Bachmann: Teaching Only Evolution Is 'Censorship'

So I think the best thing to do is to let all scientific facts on the table

Sure. I can do that.

Class, there is no scientific basis for intelligent design or any proof. Class dismissed.

Bachman wants to take the US back to the stone age. Intelligent design isn't science - it's wishful thinking.

"Evolution is a theory that even "evolutionists" are unsure of..."??????

Oh Michele...go home to Marcus and cuddle up!

Why don't we leave science to the scientists and politics to the politicians? Bachman, you are no expert on science, so please stay out of science class.

Michele: instead of continuing your run for the president and trying to get media attention for that effort as well as with your religious convictions with regard to education, return to congress where you will be valued for joining in with the obstructionism of your teapublicon colleagues.

Oh Michele...go home to Marcus and cuddle up!

Just don't produce any children. America has enough loonies.

One more time: You can't teach creationism or "intelligent design" in science class because it ISN'T SCIENCE! Is your church not up to the task of teaching its religion, Michelle?

Becuase I don’t think that even evolutionists, by and large, would say that this is proven fact. They say that this is a theory, as well as intelligent design.

Intelligent design is not a theory. Scientists have accumulated 150 years worth of observations and data backing up evolutionary theory. There is no data backing up intelligent design at all. All intelligent design says is, "Whatever I can't explain with evolution must be intelligent design." it is, at best, a hypothesis. There is no positive evidence backing up intelligent design and there never will be because religion is about faith, not empirical evidence. It isn't science. Teaching it as science is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment establishing your religion.

I think what you're advocating for is censorship on the part of government. So the government would prohibit intelligent design from even the possibility of being taught in questioning the issueof evolution.

Lol, bring it on.

And if you look at scientists there is not a unanimity of agreement on the origins of life.

Abiogenesis =/= Theory of Evolution

… Why would we forstall any particular theory? Becuase I don't think that even evolutionists, by and large, would say that this is proven fact.

Lie, misrepresentation of truth. I wonder if someone has yet to explain to her what a scientific theory is, if someone has - she's lying. If someone has not, she's just an ignorant dolt.

They say that this is a theory, as well as intelligent design.

Learn what a scientific theory is - second part is a lie, scientists don't call intelligent design a theory.

So I think the best thing to do is to let all scientific facts on the table, and let students decide.

They already are all on the table - which is why intelligent design IS NOT ON THE TABLE.

@ #1.3 "Go home to Marcus and cuddle up!" She can't. Dr Twinkletoes won't come out of the closet!

I think that we should pass a Constitutional Amendment requiring Bachmann to move to her own island with no cameras or microphones on it.

I figure that the country's average IQ will shoot up by a couple of points.

What the air-headed welfare queen probably doesn't seem to understand is 99% of the kids have already had their indoctrination into "intelligent design" and don't need more of that nonsense in school.....unless they are attending a religious school.

Bachmann, Perry, Santorum...to them reality is found in the mind, not outside the mind. They would like the world to be theocentric-run by the word of God. (No mention of who God talks to, yet !)

Desperately trying to stay relevant. Her campaign is done, and she should know it.

Well, she was looking for an "s" sounding word. She meant that teaching evolution is "science" when "censortship" came out! OK, is anyone longing for the days of Palin?

#1.6 @ChuckGreg - I really don't think that's about to happen with her and Marcus...do you? ;-)

My high school biology teacher actually did about a month on Intelligent Design as was briefly required by the school board for a couple years...

It was a part of his pseudo-science vs real science section so, we learned all about how ID attempts to distort facts, figures, where it was wrong, why it was wrong and all of the details as to why it wasn't science.

The school board kind of dropped their whole idea of trying to require biology teachers to spend some time of their class teaching ID as some sort of "alternative" to evolution afterwards but he still kept it in his class though: "because people need to know the difference."

Last I heard, he was "let go."

It's really too bad that everyone's on the hating teachers bandwagon because, imho, we need more like him.

Let's see - that line of argument is that creationism needs to be taught in schools along side evolution and given equal time. So lets reverse that reasoning. Church's should be required to teach evolution along side of creationism. Can you imagine the tantrum they would throw?

Here's the creationism evidence museum in Texas (of course):

http://www.creationevidence.org/

Adam and Eve even look like like Mr and Mrs Rick Perry!

Here is the creationism museum in Kentucky (of course):

http://creationmuseum.org/

Adam and Eve look like Elvis Presley and Dolly Parton.

And here is the Church of the Flying Sphaghetti Monster, which is very popular in San Francisco, California (of course):

http://www.venganza.org/about/

The followers of this church call themselves Pastafarians, and demand equal time.

So what this would look like in our Science classes is like real science being taught but interrupted by lessons about creationism and the Flying Spaghetti monster as our national science test scores plunge even lower in comparison to other industrialized nations.

Last I heard, he was "let go."

It's really too bad that everyone's on the hating teachers bandwagon because, imho, we need more like him

.

The same people who complain about our teachers not being good enough, are the same who would fire this science teacher for actually caring enough to teach despite the red tape.

What's his name? If what you said is true, and if the implication was that he was fired for teaching science is accurate - then this guy can not only sue, but create a media firestorm for the sake of real science in the classroom.

Until he digs up Jesus's bones or uncovers the location of noah's arc and provides a little more proof than an old book (that's been revised over and over by Kings to control the population) I will keep my belief in science over religion.

Can some creationist please explain how this clown can be dummer than a rock.

If creationism was true, why would an imbicile like her be born?

Geez, I thought Sarah was dumb, this clown has taken her spotlight away.

Another TeaNut proving evolution has some flaws, some people are still in the Neandethal stage.

What a nutbag.

Well, again I see Bachmann and I disagree. I don't buy into intelligent design.

I do believe that God Created everything, so I don't believe in the Darwin theory of evolution. Can I prove God Created everything, no more thanm evolutionists can prove Darwins theories.

The thing is I really don't care. To me it just seems as if both sides want to implement their ideas as being true and the others as false. We are all going to believe as we do. If you want to believe you descended from an ape go ahead. I was Created by God.

Hmmmmmmmm ??? Maybe that is why there are so many disagreements ;~)) ;~)) LOL

Can I prove God Created everything, no more thanm evolutionists can prove Darwins theories

Sigh...

No, grandpa - evolutionists CAN INDEED provide much more proof for the theory of evolution than you or anyone can for intelligent design.

there is zero proof of God.

there is proof we are related to other mammals , like chimps. ( 98% proof via dna )

we share 50% of our dna with banana's ! that actually explains alot Bachmanns thinking process.

Evolution has nothing to do with how life was created or if there was a primal mover, Divine Logos, or God.

