certain changes that happen due to environment, parentage, etc.

Why do the runts of a litter usually die? Because they are ill-equipped to live in their environment. That's why you don't see many runts running around "full-grown". That could be called evolution, or just common sense.

Why do two short parents usually have short children? Because their short gene is obviously a dominant trait within them.

These examples fall in line with evolutionary thinking.

However, why is it that sometimes the runts of a litter do live, regardless of environment? Luck? Can an evolutionist believe in luck? Why is it that my parents are 5'6" and 5'8", and my grandparents were all under 5'6", yet my brother is 6'2" and I am 6'5"? Surely the evolutionist would have predicted that they all have smaller children based on their own heights.

Why is it that we still have monkeys and apes, from which we supposedly evolved, yet there are no neandertals, homo-erectus, or any other of our "missing link" cousins still around?

These are things that evolution can not explain. Why would a dominant trait be beaten out by a recessive gene each and every time in a certain gene pool? That doesn't make sense in evolution.

To be a little crude, why does one little, um, "tadpole" beat out another to the egg to start a pregnancy? Again, is it luck? Or, is it the guiding hand of God placing His children there to born? I believe the latter.

Regardless of what they would like to think, there are things that evolution has not and can not explain. It can not be proven beyond doubt, and is therefore a theory. BTW, there are different forms of evolutionary theory...which is the one which is to be taught in school? Are all of Darwin's ideas to be taught? What about eugenics?

As I said, if taught as one theory, albeit the prevailing one in the scince community, I don't have a big problem with teaching evolution. Now, if you get into teaching that it is the only possible way and begin denouncing God and/or other people's religious beliefs, I would have a problem.

 

[Daisy]

I believe in creation as spelled out in Genesis.

However, I also believe that there are certain changes that happen due to environment, parentage, etc.

Why do the runts of a litter usually die? Because they are ill-equipped to live in their environment. That's why you don't see many runts running around "full-grown". That could be called evolution, or just common sense.

The ones that die in infancy don't contribute whatever genes they possess; the ones that live and reproduce do contribute their genes to the general population.

Why do two short parents usually have short children? Because their short gene is obviously a dominant trait within them.

A "short gene"? I don't think there is only one gene that determines height. At any rate, height tends towards the norm, meaning that two particularly short parents will tend to have offspring nearer to normal height, in this case taller, while two particularly tall parents will also tend to have offspring nearer to normal height, this time shorter.

These examples fall in line with evolutionary thinking.

Um, kinda.

However, why is it that sometimes the runts of a litter do live, regardless of environment?

On the contrary, I'd think that environment would have a lot to do with survival - an abundance of nutritious food, lack of predators, human intervention, etc.

Luck? Can an evolutionist believe in luck?

Why not?

Why is it that my parents are 5'6" and 5'8", and my grandparents were all under 5'6", yet my brother is 6'2" and I am 6'5"?

I suspect that improved health & nutrition have something to do with it.

Surely the evolutionist would have predicted that they all have smaller children based on their own heights.

Not really, as variations within the norm will occur.

Why is it that we still have monkeys and apes, from which we supposedly evolved, yet there are no neandertals, homo-erectus, or any other of our "missing link" cousins still around?

Why do you have cousins yet your great-great grandparents are deceased? We didn't evolve from monkeys and apes, but we, apes and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor (according to evolutionary theory).

These are things that evolution can not explain. Why would a dominant trait be beaten out by a recessive gene each and every time in a certain gene pool? That doesn't make sense in evolution.

If people with a recessive trait reproduce with each other then the recessive trait will be inherited by the new generation. A dominant trait cannot be passed to the children if the parents don't have it.

To be a little crude, why does one little, um, "tadpole" beat out another to the egg to start a pregnancy? Again, is it luck? Or, is it the guiding hand of God placing His children there to born? I believe the latter.

Could be.

Regardless of what they would like to think, there are things that evolution has not and can not explain.

The Theory of Evolution is fairly limited in scope; it is not the grand Theory of Everything.

It can not be proven beyond doubt, and is therefore a theory.

Yeah, theories in science are the best explanation of the data.

BTW, there are different forms of evolutionary theory...which is the one which is to be taught in school? Are all of Darwin's ideas to be taught? What about eugenics?

Darwin was 150 years ago - some of his ideas panned out, others did not. Eugenics no, mostly not, genetics yes. I suppose that genetic testing for Tay-Sachs and Huntington's Chorea and amniocentesis
in general could be said to be a form of eugenics.

As I said, if taught as one theory, albeit the prevailing one in the scince community, I don't have a big problem with teaching evolution. Now, if you get into teaching that it is the only possible way and begin denouncing God and/or other people's religious beliefs, I would have a problem.

Well, I agree with you on that.

 

[777]

Hello, 777.

Just curious about your profile. Who is the pastor at Sharon Primitive Baptist Church and where is it?

I'm at Spring Grove Primitive Baptist in Houston.

Hi. Ya, Houston, now there's a city.

Actually,. I'm stranded from Sharon right now, I'm in the Seattle area for now, but this is home:

http://www.david.hunnicutt.com/sharonpb.html

You're correct about the literality of Genesis, forget the apes, just say "no" to neo-Darwinism. God Bless.