Date: 5/21/2003 10:20:00 AM
From Authorid: 36967
Creation in itself, is NOT Religion. However, I do agree that you can put religion into creation. Some states now, do not allow evolution to be taught as a fact, but do allow it to be a theory. You are allowed to teach a supreme being theory, it is allowed. Cosmology is allowed to be taught as a theory. Tentism is also allowed to be taught as a theory. Nomology is also allowed only as a theory. As far as evolution, you are allowed to teach the evidence against the theory evolution(which there is). Creation in itself is not religion, it just states that everything was created. When I was in high school, all five theories were taught, thaught as a theory not as fact. You can't prove any of these to be true or not true.  |
|
Date: 5/21/2003 10:22:00 AM
From Authorid: 36967
If you think that creation is against the Law, look at the Declaration of Independence. It mentions a creator a couple of times, so how can creation be against the law. |
Date: 5/21/2003 10:34:00 AM
From Authorid: 18527
Well I'm not exactly in High School any more (cough cough) but I can remember that the THEORY of evolution was touched upon, as was the Big Bang with an emphasis on the fact that it was a theory and there wasn't much evidence for or against it. My teacher, Martha Alexander basically said that there was a lot that we (the scientific community) didn't know.  |
Date: 5/21/2003 11:15:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Drkptrs, please, do not get off into the LEGALITY of what is or is not in the Constitution. That is for another post. I do not want this to go off into all sorts of directions. I simply was interested in WHAT is being taught in schools today.  |
|
Date: 5/21/2003 11:24:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Also, Drkptrs, YOU may not consider the Creation story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden as religion, but it IS. ANYTHING having to do with a GOD, a Deity of anykind, IS a religion. |
Date: 5/21/2003 11:24:00 AM
From Authorid: 51684
I went to a parochial school and we were taught both. Of course, they kind of taught us that creation was fact. When we were taught about evolution, we were mainly taught how to disprove it. Of course, that was about 5 year ago.   |
|
Date: 5/21/2003 11:31:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Thank you so much for replying. Just so far, I am getting a good idea of what is happening in American schools. |
Date: 5/21/2003 11:46:00 AM
From Authorid: 36967
I never mention anything about the creation about Adam and Eve, or anything about a god. All I did was mention what was taught when I was in High School
|
|
Date: 5/21/2003 1:00:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Drkptrs, No, you didn't specifically mention "God" or "Adam & Eve", However, most everyone is familiar with the Creation story; most everyone KNOWS what is meant by Christians when they use the words "Creation". To you It means that all things were created by a CREATOR; and we KNOW that you mean that Creator to be God. So, let's be honest; let's be real here, k? |
|
Date: 5/21/2003 1:04:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
IF you were taught that the Creation theory is not religion or of a religious nature, then you were lied to. If you were taught that there is no evidence for evolution, you were majorly lied to. |
|
Date: 5/21/2003 1:24:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
From all that I can glean from all sources; from what I have studied about the "Intelligent Design" controversy; and reading books and writings by Creationists, as well as hearing from students what they are being taught.....; I'm getting the very real picture of how there is much SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE (half-truths) going on in schools. An argument involves suppressed evidence when the person or persons initially making a claim knowingly and deliberately fails to reveal crucial facts that would REFUTE his or her position. Students are only told/taught a few basics and perhaps there is more emphasis placed upon either position, depending upon the personal beliefs of the teacher, and the use of passing on information that is not verified by the students as to the validity/truth of that information, but is just excepted as facts. Now, those who repeat a claim that contains suppressed evidence are not necessarily guilty of suppressing evidence. Like the many Hoaxes going around regarding alleged finds in archaeology; very few question or check out the truthfulness of the claims and simply pass it on as facts. It is hard to fault someone who innocently forwards or passes on something without checking it out. The culpability increases when people spread the stories or so-called "evidence" KNOWING that it is a hoax (or at a minimum, questionable). There is NO excuse at all, however, for the one who started the hoax, who made up the "evidence". A sad sad fact is that a callous disregard for truth thrives within Fundamentalistic Religious circles, that wishes to legislate what and how is to be taught to our nation's youth. |
|
Date: 5/21/2003 1:43:00 PM
From Authorid: 36967
I am not going to argue that. |
Date: 5/21/2003 3:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 42464
I think the whole creation story is a bunch of poop. We learn the "theory" of evolution. I'm wiccan and when we were taught the creation story, i had to take a C  |
|
Date: 5/21/2003 4:32:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Valid evidence is truthful evidence. The truthfulness of a proposition is proportional to the amount of scrutiny it can stand within that world-level open forum known as science. I am willing to bet the farm that if I went out on a trip to the local mall, or highschool hall, clipboard in hand, and took a survey; IF I ask the question of many people, especially highschool kids: "What is the Scientific Method?"; odds are that MAYBE one or two could answer that. Can anyone here explain what THEY know about it? |
Date: 5/21/2003 6:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 36967
Scientific Method, is a way to determind if a belief is true or not.