In reading biblical texts, the difference between numbers and figures can be very important. They must be understood in the same way it was written. Number symbolism can make things really confusing, especially when you are not sure what system of number symbolism is being used. (for example, Geek 10, Jewish 7 based).

Even if you believe the Bible is the direct word of God, it is quite possible that while God may not change, your understanding of Him and the Bible can. It is not called a serious study when one reads only books that support ones previous point of view. Learning and/or considering other interpretations of biblical texts is not abandoning ones faith - unless one is so unsure of that faith that to change a preconceived opinion is considered abandoning the truth. New learning can mean finding new truths.

Go into most public libraries, and you will find book after book discussing Genesis and what it means. Expand the mind. It might be good for the soul.

Shulack:

Really ?? Funny but I see the evidence being disputed by scientists who have become Christians after studying the evolutionists theories.

But again we could debate until we die. Why ?? You believe as you do, I believe as I do. Am I harming you ?? Are you harming me ?? Nahhhh !! So why worry so much about it ??

There areal concerns that we need to focus on, like educating the people about the real destroyers of people: greed, lust, control, hatred, abusive power, ...

People from both belief systems are doing the things that need to be stopped. Perhaps if we could get that taken care of the rest of it will fall into place.

Really ?? Funny but I see the evidence being disputed by scientists who have become Christians after studying the evolutionists theories.

Show me, grandpa. Who are these phantom scientists? It's a claim I hear often from the creationist - but never backed up (just like intelligent design!).

But again we could debate until we die.

Yes, just like idiots debated that the earth was the center of the solar system long after it was demonstrated not to be, there will be idiots asserting that creationism is true and evolution is false.

You believe as you do, I believe as I do. Am I harming you ?? Are you harming me ??

Nope.

So why worry so much about it ??

A Bachmann question, I think.

There areal concerns that we need to focus on, like educating the people about the real destroyers of people: greed, lust, control, hatred, abusive power, ...

Absolutely!!! What about that point? Another question for Bachmann. The whole political system, especially those on the right. But sadly...

.

.

.

A question that will never get the air time it deserves.

Shulack:

A few sites:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1

http://www.scienceprovesit.com/

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=116601

Now I know this won't convince you. I really don't care.

Scientists claim both beliefs. It is up to the individuals to believe as they will.

All I know is that censorship should not apply to anything the Republicans are not allowed to say, or rather if a republicans is never allowed to say anything ever again, I wouldnt call it censorship, I would call it common sense. See now isnt that common sense?

so I don't believe in the Darwin theory of evolution

Evolution itself is not actually the theory. A fact most people mis-apprehend. Life on Earth began about 3 billion years ago as simple single-celled creatures and gradually developed into the complex forms we see today. That's not theoretical. It's thousands upon thousands of data points that all overwhelmingly confirm a pattern.

The theory is that life evolved via a process of natural selection. You can speculate on other processes, but there's not an alternate natural history out there somewhere waiting to be discovered. The geologic record all over the planet is highly consistent, and the same story can be told by digging into any stratum of rock and dating the layers.

So, given that evidence you might postulate that God himself is directing each change of form in each species. However, that's a weak postulate because you are then reqired to provide God's fingerprints. On the other hand, the theory that organisms unfit to reproduce do not pass on their genes, while organisms that are fit to reproduce do fits perfectly with all observed data, and explains it quite perfectly.

I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but "theory" is not a guess. It's a hypothesis that can be tested. The theory of evolution is the basis of biology which is the basis of modern medicine. A theory is a prediction and a prediction can be tested, and though a theory can never be "proven" but only disproven by evidence that contradicts it, a theory that has survived 150 years of challenges and has produced via its dependent fields of study such things as vaccines, antibiotics, organ transplants, insulin therapy and so on pretty much speaks for itself as the right direction to go.

Theories that God somehow made all this happen have no consequent predictions. There is no creationist medical technology out there. There are no creation-derived medical therapies out there (unless you want to count the sad people who pray instead of go to the doctor).

Creation is a myth. Evolution is a science with over a century of proven results. I rest my case, sir.

Ummm, grandpa - those links you provided aren't even relevant. One is a forum thread from a blogger. Another is blocked on my network (strange for a 'legitimate' site). The third is a plug for a book.

So you're right - irrelevant links won't convince me.

Do you want me to share with you some links to legitimate science, journals, and other evidence from actual scientists?

Hey monster I don't refute your claim there's no way EVOLUTION can result in a Bachman it had to be CREATED, I rest my case. P.S. I include A good portion of Faux news in there too.

Unless you consider the theory that god used evolution to accomplish such enormous tasks. We humans began by believing something we didn't know before we proved it to be true. Some try to say you can't prove a negative, but I can, and so can you. Creation is a metaphor perhaps mythical, but perhaps not a myth. Creation happened. If we figure out how it happened, we may find god through the same path.

the first layer of reality is in our brains by me...

Some try to say you can't prove a negative, but I can, and so can you.

Then do it.

If God created the Earth about 6,000 years ago, and oil is produced from dead organic material, why are we running out of it? Isn't the Good Lord just constantly replenishing it?

And why does He punish my wallet so, every time I get a fill-up? Is it because I'm Jewish and haven't accepted His only son, Jesus Christ, as my savior?

I was looking at the documentary link you posted for me grandpa - unfortunately none of their website's security certificates are up to date, so I can't actually do some background reading on their purported "scientists" that came along on the expedition (or find a list of who these mystery scientists are)

The brothers who produced it don't appear to be scientists from the little snippets I actually had access to read.

After reading their write-up, they misrepresent Darwin from the get-go, and then base their conclusions off that.

I'm not sure why ID arguments must always be based in what is essentially intellectual dishonesty, if it could even be called 'intellectual'....

Do you want me to share with you some links to legitimate science, journals, and other evidence from actual scientists

ummm no, it is obvious that creationsism is wrong, and dont ask who created the primordial oup like that is valid either...ok...now go away, you need censorship.

Shuklack

Some try to say you can't prove a negative, but I can, and so can you.

Then do it.

#1.34

5 is not less than 4. ;-) OK that one's too easy. Challenge me!

How about, there is no bird@!$%# in my comment? oops <()>

uh, superbowl 7 will not be played this year! hey! artttt artttt

You seem to misunderstand what people mean when they say 'proving a negative'... they are actually referring to an Argument from Ignorance.

Granted it's a misnomer, but that is to what they are referring. They aren't referring to modus tollens or evidence of absence - which can be valid forms of "proving a negative".

ummm no, it is obvious that creationsism is wrong, and dont ask who created the primordial oup like that is valid either...ok...now go away, you need censorship.

How many times do people have to say it? Abiogenesis is not the theory of evolution. The ORIGIN of life is not covered by the theory of evolution..... if you paid attention in science class you would know this.

