OT: Do you believe modern humans descended from a lower life form?(poll)

[potaetoes]

Originally posted by fancynapkin Actually it is taught in a historical context, but no one accepts it. That doesnt mean schools shouldnt make mention of it.

 

 

come on, you know what i meant. but, since your intention clearly is to be a pest rather than participate constructively to a discussion, i'll elaborate.

 

should they include geocentrism as a current, acceptable alternative when teaching astronomy?

[Purplexi]

It's not a matter of belief where painstkingly acquired,factual scientific fact is concerned vs. Judean/Greco history.Even as a Christian you'd have to get on board the empirical finding's train if your job was determining the origin of primate bone development.Especially in relation to the time based(estsblished)soil depth location.If you wish to remain faith based in your belief,fine but don't render an opinion based on denial in the face of internationally recognized,professional achaeological and astrological discovery.Mmmkay?

[DeathMonkey]

Originally posted by fancynapkin Apparently your the one who cant read, last I checked, teaching creationism in public schools was banned by the supreme court in 1987. But of course this wont emulliate your delusions that christians are hurting education. Teachers cant even say "Jesus" in class without having a lawsuit thrown at them.

 

 

 

I was wondering when the other half of the goat{censored}ing moron twins was going to show up.

 

 

Get your facts straight, idiot child.

 

 

 

THE FACTS ABOUT SCHOOL PRAYER:

 

1) It is not against the law for students to pray in public school.

 

2) It is not against the law for teachers to pray in public school.

 

3) No one has "taken prayer out of school."

 

4) No one wants to "take prayer out of school."

 

5) No one will ever "take prayer out of school."

 

6) It is fundamentally impossible to "take prayer out of school."

 

7) The United States Constitution protects every student's right to pray in school.

 

8) The United States Constitution protects every teacher's right to pray in school.

 

9) The government has never violated a student's Constitutionally-recognized right to pray in school.

 

10) The government has never violated a teacher's Constitutionally-recognized right to pray in school.

 

11) A student may pray in school whenever she or he wishes.

 

12) A teacher may pray in school whenever she or he wishes.

 

13) Millions of students and teachers currently pray in public schools every school day; no law says they may not; no law says they must cease praying.

 

14) The right of anyone and everyone to pray in school not only still exists, but is not in any way in danger of being revoked, unrecognized, or otherwise annulled.

 

The above are the facts as they currently exist (Monday, July 12, 2004) in the United States Public School System. (Indeed, there is every reason to think that this will continue to be the case for a very, very long time.) If anyone tells you that the above facts are wrong, that person is lying to you or is mistaken.

 

Some people will claim that "Prayer was removed from public school" by the United States Supreme Court (in July of the year +1,963 GC): that is a false and absurd claim. The decision of Murray v. Curlett did no such thing; the High Court's decision in Abington v. Schempp (heard at the same time) did no such thing; the Court specifically recognized, defended, and affirmed a student's right to pray in school. (See 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560. Number 119, Argued Feb. 27, 1963 Decided June 17, 1963, Justice Clark concurring SECTION FOUR.) If anyone tells you otherwise, that person is either lying or mistaken.

 

No law, no legislation, no Act, has been put in place to make it against the law for people to pray in public school; no such law is being considered; no one is trying to enact such law. If anyone tells you otherwise, that person is lying or mistaken.

 

 

 

More info:

http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=resources_brochure_schoolprayer

 

This is exactly what I am talking about. {censored}ing idiots who take every pundit and propagandist at their word, spreading lies and misinformation. With potential for misuse of vast communication networks such as teh intarwebs, developing a populace that is media savvy, and engages in critical thinking and personal research is paramount.

 

THIS is the war on education - not just inserting Christian mythos as fact, but an entire dumbing down of free thinking and postive skepticism. Using the language of critical thinking and sophistry to support fairy tales is what we are talking about here. Faith is and needs to remain a personal choice. Enforcing religious views and perspective as if they were science and had been proven as rigorously as science is the Great Lie.

 

We teach Christian (and other) mythos in school all the time - in Literature, in Art, in Music, in Comparative Religion, in Sociology, in History. Trust me, Jesus is well represented in Public School. including plenty of Christian Youth groups and Worship Clubs freely encouraged across the Nation.

 

The sense of entitlement and greed evidenced by dip{censored}s like the whiny ass "War on Christians" is staggering - "we used to control everything, and now we only control 85% - we're oppressed!" - same lack of perspective as the "reverse racism" crowd. It is all based on non-logic, emotional Hallmark bull{censored}, surface information, and propaganda so tissue thin anyone with a Google toolbar SHOULD find it laughable.