|
|
Date: 5/21/2003 6:14:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Yes, Drkptrs, That is true, but could you expound on that; like make me see that YOU understand it? I sure would appreciate it; and thank you very much for your reply. I can't say that I am at all surprised by lack of replies to this question, but I sure hope I am proven wrong by someone, as to the conclusions I'm forced to conclude by that lack of response. My sincere thanks to you Derek, Kethria and Charisma for your replies. |
Date: 5/21/2003 8:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 54987
Don't be upset with what I say, but I feel that these religious schools are really missing out on science. If everyone had to abide by what they teach we wouldn't have scientists. We would remain back in the Dark Ages. We don't want to go the way of middle east religions.  |
|
Date: 5/22/2003 5:19:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Drkptrs, you say "its just theory, not fact". The most important scientific explanations are called "theories". In ordinary speech, "Theory" is often used to mean "guess" or "hunch", whereas, in Scientific terminology, a theory is a set of Universal statements that explain the NATURAL world. Theories are powerful tools. Scientists seek to develop theories that are internally consistent and compatible with the evidence; are firmly grounded in and based upon evidence; has been tested on the basis of evidence. The body of Scientific knowlege changes as new observations and discoveries are made, (Scientific Method). There is overwhelming evidence, abundant and consistant evidence from astronomy, physics, biochemistry, geology, anthropology and other sciences that Evolution HAS taken place. There is NO evidence of a "Creator" or "God" or supernatural interference at all! None. Only a "hunch" or "guess" or "faith"....or made-up, manufactured "pseudo-science", creation "science" that is totally WITHOUT/VOID of that SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE I was talking about earlier. |
Date: 5/22/2003 5:35:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
It saddens me greatly, when NO student can or will come here and offer what they know about this subject, and or The Scientific Method, or even if they have even heard of it in the classroom. BUT....I'm certain if you ask them about Buffy the Vampire Slayer, A TV Soap opera, or the latest Eminem CD, or 'Will Ben Affleck & J-Lo get married?', etc., they would jump at the opportunity to answer, or could tell you in great detail about these peoples lives. The National Science Teachers Association supports the position that evolution is a major unifying concept of Science and recognizes that evolution has NOT been emphasized in science curricula in a manner commensurate to its importance, because of official policies, intimidation of science teachers, the general public's MISUNDERSTANDING of evolutionary theory, and a century of controversy. Teachers are pressured to teach a certain way, avoid certain words, and emphasize "theory" (without clarification of exactly what THEORY MEANS in Scientific terminology versus Creationism "theory" ; they are pressured to introduce creationism, creation "science", and other nonscientific views, which are intended to weaken or discredit, and even eliminate the teaching of evolution. |
Date: 5/22/2003 6:54:00 AM
From Authorid: 19092
There's a reason evolution has so many "missing links"....And no one has ever witnessed, observed, or documented a single instance of unorganized matter organizing itself. Science needs to stick to the facts and evolution isn't fact...  |
Date: 5/22/2003 9:49:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
KC, please....you say "There is a reason". WHAT is this "reason" to YOU? Please be specific; and demonstrate that you know what you are talking about. Or did you just read that from a Kent Hovind or Jack Chick tract? What do YOU mean by "unorganized matter organizing itself". I KNOW where you get that, where you are going with it and why.....; but do YOU? KC, SCIENCE DOES STICK TO THE FACTS, and FACTS ONLY. And you show that you do not read; do not know what the Scientific Method is, nor do you care, or anything else, when you say "Evolution isn't fact". AAAAAA-A-AGAIN, there IS evidence; far more facts in support of evolution, and NONE as far as creation. When you use words like "creation" and "creator" then you are saying