Did Grandpa actually cite WND?

The first one, abovetopsecret has "flaws" debunked about 60 years ago -- like "what use is half a wing".

But, for the WND article -- it claims that DNA disagrees with evolution. That was a lie, DNA confirms and provides the STRONGEST evidence for evolution. See pseudogenes, endogenous retroviruses and the fusion of chromosome number 2 in humans, for example.

So, that entire article was wrong, even though it was in a totally insane woo site (in other words, not surprisingly).

Shuklack

Assuming you were addressing me in first of 1.39, Perhaps you misunderstand. I broke it down for you. It isn't so difficult. Think about it. The only proof you have is that I said something you can agree with. So I agree you are correct, you agree I am correct. That is the basis for scientific belief. The fact is, we believe we will die; no concrete evidence exists otherwise. We don't know what happens to us after we die.

I wonder what happens to the part of me that is me after death. I'm not meat, I'm a person. I'm not a brain, I exist in my brain. My eyes don't see, my eyes receive light signals that send other signals to my brain, and my brain tells me what I see. One way to find out is... to die. Unfortunately, the rest of the story fades into happily ever after. It doesn't mean end of the story, it means the rest of the story that hasn't been told, and may never be told.

I think she confuses the layman term 'theory' with the scientific term 'theory'. They are two completely different things. Sort of like comparing apples to oranges. While they are both admittedly, fruit, they are most certainly not the same thing. Just as both use the same word, the meaning is clearly not the same.

Frankly I'm not just disgusted, but very insulted that some Christians seem to think that they have every right to force their religious indoctrination on everyone else's child via public school education. A clear violation of the Constitution's first Amendment and our rights as parents to teach or not teach [the] religion [of our choice] to our children.

Before anyone hops on me for Christian bashing, please keep in mind the following:
1. the only people pushing for ID/Creation fake science are Christians
2. the only ID/Creation being pushed is the Christian version

please also remember I stressed some Christians, not most or all, SOME.

Public school should be a place to learn about facts.
If you want to know more about faith, go to a church.
If you want to combine the two, keep it in private schools, and pay for it yourself!
Stop trying to force religious belief systems on people!

ThisBusyMonster, your post at #1.30 is excellent summation of argument for theory of evolution.

Creationists have poor understanding of how science works. They confuse faith and science. Applying test for faith to science.

You want creationism in schools, promote comparative religion in schools.

The problem with cowboygrandpa is he never comes back to defend his propositions.

I've challenged him on this before. While one can always cherry pick a few scientists, typically religiously influenced, who will speak out against the ToE, the scientific community on a whole is in agreement that evolution is not only a scientific theory, but a scientific fact.

From the National Academy of Science, the best of the best of the best of US scientists -

http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.

promote comparative religion in schools

I'd be against that. With budgets so tight and cutting back of foreign language and honors/AP programs - no way I'm funding comparative religion classes.

If they are that interested, find some other means or wait and take it in college.

Kyle: Well said! Short, sweet, and to the point.

Keeping non-scientific ideas out of a science class is censorship in the same way as telling someone they can't work on a painting in a calculus class.

If it's taking place in a public school, it's also unconstitutional.

At least, that's what I learned about appropriate use of class time and the Separation of Church and State in the eight years I was in Catholic school.

Teaching it [intelligent design]as science is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment establishing your religion.

Giving you a paromology here; then NOT BEING ALLOWED to teach it is a clear violation of the free-exercise clause of the same amendment....Yes????--NO???? So, with the Exercise and/or the Establishment Clauses violated by the very nature of the public school system, just what do morons do all day in the corner they've painted themselves into?

cm2 -

NOT BEING ALLOWED to teach it is a clear violation of the free-exercise clause of the same amendment....

Not in the least. No one is prohibiting you from having your own beliefs or practicing them. There is simply a time and place for everything. You don't have the right to impose upon others' rights. You want to smoke, fine. But there are places when and where it is not appropriate or permitted. Nor do you get to celebrate a nonarranged baptism in the middle of a restaurant floor.

First rule - apply common sense!

One of cowboygrandpa's links mentions Creation Science - that right there shows it's not a scientific site. There is no such thing as creation science.

apply common sense!

Common sense? What is this "Common sense" of which you speak? I've heard rumors...
; )

We really should start calling it Uncommon sense as it seems so rare these days.

What is this "Common sense" of which you speak?

True, the term is rather presumptuous. :)

Scientists claim both beliefs.

No, 'pa, they don't. The ones who hearken to "creationism" are "scientists" (with quotation marks). Sort of like Michelle Bachmann is a "presidential candidate"...

Unless you consider the theory that god used evolution to accomplish such enormous tasks

How is God doing this, then? And what would you use to test your hypothesis? Are there to be fingerprints?

Some try to say you can't prove a negative, but I can, and so can

No, you can't. Prove to me that God doesn't exist. What is the test?

Now, if I ask you to prove the positive, you need to show me the evidence that there is an intelligent being who uniquivocally can be proven to have created all of us, and the gigantic universe we live in.

God is not subject to scientific proof. One way, or the other. Therefore, he is not a logical quantity. You can't make God-based predictions, you can't do science, you can't make God-based technology, and you are just wasting your time. Go on and think happy thoughts about your sky fairy, but don't waste everyone else's time trying to shoehorn your sky fairy into our real world. It just doesn't work.

Of course, the difference here is that evolution is science — creationism and intelligent design are not.

You are correct.... Creationism and i. d. are not science. You are not correct..... Evolution neither, is science. Guess what? SCIENCE IS SCIENCE. Data gathered from the practice of science-based inquiry is compiled, and from the data one determines what he believes about what it means. Without doubt, it clearly confirms what casual non-scientific observation demonstrates; that there is an ongoing assemblage and re-assemblage of matter of living and non-living things. True, unadulterated science however, reveals no clue as to the origin of living things, nor of any ascending order of complexity of living things. Only inquinations from atheistic interpolations into science can give such foolish stories for adults to believe. Science refutes a natural cause for living things. Don't like that? Live with it while you can. For science confirms....dying, you shall die.

Creationism and i. d. are not science. You are not correct..... Evolution neither, is science

Evolution is supported by the Scientific Process of gathering evidence through investigation and forming an educated opinion in the process.

Creationism is based solely on a belief in things unseen.

Evolution is a Scientific Theory. Creationism is a personal belief. Personal beliefs have no place in the teaching of science.

charles, take your meds. What a stream of nonsensical vomit trying its best to sound like a cogent argument.

What a stream of nonsensical vomit trying its best to sound like a cogent argument.

But he used his thesaurus only ONCE (inquinations). THAT is a considerable improvement.