[fancynapkin]

Originally posted by potaetoes come on, you know what i meant. but, since your intention clearly is to be a pest rather than participate constructively to a discussion, i'll elaborate. should they include geocentrism as a current, acceptable alternative when teaching astronomy?

 

 

no of course not. but when intelligent design is rapidly mentioned in some areas, might as well talk about it. If its as flawed as people say it is, then people shouldnt have a problem ignoring it.

 

BTW that article about kansas was old:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/02/kansasevolution.ap/index.html?section=cnn_allpolitics

[adiohead]

if only religion was banned....if only

[fancynapkin]

Originally posted by DeathMonkey I was wondering when the other half of the goat{censored}ing moron twins was going to show up. Get your facts straight, idiot child. THE FACTS ABOUT SCHOOL PRAYER: 1) It is not against the law for students to pray in public school. 2) It is not against the law for teachers to pray in public school. 3) No one has "taken prayer out of school." 4) No one wants to "take prayer out of school." 5) No one will ever "take prayer out of school." 6) It is fundamentally impossible to "take prayer out of school." 7) The United States Constitution protects every student's right to pray in school. 8) The United States Constitution protects every teacher's right to pray in school. 9) The government has never violated a student's Constitutionally-recognized right to pray in school. 10) The government has never violated a teacher's Constitutionally-recognized right to pray in school. 11) A student may pray in school whenever she or he wishes. 12) A teacher may pray in school whenever she or he wishes. 13) Millions of students and teachers currently pray in public schools every school day; no law says they may not; no law says they must cease praying. 14) The right of anyone and everyone to pray in school not only still exists, but is not in any way in danger of being revoked, unrecognized, or otherwise annulled. The above are the facts as they currently exist (Monday, July 12, 2004) in the United States Public School System. (Indeed, there is every reason to think that this will continue to be the case for a very, very long time.) If anyone tells you that the above facts are wrong, that person is lying to you or is mistaken. Some people will claim that "Prayer was removed from public school" by the United States Supreme Court (in July of the year +1,963 GC): that is a false and absurd claim. The decision of Murray v. Curlett did no such thing; the High Court's decision in Abington v. Schempp (heard at the same time) did no such thing; the Court specifically recognized, defended, and affirmed a student's right to pray in school. (See 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560. Number 119, Argued Feb. 27, 1963 Decided June 17, 1963, Justice Clark concurring SECTION FOUR.) If anyone tells you otherwise, that person is either lying or mistaken. No law, no legislation, no Act, has been put in place to make it against the law for people to pray in public school; no such law is being considered; no one is trying to enact such law. If anyone tells you otherwise, that person is lying or mistaken. More info: http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=resources_brochure_schoolprayer This is exactly what I am talking about. {censored}ing idiots who take every pundit and propagandist at their word, spreading lies and misinformation. With potential for misuse of vast communication networks such as teh intarwebs, developing a populace that is media savvy, and engages in critical thinking and personal research is paramount. THIS is the war on education - not just inserting Christian mythos as fact, but an entire dumbing down of free thinking and postive skepticism. Using the language of critical thinking and sophistry to support fairy tales is what we are talking about here. Faith is and needs to remain a personal choice. Enforcing religious views and perspective as if they were science and had been proven as rigorously as science is the Great Lie. .

 

 

 

Dude, allowing people to pray freely in school is GOOD.

 

Its called freedom of religion you moron, move to china or cuba if you dont want that. Letting people pray in school doesnt harm education, its a {censored}ing god given right, and not to mention in our constitution. School sponsored prayer is entirely different, but methinks you cant tell a difference.

 

 

"In the U.S., staff-sanctioned prayer in public schools was effectively outlawed by two landmark Supreme Court decisions: Engel v. Vitale [1962] and Abington School District v. Schempp [1963]. Following these two landmark cases came the Court's decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman [1971]. This ruling established the so-called "Lemon test" which states that in order to be constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment any practice sponsored within public schools must: 1) have a secular purpose, 2) must neither advance nor inhibit religion, and 3) must not result in an excessive entanglement between government and religion."

 

 

 

To bad your little rant is totally bunk unless we lived in the 1900's. Kansas allowing a differing theory taught in schools is NOT the downfall of mankind as you so humbly make it look like.

