Yea! Texas saved from teh stoopid????

[TW]

I read everything he posted. He didn't bother to read the link I posted, choosing to sluff it off because it wasn't written by someone who totally disagreed with me. So, who has the blinders on? You two do, obviously.

I say it again. Based on scientific information (as referenced in the link I posted), there's every reason to offer creationism as an alternate to evolution without a God, when teaching.

[thegreenmeanie]

I read your link. Not all of it, but I skimmed it, and it is still a right wing source. What you fail to understand is there being a creator (a God) is not testable by science. We have said that to you through out this whole thing and all you have ever comeback with is talking about Jefferson and Lincoln in moot history examples. You have labeled us atheists, telling us we are trying to destroy religion, and implied that we look down on you because you are religious.

What you haven't done is show me how science can test religion and faith. So how can it? If there is a test for it bring it into a science class. Since there isn't one you cannot, because it doesn't belong there. Throughout this whole thing I never said i was against it being taught, but it should be taught in the appropriate areas, and since once again you can't prove faith, and an existence of a God it can't be talked about in a scientific based classroom.

Now like you have said that doesn't mean it proves there isn't one. But skepticism alone does not equal science. There are a lot of things we do not know about Evolution and it is still a theory, not a truth, but it is a complex theory and you are never going to disprove evolution. It is the best thing we have to explain something that has happened. However there will always be changes to it as we learn more and more. You can bring up areas of it and argue it and many people do, but you can not say evolution doesn't exist.

That was the whole point of this TW. I know you know science. What I don't know 100% is if you know the requirements for the field to keep its credibility. If you can't test something there is no reason to be discussing it in a biology class. No text book when they talk about the theory of evolution has ever said this means there is no God.

The ending solution is have your kids attend a world religious course, have them go a religious school where they can focus more on your particular view, teach them yourself, have them go to a Sunday school. All those things are perfectly acceptable and I would never stand in your way to do that.

[firemancheesehead]

OK TW, here's what I know is wrong with that page you posted

"The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution"

This is 100% false and an outright lie. There are transitional fossils and more are beig found all the time.
scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/ventastega.php
scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/tiktaalik_makes_another_gap.php

A lot of the data used in the article is over 30 years old. A lot has happened since then.

There is a quote in your link that states
"Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." Grasse pointed out that bacteria which are the subject of study of many geneticists and molecular biologists are organisms which produce the most mutants."

Then, there is the truth...
scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2008/02/the_shy_fragile_face_of_id.php
[Gauger] was then prompted by one of her colleagues to regale us with some new experimental finds. She gave what amounted to a second presentation, during which she discussed "leaky growth," in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner said, "So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?" at which point the moderator halted questioning. We shuffled off for a coffee break with the admission hanging in the air that natural processes could not only produce new information, they could produce beneficial new information.

There are several quotes taken out of context and several quotes that are made up using bits and pieces of other quotes.

The page still uses "irreducible complexity" This was shot full of holes during the
Kitzmiller v Dover School Board trial.


In fact, the very bacterial flagellum that is used as 'proof' of irreducible complexity, has been shown to function very well when parts are removed.
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html


And then, lets not forget that the ID camp lies. They lies so bad they got sued by HARVARD!! Yep, they lie and lie some more. The lie some more. Then, they violate copyright rules.

And all the while, using these lies to attack science and evolutionary science. If you cannot win with facts, then lie your ass off.
scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/eppur_si_muove.php

pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/11/diexpelled-for.html

scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/about_that_cell_video_in_expel.php



And then, another stake in the heart of those creotards and IDiots...

They love to use the Miller-Urey experiment. How it failed...but did it???
scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/old_scientists_never_clean_out.php
In 1953, Miller reported the recovery of five amino acids from his experiment. The reanalysis found twenty two amino acids and five amines in the vials. He was more successful than he knew!


I could go, but you get the point. Creationists lie. The lie through their teeth.

Creationism and ID are NOT science!