Of course the theory of evolution is not correct. Everything we know about the universe not correct, and it never will be. That is the beauty of science. As long as humans continue to be curious about the world around us, we will discover new things that completely obsolete old ideas and open brand new opportunities for our technological advancement.

Saying, "God did it" is basically giving up on the pursuit of scientific exploration. It's saying that there are forces at play that we can't understand so we are no longer going to try. Civilizations centuries old said the same thing about magnets and lightning, that they were magic forces of God, yet in the last 50 years we have finally been able to understand them to the point where we can build complex computers that fit in the palm of your hand.

Who knows what developments in the study of evoloution will bring. Maybe it will be an obsoleted idea in the near future, but that does not mean it was a mistake. It would only mean that it was a critical bridge to a more correct theory.

Not in the least. No one is prohibiting you from having your own beliefs or practicing them. There is simply a time and place for everything. You don't have the right to impose upon others' rights. You want to smoke, fine. But there are places when and where it is not appropriate or permitted. Nor do you get to celebrate a nonarranged baptism in the middle of a restaurant floor.

First rule - apply common sense!

May you some day be blessed with understanding and applying your first rule.

By the same token, teaching I.D. (which by the way, I don't support) does not prohibit you from having your own beliefs or practicing them, either. So your objection is self-defeating. You apparently choose to enervate the phrase "free exercise..." with poorly construed paralogisms.

When is the appropriate time to teach students that scientific investigation has revealed thus far that nature has no provision for its own existence? That it is mute for an answer to how life arose? That its own axiomatic laws preclude it from being used to explain the cosmos? How about science class???Then with these FACTS clearly established, what would an inquiring mind do with such an acataleptic dilemma? THINK, perhaps about alternatives???? Oh, no!! We cannot have that!! Imagine Free-thinking in secular classrooms. NOOOO NOOOO

Charles.... abiogenesis =/= evolution theory.

What science explains, it explains well. What science currently can't explain, it admits that it can't explain.

"Alternatives" like religious "explanation" is no alternative at all. It's like demanding an answer for an answer's sake, who cares if it's legitimate. Might as well go ask a donkey your unanswered questions and write down the "hees" and the "haws" as your alternatives. They would be essentially as valuable as the religious answers since neither are substantiated by anything other than your personal desire to believe them.

A madman who really believed in the Donkey would have just as much legitimacy claiming that his answers were correct as any religious person.

God of the gaps arguments... sheesh. Fill that gap with whatever you want - but if it's not substantiated with reality and evidence, it aint worth squat.

(ps: you're trying too hard to wrap up your logical fallacies in big words)

Everything we know about the universe not correct, and it never will be.

Ahhh, yes. Directly from the mind of an evolutionist. So much for science. Let's hope one's science acumen is better than such written words. Is there any wonder why evolutionists, then, can believe their own nonsense?

Saying, "God did it" is basically giving up on the pursuit of scientific exploration

Yeah, that's what Faraday, Herschel, Maxwell, Fleming, etc. all did. Right????

I'd much prefer someone show the integrity to admit that they 'don't know' something and striving to find out - rather than making up an answer which attributes it to a supernatural being.

It's a cop out, irrelevant, and pretty much kind of sad.

cm2 -

May you some day be blessed with understanding and applying your first rule.

Sticks and stones may break my bones..., no wait - I'm rubber, you're glue. Everything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.

There, I've come down to your level.

For the rest - I defer to Shuklack since he's already responded.

Ahhh, yes. Directly from the mind of an evolutionist. So much for science. Let's hope one's science acumen is better than such written words. Is there any wonder why evolutionists, then, can believe their own nonsense?

Nonsensical drivel, no matter how cryptic or how many SAT words you use is still nonsensical drivel. If you would like to have a discussion, try posting something that doesn't resemble the scrawl of a ranting lunatic.

Most guys at Pencey just talked about having sexual intercourse with girls all the time – like Ackley, for instance – but old Stradlater really did it. I was personally acquainted with at least two girls he gave the time to. That's the truth.

I really like The Catcher in the Rye. I think it's very scientific. As a matter of fact, I firmly believe that it should be used as a textbook in sex education classes. : P

Oh, that's right, if Michele Bachmann were ever running the show, there wouldn't be any sex education classes, family planning or contraception of any kind—we'd all have come from the cabbage patch. Only problem is, there would be a hell of a lot more postpubescent girls running around with cabbages under their blouses.

Seriously, as far as the absurd controversy involving Darwin's Theory of Evolution and so-called 'intelligent design' is concerned, the mere fact that fundamentalists and evangelical Christians—and untold millions among those who practice Orthodox Judaism and Islam, lest we forget—attempt to reckon time and divine intelligence in terms that are more easily digested if they are based on an allegorical tale and the notion of an anthropomorphic Creator is simply preposterous: a supremely narrow-minded, laughably egocentric bid by the members of a savage and primitive race - a race filled with fear and awe at the inconceivable wonder and the unfathomable mystery of life - to make themselves and their paltry existence the center of attention in a universe which knows no limits.

When it comes to natural selection, I naturally select anyone other than a candidate like Michele Bachmann.

If it's taking place in a public school, it's also unconstitutional.

Sorry, realized that last was written badly. I meant to refer to teaching Creationism/ID is unconstitutional.

Charlesmartel said "Giving you a paromology here; then NOT BEING ALLOWED to teach it is a clear violation of the free-exercise clause of the same amendment....Yes????"

No, it is not. There's a huge difference between being able to say what you think (exercise of free speech) and your employer (the government in this case) having say over how you perform your job. In this case, the employer (government) is specifically prohibited from using its agents (teachers) to teach religion (Intelligent Design/Creationism). That was verified by the Supreme Court in Edwards vs Aguillard (1987)

Though I do thank you for using the term 'paromology'-- I learned a new word today!

I believe the world was created by dinosaurs taking a massive crap out in space. Teach that in schools, or it's censorship. It's what I believe.

Asking to have one religion's view of how the world was created is censorship. These dominionist Christians have no shame whatsoever. Are they as bad as the Taliban, or Al Qaeda? Ya know what, F it, they are. We've killed more people in war that's been vaguely disguised as fighting "Terrorism", when these same people will make no bones about saying that it's Muslims that are at the core of the problem, or at the very LEAST, we're simply there to take oil from Arabs, because we're too afraid to fight the Russians directly for their oil, and don't want to invade Venezuela because they're too close to home.

So we're targeting Arabs/Muslims, and want to go to war with Iran, and it may not seem like it's directly related to Islam, but it is, and also because of their way of life over there. Michele Bachmann is as bad as Ayman Al-Zawahiri. Am I going too far? Nah. I'm done pretending that I'm crossing a line in comparing right wing Christian demi-fascists to the most evil people in the world at the moment. They're just as bad. End.