 

Take your communist bull{censored} elsewhere. {censored} you.

 

 

[potaetoes]

Originally posted by fancynapkin no of course not. but when intelligent design is rapidly mentioned in some areas, might as well talk about it. If its as flawed as people say it is, then people shouldnt have a problem ignoring it.

 

 

so you're ok with ID being presented as a bogus idea in classrooms, just like geocentrism?

[Nutter]

Originally posted by Echoes The scientists are using the wrong measuring device ie: "scientific method" which studies, measures and contemplates the results of the physical and natural world (as already in existence... )...makes about as much sense as actor Martin Sheen giving political advice:confused: ...

Oh and you have a better alternative to measuring the world around us? Let's hear it! I'm sure you'd get a Nobel prize! Write a paper even! Or are you the type to just sit there and do absolutely nothing except spout bull{censored} about how "useless" scientists are.

[fancynapkin]

Originally posted by potaetoes so you're ok with ID being presented as a bogus idea in classrooms, just like geocentrism?

 

 

They should be presented as differing, less accepted theories (if presented at all). geocentrism is much different, as no one accepts it, there for its taught for historical reasons (as creationism should be)

[Echoes]

Originally posted by adiohead

HEY!!!! That's my Bible!!!!!!! where'd ya find it!

[adiohead]

Originally posted by Echoes HEY!!!! That's my Bible!!!!!!! where'd ya find it!

lol, i think there's a typo in the title...it's missing an "is"

[Darkburst]

WOW, was this posted yet? I haven't gone through and read every post.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/08/14/science/sciencespecial2/20050815_EVO_GRAPHIC.html

[adiohead]

Originally posted by Darkburst WOW, was this posted yet? I haven't gone through and read every post. http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/08/14/science/sciencespecial2/20050815_EVO_GRAPHIC.html

 

 

interesting!

[fancynapkin]

Originally posted by Darkburst WOW, was this posted yet? I haven't gone through and read every post. http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/08/14/science/sciencespecial2/20050815_EVO_GRAPHIC.html

 

 

sure, but ask todays highschoolers and the numbers will be drastically different for the US.

[Echoes]

Originally posted by telephant I dont get it. So what are the bones from? They're clearly not Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

here ya go.....

Neanderthal-to-Human Link Severed
Fazale R. Rana, Ph.D.

Over the last five years, astonishing advances in ancient-DNA analysis have provided remarkable insight into Neanderthal genetics. As a result, the evolutionary connection between humans and Neanderthals has been severed. In other words, evolutionary biologists no longer think of Neanderthals as a transitional species linking the primitive bipedal primates, such as Homo erectus, to modern humans.

This stunning conclusion comes from analysis of mitochondrial DNA recovered and sequenced from Neanderthal remains.1 DNA sequencing refers to the process of determining the exact order of the chemical building blocks (bases A, T, C, and G) that comprise DNA strands. The average percent and locations of the differences between Neanderthal and human DNA sequences indicate that Neanderthals did not evolve into humans.

Researchers conducted the first studies on three distinct specimens that date between 30,000 and possibly 100,000 years in age, from three locations in the Neanderthal

[potaetoes]

Originally posted by fancynapkin They should be presented as differing, less accepted theories (if presented at all). geocentrism is much different, as no one accepts it, there for its taught for historical reasons (as creationism should be)

okay, i guess if zero acceptance is less than acceptance, then it's "less accepted"

[Corso2]

The world is only 6000 years old, blasphemer.

[fancynapkin]

Originally posted by potaetoes okay, i guess if zero acceptance is less than acceptance, then it's "less accepted"

If no one accepted intell. design, then we wouldnt be having this conversation.

[17 Tubes]

Originally posted by potaetoes come on, you know what i meant. but, since your intention clearly is to be a pest rather than participate constructively to a discussion, i'll elaborate. should they include geocentrism as a current, acceptable alternative when teaching astronomy?

Ah...potaetoes!


I knew you were cool. Sometimes we get caught up in this internet discussionthing, and just argue for the sake of it. We COULD know what people really mean, but we get narrow-minded, tunnel visioned.


I'm glad that you recognized that someone really COULD know what you mean, if they would leave their agenda and pestulant intent alone.