that the Universe was created. However, in order for us to talk creation, you have to first cough up a Creator. And, if you say "God" is the creator; then you got to show evidence that this creator exists; answer: WHAT, WHERE, HOW...and if you say "God just IS and always was", and you wish ME to accept this, but refuse to accept that The Universe just IS and always was.....well, ONE of us is right. WHO has the evidence? When Christians and other theists try to argue through science, it almost always ends up being a matter of merely comparing what the theist says about science (what they've learned from the pulpit or junk science, creation "science, etc.) against what the scientists ARE ACTUALLY saying. Chances are (almost overwhelming to ZIP) that the theist report of what science says in no way resembles what science has ACTUALLY said about the subject. "Scientific-sounding" phrases, and mumbo-jumbo cut and pasted together bits of text resembling "science" is scientific sounding, to be sure, but it is NOT: Science. Students need to be taught critical thinking skills; they need to be armed with "Baloney Detection" kits; they need to ASK QUESTIONS of the teachers, and about the sources of information, and WHO is the author, and ask WHAT ARE THEIR CREDENTIALS? Then they need to follow up on those credendials, and refuse to take just somebodies word for it. NOT anymore. Not any more. That has been the way for far far too many years. In National Geographic U.S. geographical literacy surveys, and Science tests of various grade levels among several industrialized countries, American children scored dead last in acheivement tests on biology, chemistry, and physics. |
Date: 5/22/2003 10:20:00 AM
From Authorid: 19092
What about the Bombardier Beetle??? Dr Schildknecht discovered that in the beetle's specially designed combustion tubes are two enzymes called catalase and peroxidase which make chemical reactions go millions of times faster. These chemicals catalyze the extremely rapid decomposition of hydrogen peroxide into water and oxygen and the oxidation of hydroquinone into quinone, causing them to violently react and explode -- but not so soon as to blow up the beetle. Common sense tells us that this amazing little insect cannon which can fire four or five 'bombs' in succession could not have evolved piece by piece. Explosive chemicals, inhibitor, enzymes, glands, combustion tubes, sensory communication, muscles to direct the combustion tubes and reflex nervous systems - all had to work perfectly the very first time - or all hopes for 'Bomby' and his children would have exploded! (From Nature Friend magazine)
|
|
Date: 5/22/2003 10:23:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
heh heh heh, What would you say to a young person who says: "I don't really care too much for science so I don't get into it; I just follow what the Bible says about creation"? Yet, these are the very young people who enter a debate or discussion and proclaim "evolution is fake, evolution is a religion!"; when they have no understanding, no knowlege of even the basics of evolution or the scientific method. |
|
Date: 5/22/2003 10:31:00 AM
From Authorid: 19092
Here's some other questions...1) Where has macro evolution ever been observed? What's the mechanism for getting new complexity such as new vital organs? How, for example, could a caterpillar evolve into a butterfly? 2) Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there if your theory is right? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions. Why don't we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both? 3)Who are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects? The evolutionary tree that's in the textbook: where's its trunk and where are its branches? 3)What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself? What about the 4000 books of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells? If astronomers received an intelligent radio signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacteria also imply an intelligent source? |
|
Date: 5/22/2003 10:31:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
KC, WHAT exactly, are you trying to say? You bring up an insect, and describe some very scientific sounding terms, but WHAT is the bottom line, what are you REALLY trying to say here? You are NOT a biologist, not a trained physicist, and no one here is, so put it in some more understandable plain english, please. Again, I get the gist of what you are getting at, but I will not put it into plain , simple terms for you. You do not demonstrate that YOU know what you're talking about but just copied it from a magazine. |