I wish I could see Bachmann on: Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader.

Of course the theory of evolution is not correct. Everything we know about the universe not correct, and it never will be.

I might have phrased that another way. Perhaps "the theory of evolution is not complete/ our knowledge of the universe is not complete"? Not that I think changing the wording would make any difference to the folks inclined to cherry-pick this idea as support for their ascientific/ anti-scientific arguments...

Looking further up the thread:

there's no way EVOLUTION can result in a Bachman it had to be CREATED

Evolution isn't linear-- there are dead-ends, missteps, repetitions of earlier forms, and plenty of non-advantageous kludgy-ness in the mix. There are plenty of characteristics of human physiology that are not "well designed" from an engineering standpoint...

The most important thing from an evolutionary standpoint is that the organism is adapted to survive in it's environment... and given that Ms. Bachmann's environment is early 21st-century conservative politics, I'd say she's adapted pretty well and fits in just fine from an "evolutionary" perspective.

(Granted, that's sad news for Americans in general...)

The Bible says that God created Man in His own image. So...does that mean that God is an Ape?

Darwin and many others have their own theory about where Man came from. Some say Man evolved from some ancient fish in the ocean. I do not in any way believe that Man evolved from an Ape. Human beings are themselves animals, and I believe that they evolved from their own original state, not evolving from an Ape into another kind of animal form.

I don't believe in Evolution. My own thoughts are that Man did not evolve from the Apes. I say to each their own theory, you believe however you like, whatever you like, just don't try to force me to believe your theory.

To me, there is no real reason to fight over where Man came from, as it is more a curiosity factor. The more important question to me is, where does Man go from here? Does Man seriously seek world peace, does Man continue to seek self-destruction through waging endless wars against each other?

That is a question that does not need any religious or political input, as only Man can answer that question.

Tink -

All your post shows is that you haven't been exposed to much science or you've closed your mind to it.

See post #1.45.

I do not in any way believe that Man evolved from an Ape.

And in that, at least, you'd be correct. Both human and the great apes descend from an earlier form of proto-primate, a "common ancestor" if you will...

Or even if you won't.

The more important question to me is, where does Man go from here? Does Man seriously seek world peace, does Man continue to seek self-destruction through waging endless wars against each other?

One would think that the evolutionary proof that we're all the same under the skin/ no matter what our politics/ no matter where on Earth we live, &c &c, would be something that you would accept as a common starting point in attempting to answer that question.

Man is related to the ape, and I have NO idea why anyone would have a problem with that. Monkeys are frickin' awesome. I can spend HOURS at the zoo with the chimps. If I wasn't aware of their occasionally erratic behavior, I'd get in the cage with 'em.

...and let's not forget the flinging thing!

Human beings are themselves animals, and I believe that they evolved from their own original state, not evolving from an Ape into another kind of animal form.

No evolutionist is arguing otherwise. No one is trying to say that people were once the apes that you see in the zoo. That's just dumb. We evolved from ape-like ancestors that no longer exist today. You're confusing this with the argument that humans and modern-day apes at some point share an ancestor. But the ancestor was neither exactly like a modern-day human nor a modern-day ape.

And if you go back even further, any two creatures share a common ancestor, although you would have to go back much further to find the common ancestor for people and birds than find the common ancestor for people and apes.

It seems like you agree that the "original state" of humans changed over time. Is it that hard to believe that some of that population changed in certain ways to become one creature and some of that population changed in certain ways to become something entirely different?

Extending her argument it's logical end, wouldn't teaching that 2+2 only equals 4 also be censorship? In fact, teaching any fact would be censorship. So by her looney toons argument, schools shouldn't teach anything at all.

If you want to believe you descended from an ape go ahead.

and

I don't believe in Evolution. My own thoughts are that Man did not evolve from the Apes.

The theory isn't that we are descended from apes, but that humans and apes had a more primitive common ancestor millions of years ago. Apes went in one direction, humans went in another and we are now separated by those millions of years of independent evolution.

I challenge anyone who had read Darwin's The Decent of Man or Origin of Species (or other academic text on the subject) to show where he says we are descendants of monkeys or apes. I do not understand how people can say they have a serious objection to something they have never read - only read about from people who claim to represent what these books say.

The Bible says that God created Man in His own image.

And some have said that Man was such a gentleman that he returned the compliment.

If that's literal, I gotta wonder if God has a navel ( if so, who gave birth to Him? ), vestigial nipples, or an appendix?

http://www.scienceprovesit.com/

lol Ok... so, I stopped reading when high on the list of "scientists" was a dentist... and a plastic surgeon. lol

My own personal opinion is that creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive... if done correctly. Using biblical passages to even attempt dating is simply asinine. Most of the original texts are long gone as the church had to "hide the evidence" when translations were actually made. The texts that are left offer little in the way of clues as to how the earth, and all that is in it, was made in six days.

I am a believer.. in both God and science. I believe that the intelligent design WAS evolution. Evolution is simply an organism adapting to it's environment for survival. I believe that life forms on this earth were gifted with that adaptability. Can I prove it? Nope... I can barely explain it. lol (I'm in law not science.) But it helps me make sense of it all so I can sleep at night. :-)

JackOL-1666973 - #1.77

That is just your opinion, and you are welcome to it, as I am to mine. In most cases, science is nothing more than mere theory, a hypotheses, a 'what if' or 'could be'. The only time that Man will truly know where they came from, it when their life ends here on earth. Until then, it is nothing more than guess work, and nothing has been 100 % proven true. Why? Because theories and hypotheses things keep changing as new discoveries are made.

I believe in science in many areas, but, not about Man and where we came from.

And...if you find my posts that offending, please fee free not to read them. I won't be at all offended.

Sog-510945 #1.82 "Is it that hard to believe that some of that population changed in certain ways to become one creature and some of that population changed in certain ways to become something entirely different?"

Yes. I don't believe it. I do believe that Man has evolved from the original state into the modern Man we see today, but, I do not believe that there were a slew of genes that at some point became different creatures, Man being one of them. And there has not been anything that has been found thus far that proves that happened. Even Lucy and others who have been determined to be early ancestors of Man, is still defined as Man, not a conglomerate of one or more creatures that at some point Man peeled off into. But that Man continued to evolve from into more modern forms of Man as we know it today.

Tink, how do you reconcile the molecular evidence shown in DNA?

Just My 2 Coppers - #1.87 - You pretty much sum up a good deal of what I think as well.

I was not put on earth to argue about where I came from. I am here to determine where I will go with my own life, and what I will do with that life, and if I can do things that will can use my life to do things to make the world a better place now, and for the future.