(yeah, I think I made that up...."pestulant". But you know what I mean! )

[Chaotic]

Originally posted by Echoes here ya go..... Neanderthal-to-Human Link Severed Fazale R. Rana, Ph.D. Over the last five years, astonishing advances in ancient-DNA analysis have provided remarkable insight into Neanderthal genetics. As a result, the evolutionary connection between humans and Neanderthals has been severed. In other words, evolutionary biologists no longer think of Neanderthals as a transitional species linking the primitive bipedal primates, such as Homo erectus, to modern humans. This stunning conclusion comes from analysis of mitochondrial DNA recovered and sequenced from Neanderthal remains.1 DNA sequencing refers to the process of determining the exact order of the chemical building blocks (bases A, T, C, and G) that comprise DNA strands. The average percent and locations of the differences between Neanderthal and human DNA sequences indicate that Neanderthals did not evolve into humans. Researchers conducted the first studies on three distinct specimens that date between 30,000 and possibly 100,000 years in age, from three locations in the Neanderthal*s range (Germany, Russia, and Croatia). The DNA sequences obtained for all three Neanderthal specimens display remarkable agreement with one another. In fact, the DNA sequences vary by only about 3.7%. This sequence diversity compares favorably to that measured for modern humans (3.4%). Such similarity within the species, but dissimilarity between the species, indicates that these animals did not make any genetic (hence, evolutionary) contribution to modern humans. More recently, scientists have isolated, amplified, and sequenced mitochondrial DNA for two more Neanderthal specimens. The specimens were recovered from new excavations of Feldhofer cave deposits*the location in the Neander Valley, Germany, where Neanderthal remains were first discovered.2 The DNA sequences of these two newly discovered specimens closely agree with those obtained for the three earlier studies and fall within the parameters for Neanderthal genetic diversity. Ancient-DNA analysis makes many scientists uneasy, since contamination can readily creep in during the isolation and amplification processes. This wariness, however, can be confidently dispelled for the Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA sequences since independent research teams have generated consistent results for five different specimens. The conclusion is undeniable: Neanderthals did not give rise to modern humans. References: Matthias Krings et al., "Neanderthal DNA Sequences and the Origin of Modern Humans," Cell 90 (1997): 19-30; Matthias Krings et al., "DNA Sequence of the Mitochondrial Hypervariable Region II from the Neanderthal Type Specimen," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 96 (1999): 5581-85; Igor V. Ovchinnikov et al., "Molecular Analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the Northern Caucasus," Nature 404 (2000): 490-93; Matthias Krings et al., "A View of Neanderthal Genetic Diversity," Nature Genetics 26 (2000): 144-46. Ralf W. Schmitz et al., "The Neanderthal Type Site Revisited: Interdisciplinary Investigations of Skeletal Remains from the Neander Valley, Germany," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 99 (2002): 13342-47.

 

 

What kind of strawman argument is this? H. Neanderthalensis and H. Sapiens have common ancestors (Australopithecus), but they are different branches on the tree of hominids (genus homo in particular)

 

 

 

If you are going to argue against anthropology you should take a little time to understand it first.

[Corso2]

Intelligent Design is just a different word for creationism. Personally, I believe the universe is the manifestation of an idea by God, but I don't understand it, and don't think anyone else does either, so we have to go with what we know, which involves the scientific method.

The Big Book of Middle Eastern/Judean Folklore we call the Bible is not a Biology textbook. It is defiitely worth a read, and contains great truths, but usually those are found in metaphors and parables.

There are lots of cool creation stories, and I think we should teach them all if we are going to choose one...I like the one about how the Great Buffalo helped humans crawl out of a hole in the Earth and pitied their nakedness and helplessness, so he offered his body to feed and clothe and house them. That one's at least as cool as the Snake and the Apple one.

[Darkburst]

Originally posted by Corso2 There are lots of cool creation stories, and I think we should teach them all if we are going to choose one...

 

 

I agree with you. The problem is most people in this country are Christian and want to force their beliefs and mythology on everybody else.

[adiohead]

i'm a JEDI knight!
i put that on my census so it's true!

but i'm slowly turning to the brown side....i mean dark side...

[Echoes]

Originally posted by Chaotic What kind of strawman argument is this? H. Neanderthalensis and H. Sapiens have common ancestors (Australopithecus), but they are different branches on the tree of hominids (genus homo in particular) If you are going to argue against anthropology you should take a little time to understand it first.

OH BOY! your back!...if you are here...who is running HELL ?????

[Echoes]

Originally posted by Darkburst I agree with you. The problem is most people in this country are Christian and want to force their beliefs and mythology on everybody else.

I'm a Christian and I am not forcing anything on you...