2/3rds of Americans want creationism taught.

You're right randman. Public opinion should dictate what is taught in schools. In fact, Public Opinion should dictate everything, on all levels!Let's let the public decide what operations and drugs are to be used in hospitals, those closed minded doctors never listen to the people. Let's let the public decide on building codes, with no interference from those pesky structural engineers. Let's let the public lay out the power grid, let's let them dictate how the city sewage system will work. Let's let the public run the air traffic control system. Let's let the public dictate what equipment police should have and what they should be taught in police academy. Let's let the public establish the safety standards for automobiles. Let public opinion dictate what foods the FDA allows to pass.The public has no voice in any of these matters, nor should they! They vote on elected officials that in turn hire EXPERTS in the given field to manage it. If a power grid needs to be laid out, the people vote for the county commissioner who in turn puts someone in charge of hiring a skilled civil engineer to work with a reputable power company to design a stable/efficient grid. Likewise, we vote for a competent school administrator who in turn hires competent principals that hire competent teachers who TEACH the prevailing SCIENCE of the day. That's what they go to school for randman! Just like the civil engineer! These people spend their lives dedicated to their craft and as such, will ALLWAYS know more than the public at large about the given issue.The statistic as given (if valid) is only an affirmation of the above. Thank goodness the public dosn't have say in every institution, nothing would work.Your stance is asinine.ABE: To further support my above statements, as well as to respond to a previous randman post: That's right! We live in a republic! What does this mean? Yep, we elect officers and representatives to make choices for us. We don't tell them what to do directly.This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-31-2005 07:13 AM

So, how come it's only the biological science community that is involved in some sort of suppresive conspiracy surrounding Evolution?I mean, why aren't any othe fields of science being accused of such actions. Why isn't there a global conspiracy of indoctrinated physisits, doctors, etc.? Why aren't any other fields of science being accused of deception, and suppression of knowledge?It seems so obvious that this whole "Creation Science" thing is nothing more than a bunch of insecure christians having their ignorance rubbed off. Sorry guys, the truth hurts, we came from a common ancestor, deal with it.

Kinda like the Miocene Humans thread. He forgot about that one REAL quick

That's a good point randman. We should post some infor on who/what/where to donate.

Ya, again. Appealing to the majority. You simply don't even considder that there are much deeper reasons for the given taxonomy, if you don't like it, that's fine. Your arguing from ignorance/disbelife.I find it telling that you didn't even bother to answer my ON TOPIC post at:http://EvC Forum: 2/3rds of Americans want creationism taught. -->EvC Forum: 2/3rds of Americans want creationism taught.

I linked to it. It was Message 23 MSG. 23I appologize in advance if you missed it.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 08-31-2005 08:44 PM

And why is this? The same reason that we would howl if we elected a surgeon general who proposed that bloodletting and leaches are a panacea for all aiglments. It's bunk.Promoting a bunk, unsupported theory, is the halmark of incompetance. And we would do right to howl at such a school board administrator.Fact is, THERE ARE NO EXPERTS WHO PROMOTE ID/CREATION. None. No one. Nadie. Zilch.No respectable scientist belives in ID/CRAETION.Now, you can go into an evil evolutionist conspiracy theory, but if you do that, I would like to you to address my other post as well. Where I said: So ya, how come?This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-31-2005 11:10 PM

Well. This could be a very loaded question depending how you take it.Frome a philosophical/existential perspective the question of WHAT is truth is one of those ultimate unsolvables. So let's not go there I define truth as what I can deduce/induce from data, present in my environment, and gathered thrugh one of my five senses. Note, this does not require direct observation since two primary processes of logic (deduction and induction) are present in the deffinition.Anyhow, on to your question:Yes, we did come from a common ancestor. We can say this with a great degree of certainty. The same genetic tests that can link a killer to a crime, or prove that someone is your long lost daughter, can also link us to those animals in the animal kingdom we are more closely related too. As it so happens, we are more closely related to the great apes.Now, this is all well and good all by it'self, untill you take into account the fact that DNA evidence only began to be widely used about 15-20 years ago. Long before 15-20 years ago, comperative anatomy, fossil evidence, radiometric dating, etc. led us to the SAME conclusion! The implacations are outstanding! DNA corroborates traditional biological sciences used to determine liniage, thereby bolstering it all the more.These are some key points that have personaly been very persuasive to me, however this site it'self is a testament to the VOLUMES of data on the subject. And there is much MUCH more to modern biology than what I have posted. This is why people go to school to get Phd's in this stuff.