I see no point is wasting time arguing the universe, nor which came first, the chicken or the egg. Or if Adam had a navel. I always wanted to be an archaeologist, to study ancient times and the science of Mankind. But, it is more a curiosity than a belief.

Every time the scientific world thinks they have found the secret to life, another discovery is made that makes what was thought to be fact merely a theory, or less exact that first thought. So, until the day comes that there is 100% proof that one theory is exact, then it is just a game of curiosity and no one really knows for sure. It is all just conjecture as the mystery continues and parts of the puzzle continue to be revealed.

or an appendix?

God had an appendix, it was at the end of the original bible. LOL Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Just My 2 Coppers - "Tink, how do you reconcile the molecular evidence shown in DNA?"

DNA to what? Apes? I have yet to see any DNA that shows that Man did indeed evolve from Apes.

http://www.evolutionnews.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22:evidence-evo&catid=25:the-project&Itemid=30

I believe it is either the chimpanzee or orangutan, actually, that share the closest DNA to humans. The common ancestor is believed to have taken several different paths; apes would not be the "father" of humans... but rather the "brother"... for lack of a better layman explanation. While I do not begin to guess the "why" of my existance, I do believe curiousity is a God-given gift that leads to knowlege. So, to ignore the gift would be in poor taste. :-)

I also believe that the more we know of our own orgins, the better we can understand our own potential. If you truly believe that "we are created in his image," we are far more wonderous than our recent history reveals. We owe it to ourselves and our creator to try and discover just how wonderous we are. :-)

How does one explain the coccyx?

Just My 2 Coppers- "I believe it is either the chimpanzee or orangutan, actually, that share the closest DNA to humans"

But, closest to, is not 'same as.' Apes have many similar human characteristics, like the ability to use their hands similar to humans, but, my cat uses her paws in a similar manner to picking up her food with one of her paw claws and holding up to her mouth to eat. That does not mean Man is related to cats. I agree that there are many animals that have similar human traits or characteristics. But, that does not mean that Man is evolved from them.

"I do believe curiosity is a God-given gift that leads to knowledge"

Cats are also one of the more curious animals, but, that does not mean Man evolved from cats. My cat also uses her paws and claws to pick up her food and hold up to her mouth to eat. That does not mean Man is related to cats because a cat can have a similar human character. The point is....'similar' is not 'the same.'

I don't have anything against anyone wanting to find out more about human history, I am curious myself. But, I do object to people who believe their own theory or idea is the only answer. No one has any real proof of exactly from what, or how Man was originally created. And as more and more information is discovered, the more they find that some of what was once thought to be fact, is merely a theory based upon current information. But, it is not a true fact.

I am all for exploring the universe and our own world, and how things came about. But, I am not for any one group, or person, declaring that their 'facts' or what the believe are totally
irrefutable, as that, thus far, is just not true. All we can do is keep looking, and maybe one day we will find the truth. But, as of today, there is no totally irrefutable proof of any specific origin. What has been found so far are merely clues, that gives some possible connection, but, not irritable proof.

And I am also not for those who think that they have the correct answer berating others who disagree with them. But, the fact is...no one...no one.....really has the answer. It is all conjecture, supposition, theory, or whatever else it might be called. And anyone who says that they know the origin for fact, needs to make that information known to the world so that the rest of the world knows too.

How does one explain the coccyx?

It helps support the weight of sitting on one's behind.

Tink, DNA evidence that man did come from earlier primates :

Fusion of Chromosome number 2

science.kqed.org/quest/2008/05/12/chromosome-fusion-chance-or-design/

www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

Endogenous Retroviruses

darwinsbeagles.wordpress.com/2007/03/14/endogenous-retroviruses-and-human-evolution/

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12876457

godbegone.blogspot.com/2007/10/how-endogenous-retroviruses-prove.html

All of them are objective evidence pointing toward the same overwhelming conclusion -- our evolution from earlier primates. They utterly refute a common-designer and destroy any claims for intelligent design.

Tink -

I revise my previous post.

All your post shows is that you haven't been exposed to much science or you've closed your mind to it science.

JM2C -

I believe that the intelligent design WAS evolution.

The one thing evolution has shown us is that it was NOT intelligent design, but rather a lot of trial and error and numerous missteps. Trying to shoehorn religion in front of science is intellectual fraud.

You call it "intellectual"? Far from it.

I agree that there are many animals that have similar human traits or characteristics. But, that does not mean that Man is evolved from them.

"Other currently-extant primates" has already been covered, Tink. If you read through the posts closely, you'll see that no one has said we are evolved from the chimpanzee, orangutan, or whichever. (Anthropomorphising your cat doesn't even enter into the discussion, unfortunately for your argument...)

Every time the scientific world thinks they have found the secret to life, another discovery is made that makes what was thought to be fact merely a theory, or less exact that first thought.

Again, don't make the mistake of thinking that "theory" as used by the scientific community is the same as "guess". The fact that there is uncertainty does not totally disqualify a scientific theory in the manner that the pundits would have us believe (in this and other fields of study).

In your sentence above, the more appropriate term is "hypothesis", not "theory"... and I don't think there's any great "secret to life" other than "to be lived".

I always wanted to be an archaeologist, to study ancient times and the science of Mankind. But, it is more a curiosity than a belief.

What stopped you? And I'm not sure why you make the "curiosity/ belief" distinction here-- is there some question as to whether or not archaeologists exist? I know a few and have worked with a few others-- was I just imagining it?

to do things to make the world a better place now, and for the future.

Oddly enough, using the scientific evidence of evolution to counter the political uses of faith-based creation stories is, for me, "doing things to make the world a better place".

That is, of course, what this whole argument is about when you get down to the nitty-gritty-- the political utility of a story that says "we are apart from the natural world, a special creation" rather than "we are a part of the natural world". If we are a "special creation", we can define our relationships to others, human or animal, in any way we wish (though that definition usually appears as a narrative of power and dominion). If we are not "created different" but rather "one of many", setting ourselves apart from the natural world and the other creatures therein becomes illogical.

Even Lucy and others who have been determined to be early ancestors of Man, is still defined as Man,

They are all classified as genus Homo, true (until you get far enough back, at least). But it isn't the denotative meaning that you're trying to argue here, is it? It's the connotative meaning, as above-- "Man" in the "thinking, reasoning, just like me and therefore special" mode.

Tink, I agree with the irrefutable part. Scientists entirely agree.

Fortunately, for evolution, it hasn't been successfully refuted -- at all, in over 150 years. It is in complete agreement with each and every other avenue of science involved. All lines of evidence point toward, and converge at the conclusion that evolution is the explanation. Every prediction generated by the theory has been validated (like tiktaalik, lenski-experiment).

I believe in science in many areas, but, not about Man and where we came from.

So just to clarify here.... because there is not 100% in hand physical proof that science / evolution is correct, but there is overwhelming evidence showing it to be correct, you would rather believe in god / creation theory for which there is absolutely zero evidence?

Evolution is like a picture puzzle.... you assemble every piece in the box and get a picture of a forest in front of a mountain range. Now if somebody comes along and takes 5 individual random pieces out of your finished puzzle, do you no longer believe that it is a picture of a forest in front of a mountain range because a few little pieces are missing, or do you say obviously it is because all the pieces you have make that quite clear?

Tink: And I am also not for those who think that they have the correct answer berating others who disagree with them. But, the fact is...

I do not do this. But as others have pointed out, the evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelming... and far greater than the evidence for the alternative.

Jack: The one thing evolution has shown us is that it was NOT intelligent design, but rather a lot of trial and error and numerous missteps. Trying to shoehorn religion in front of science is intellectual fraud.

You forgot to add "IMO" lol - The theory excluding intelligent design in any form works from the supposition that those "missteps" served no purpose. Those who believe in a wedding of the two ideas believe there are no mistakes. However, I fall short of advocating my own opinion be taught in the classroom. I am aware that there is more faith than facts in my belief... which is why I say "belief" rather than "fact." lol And personally? I would never use condescension in an attempt to persuade anyone towards my viewpoint.

> Does Man seriously seek world peace, does Man continue to seek self-destruction through waging endless wars against each other?

Nope. He simply overpopulates the planet like rats in a granary and then dies out to make room for the next species. That's how it's been for 4.5 billion years and how it will be for the next 4.5 billion years or even hundreds of billions more.

You forgot to add "IMO" lol - The theory excluding intelligent design in any form works from the supposition that those "missteps" served no purpose.

It is the opinion of those knowledgeable in the field. Your supposition appears nonsensical on the face of it given some missteps have led to dead ends and extinction.

JM2C -

I am aware that there is more faith than facts in my belief... which is why I say "belief" rather than "fact."

Which allow the scientific community to dismiss your propositions.

Nowhere in the theories of evolution does it say man decended from apes.

I am aware that there is more faith than facts in my belief... which is why I say "belief" rather than "fact."

Which allow the scientific community to dismiss your propositions.

Well, then I can thank my lucky stars I am not trying to sell it to the scientific community... nor am I advocating teaching it in schools ... or anywhere else. Are you, Jack, so blinded in your zeal to bash people over the head that you fail to recognize a member of your own team?

I believe that only proven scientific "theory" (which is an entirely different animal that the word theory would imply") should be taught in schools. However, this does not preclude my right to hold beliefs of my own... regardless of how the "scientific community" (you seem to believe you have a right to speak for) feels about it. Your attempts to belittle those you view as the "other side" do little for your position. In the long run, they render you mute.

Believe in whatever you like, America... including the flying spaghetti monster... simply do not insist those beliefs be taught anywhere outside your own home.

Look folks, I have lived long enough to know that scientists don't always have all the answers. There have been many times, especially, in the field of medicine, when scientists thought they had the answer, but, after many lives were lost due to incorrect information the scientists were willing to bet other people's lives on, they finally found they were wrong and the products were banned or restricted. And medicine is not the only area that science has screwed up big time. So, excuse me that I don't put a whole lot of faith in scientists. And note that I said scientists, not science.

Also, of you read what I wrote in all the thread elsewhere, I don't argue that Man has evolved from an earlier state or origin, just that Man did not evolve from Apes. My reference to what the Bible says is what a lot of people believe to be true, but, I am not totally sure the Bible is 100% correct in all that is in it. I mentioned the part about what the Bible says about God creating Man in his own image, as that is also a widely held theory by many and is just as logical to many as evolution is to others.

But, irregardless, I do not believe Man evolved from Apes. Period. Does that close my mind to that? Yeppers, I guess it does just that. So, mark me a pagan, disbeliever, whatever, but, I take scientists with a grain of salt, and DNA is only as good as its source. As I said, I believe that, like many other species on earth, Man evolved from an original species that was not an Ape of any kind, and has continued to evolve from that original species into the modern form of the human species of today. I also believe that Man will continue to evolve in the future to adjust to the changes in the environment and social conditions where they live, just as they have in the past. One day someone may look back on one of us they just dug up and think that we are the missing link, or their "Lucy."

But, I think that they will be smart enough by then to know that humans did not evolve from Apes, but, from their own original life form.

Now for why I didn't pursue my dream for being an archeologist...simple...there was no money to pay for college, as my parents were merely working class people. My mother was very ill for years and could not work, and there was no medical insurance, and always doctor and hospital bills to pay. So I started to work at age of 12 and gave what money I earned after school and in summer jobs to help out with the living expenses. After graduation from high school I got married, was the thing to do at the time for girls who could not afford to go to college, and six years later found myself a single mother of two small children under the age of 5 and having to go to work and support us all, as my ex moved out of state and paid no child support. There was no time nor money for school. I tried to make sure that my kids could achieve their dreams, but, my son died before he could realize his, and my daughter found someone who she thought could give her a better dream and it cost her her life. So, at the age of 50 I was financially able to afford to go to school part time, and the best I could do to reach part of my dream was to get an Associates degree in Business Management, as it would allow me to earn decent money while I could and prepare for my old age so I can take care of myself and not be a burden to anyone. But, that dream is still there in my heart, and I have studied the history of many of the people of the world and their cultures and society. I had dreamed of going to see the ancient pyramids of Egypt, and studied Egyptology for several years on my own as a young girl. But, that dream is now for another lifetime. But, I enjoy reading, about the ancient world, the history and culture of all American Indian ancestry, and the history of ancient civilizations around the world. The Internet makes that much easier for me now, and a lot more information is available than in just one library.

I'm simply just not a big fan of scientists. Science has its pluses and minuses, its facts and fictions, and some pretty wide margins of error in some areas that I have seen over my lifetime, and I multiply that times the many years before me, and how many of the 'facts' of scientists have been proven wrong, some many years after they were first made known, and at the cost of many human lives.

Anyway...this is my thinking, my thoughts and views on the subject. Some of you don't agree, and that is fine, as I don't agree with your opinions or ideas. :-) But, we all have the right to 'voice' our opinions and thoughts, feelings and ideas. None of us will convince the other, but, it makes for open discussion when both are willing to allow the other side to have the right to express their own opinion, regardless as to whether or not we agree. Having open discussion with free exchange of information is how people learn. And I always learn something from most every topic when civil discourse and debate is allowed.