I'm glad your brought this up.1 - Can you name ONE (1) practicing ID/CREATION scientist. That is involved in actually performing SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS/STUDIES related to his field.2 - This scientist must be qualiefied in a life science. Such as: Biology, Zoology, or Genetics.3 - Bet you this person, if he does exist, has a degree from Patriot university

There is not such thing as "undeniable fact". You can deny any fact you like As CK said, truth=Observation, at least when it comes to science. So, why would we share the same Junk DNA and tracers for Endogenus Retrovirii?SLOT88 Situs Judi Slot Online Terpercaya No 1 di Indonesia Esentialy an ERV is an RNA virus that after infecting a host leaves a semi-random signiature in the hosts DNA. That is, it slightly alters the DNA. We can detect these markers when sequencing a genome.Now, keep in mind, these markers are unique (no two ERV infections leave the same tracer) and only travel down a family line. So if you get an ERV, your offspring down the line will have those slight modifications to their DNA. None before.Now, why do we have many of the same ERV tracers that chimps do? Answer, we are related to a common ancestor.Further, what we call Junk DNA, is sort of a missnomor. Think of it as ancestral DNA. For example, chickens, which are related to dinosaurs, posess the genes to make scales. Yet, that gene is modified for feathers. Yet, scientists have been able to tweek the DNA to produce chickens with scales insted of feathers!I can't seem to dredge up the link at athe moment. But if I find it, I can show you some pretty cool pics of chickens that grew scales vs. feathers. Proof in so much that it points heavely in that direction! How else would you suggest that everything is so similar?... Oh, let me guess... a Common designer.Do you have any other proposals that dosn't involve an invisible magic man in the sky? Nothing PROVES anything with %100 certainty. But, the evidence does seem to lead to that conclusion. Why else would things be the way they are? Can you offer another, valid, naturalistic, explanation?This message has been edited by Yaro, 09-01-2005 08:15 AM

I think this is a very good question. And to be honest, I am not 100% sure on this one either However, my current possition reads something like this:I think all truths, emotional, spiritual, etc. can be boiled down to a naturalistic, physical component. There are neurons involved, sensual stimuli, etc. Since this is the case, all percived "truth" is naturalistic, i.e. it is dependent on phisical reality.Now, does that make these things less valuable? No, if anything it makes them MORE valuble. Because these things are tied to the same, fragile, ephemeral reality we experience every day.So, yes, I think all explanations/truths have to rely on phisical reality.

No actually.Mathmatical truth is reliant on the nature of physical reality. It does this two fold.1- Mathmatics is an idealized abstraction based on physical facts. We have a concept of addition, because we can readely see that if we put two apples together, we get more apples. In this case, 1 is an abstratct unit, + would be the verb/action which brings the two units together, = would be the result of the action.Infact, much of the first math (Euclidian geometry) dealt with measuring shapes etc. on an abstract level. There was no other math BUT geometry at the time, and sophisticated algebraic principals were expressed soley thrugh geometric means. Infact, the name, geometry means "World Measure".2 - The second reason Math is realiant on phyiscal reality, is because it is solely a function of the human mind. It is a tool created by man in order to enhance his logical faculty.

I'm not denying that this could very well be the case. However, that higher math has it's roots in the physical universe somewhere down the line. Even modern calculus is descended in no small part from Euclid.There is nothing about saying that math is rooted in the physical universe to deny the possibility that math can predict things before observation. Or indeed, direct our observation to interesting predictions.Math is a logical abstraction, and as such, can be used as a tool for deduction. Something like:If X and B, then C must follow.This message has been edited by Yaro, 09-01-2005 09:48 AM

Seems like this one is going the way of the Micene Human thread, which still hasn't been replied to since I bumped it. Figures.

Good link Modulous. It's also pretty straight forward coming from Nature. I had a more "laymen oriented" article from somewhere that actually had pictures of a chicken foot they made sprout feathers, and another area that had patches of scales.