Just My 2 Coppers - Believe in whatever you like, America... including the flying spaghetti monster... simply do not insist those beliefs be taught anywhere outside your own home.
And that I agree with. Like religion, I believe it is the right of each person to decide for themselves what they want to believe. Each family has the right to teach their own kids the values they think are important, and the kids can then make up their own minds about the validity of those values when they are old enough to understand the facts and decided for themselves.

Whether or not I agree with it or not, they have no right to force their own values, opinions and beliefs down the throat of children of others just because that is what they and their group of believers think is true. They can teach it to their own children in their own home, and leave other people the right to do the same.

Tink, ah, so you don't care about evidence.

You asked for evidence and then you say "oh well, it's less believable than the bible"...

The bible was full of errors, and NONE of the extraordinary claims therein have any evidentiary proof. Science, on the other hand has proved to be far more reliable.

There have been many times, especially, in the field of medicine, when scientists thought they had the answer, but, after many lives were lost due to incorrect information the scientists were willing to bet other people's lives on, they finally found they were wrong and the products were banned or restricted.

I've never heard of any scientist claiming to have all the answers when it came to medicine (or really anything, for that matter). Would you care to cite any sources?

I mentioned the part about what the Bible says about God creating Man in his own image, as that is also a widely held theory by many

Calling that a theory in regards to science is a major slap in the face to anyone with even a shred of intellectual integrity. It's not a theory, it could be more accurately referred to as a myth.

and is just as logical to many as evolution is to others.

Logic is a kind of math. If something appears to be more logical than something else, that doesn't mean that it is. Logic is not something that varies from person to person.

But, I think that they will be smart enough by then to know that humans did not evolve from Apes, but, from their own original life form.

You keep repeating that, but it's not clear what you even mean. Are you trying to say that man's evolution has been completely linear, and our ancestors have not had any branching paths of evolution? That is to say, that man has no relations to apes or any other animals whatsoever?

Science has its pluses and minuses, its facts and fictions, and some pretty wide margins of error in some areas that I have seen over my lifetime

It's pretty difficult to simply disregard the validity of science on such a vague and personal complaint. Especially given its overwhelmingly positive track record. If you had a specific complaint dealing with a specific scientific theory that you could back up with evidence, maybe it would be easier to take your skepticism more seriously.

None of us will convince the other

I could not disagree more. If it weren't for some of the logical arguments offered by atheists, and the pitifully poor arguments offered by theists, I'd still be a Christian. You might think that what you say will have no real effect on someone but it's very possible that it will.

I've never heard of any scientist claiming to have all the answers

Neither have I, so what?

Calling that a theory in regards to science is a major slap in the face

It is a theory, how's your face now?

Logic is not math:

Wikipiedia on Logic

Logic is used in most intellectual activities, but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics,semantics, and computer science.

man has no relations to apes

correct!

back up with evidence

something you agree with

I could not disagree more.

my bad :-)

Marquis de Laffayette - Look fella.....I am entitled to my opinions and views the same as you and everyone else. I am not here to be your or anyone else's whipping boy/girl to try and make yourself look like some expert, so get off your high horse and stop trying to belittle me. I stated my thoughts and opinions, and unlike some here, are presented with no attempts to make myself out an expert.

They are my thoughts and opinions on this topic and I have not presented them as anything else, and as such, I can express them here as I please according to the CoH. So if you don't agree with me fine, and if you don't like my thoughts and opinions then do us both a favor and just don't read them, as I won't be reading yours.

Your tactics, and others like you who simply can not stand to have someone express their own thoughts and opinions that differ from your, so you settle for trying to belittle and demean them in an attempt to demonstrate how superior your knowledge is to everyone else.

And as they are my thoughts and opinions, I don't need to explain Jack to you or anyone else, or provide you with anything other than my own thoughts and opinions.

So.....that is as far as I am going here, and thanks to you and Chirmly for spoiling what might have been a fairly nice discussion by trying to take ownership of my thoughts and opinions in order to try and make me see things your way. I am not A GOPTeaBag supporter.

Tink -

I am entitled to my opinions and views the same as you and everyone else.

True, but if you go on a public forum and profess beliefs which are ridiculous, you had better prepare for the expected responses.

I stated my thoughts and opinions,

And many replied with thoughtful responses. You answered them with vague oh I believe this and that drivel.

They are my thoughts...

And now you are simply ranting.

and thanks to you and Chirmly for spoiling what might have been a fairly nice discussion

Seriously? All he has done was to present a cogent, scientific argument. When he does, you retreat to telling stories from an ancient book and your beliefs.

Yes, you can believe what you want, but nothing you say with regards to stories in the bible impacts the scientifc truth that our earth is ~4.6 billion years old, life started from inorganic materials, humans evolved from ancient hominids, and that all life is part of the evolutionary process.

You can't dismiss the millions upon millions of pieces of evidence to support the scientific theories simply by opening your book written by ignorant and superstitious Bronze Age man and pointing to some chapter and verse.

> Look folks, I have lived long enough to know that scientists don't always have all the answers.

At least science is looking for the answer and when wrong admits it. That's what science is. In religion we go on mistaken for thousands of years even after the answer is obvious.

man has no relations to apes

we are primates, so are apes.

Even if you don't see us as having come from the same source originally as what apes have become today, if you think there's no relation between man and ape, you're just categorically wrong.

Look.. technically, we do come from apes in the same way as we come from mammals.

We are apes because we are in the super-family hominidae. If, by ape, you mean gorilla, then correct, we do not come from them. We would, in that case, share ancestry.

"We are not apes." Read Desmond Morris, The Naked Ape. I would also suggest his The Human Zoo.

Samenslow, we are apes.

Look up the definition of the scientific hominidae OR wiki the term APES.

"Hominoidea contains two families of living (extant) species:

• Hylobatidae consists of four genera and sixteen species of gibbon, including the lar gibbon and the siamang. They are commonly referred to as lesser apes.
• Hominidae consists of orangutans, gorillas, common chimpanzees, bonobos and humans. Alternatively, the hominidae family are collectively described as the great apes."

Try reading the sources I sited, and you will find we are talking two different things. You are correct that nowhere in the literature of evolution (scientific) is it even suggested we are descended from apes as I have previously posted. The closest it come is "ape like creatures" which is more descriptive of appearance than a zoological classification. Morris is a zoologist and his focus is more on behavior. We are not as special or different as we like to believe.

Samenslow -

"ape like creatures"

Everything I've seen indicates Chirmly is correct. Perhaps you are referring to the term hominids. As Chirmly points out, those are also referred to as apes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Divergence_of_the_human_lineage_from_other_Great_Apes

Divergence of the human lineage from other Great Apes

And back and forth and round and round we go...

So, anti-ape folks, what's the big deal? What's so bad about being a member of the primate family anyway? Does it really change anything substantive about who you are or how you live your life?