|
Date: 5/22/2003 10:34:00 AM
From Authorid: 19092
Do you not also read and understand?? If I "read" something that supports my position, from a "scientist", am I wrong in sharing it?? |
|
Date: 5/22/2003 10:35:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
ahhhh, NOW you're talking. You give me some specifics to go on; something to reply to. I will very gladly be back to answer your questions, but that will take some thought, and lots of time and typing. I've been online much too long this morning, and have lots to do this afternoon, plus going to the Symphony tonight. I will try very hard to get back sometime between them, but if not today, I definitely will be here tomorrow morning. Thank you for your reply and questions. |
|
Date: 5/22/2003 10:41:00 AM
From Authorid: 19092
I hope you enjoy the symphony. Theresa and I went to Yanni last week. It was fantastic!!! I will look for your replies later. Saturday, my oldest boy is getting married so we'll be pretty busy the next few days. Have fun!!!! (at the symphony) |
|
Date: 5/22/2003 10:46:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
It is perfectly fine to share something you have read, but supply the source and the author, and if you are just quoting, then say so, and quote the entire quote, and or give the link to or the source of that quote. I'm sorry, KC, but almost always when I try to track down alleged credentials I find little or no solid scientific backgrounds or publications in scientific journals or backing of peers of the REAL science community. I also find quotes that are so mangled it does not resemble what was really said; or that the quoted doesn't even exist. There are so many frauds and quacks out there. One has to keep their baloney detection devices very close. Ok. I'll be back later, but I must run. Thanks. |
Date: 5/22/2003 10:00:00 PM
From Authorid: 37872
I know that you are directing this towards students, so as a student of life... who is quite a few semesters from graduating... I would like to say that in Science and Biology classes; I like to be taught Science and Biology. I honestly don't think that any true physical or biological science would have ever theorized a Mono Theistic Creation Theory to answer their questions about the universe or living organisms. I, having been a raised and reared Catholic, as well as raised and reared Human Being, have been lucky enough to be taught religion and science in seperate environments. Lucky in my relative perspective, any ways.  |
|
Date: 5/23/2003 4:59:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
The questions KC has presented here are some typical creationist questions that can be answered very simply IF they would seek out a good SCIENCE book; a REAL science book, and not a creationist pseudoscience "haunted house" version. I am going to expound on a couple of them; starting with the last question "If astronomers received an intelligent radio signal from a distant galaxy, most people would conclude it came from an intelligent source" and then I will reply to the second part where he starts with "why then doesn't.." |
|
Date: 5/23/2003 5:19:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
This is just an old twist on the "If you found a watch in the middle of nowhere, you'd know that it was designed". If a radio signal was received from a 'distant galaxy', the first thing would NOT be to jump to conclusions on anything. When you consider just how vast, how utterly HUGE our own galaxy is, and we are only ONE galaxy among possibly millions of galaxies. Now, it would mean SOME kind of indication of SOMETHING other than usual or expected or KNOWN, and a possible attempt by some inhabitant of another planet, but we would never know for sure until further investigation and unless we encountered this 'intelligence' in question....something verifying the existence of such an entity responsible for transmitting such signal or signals. As with a watch found, we KNOW that a watch is designed, because we have other watches to compare it too, and we can see by the markings on it as to the Manufacturer, Boliva, Timex, Geneve, Rolex, etc., and we can further determine who made the watch and who designed it. With the radio signal, we would have to encounter this 'intelligent' sender of the signal, and until that, it would be a leap to assume that that sender was supernatural, and an even larger leap to suggest that that 'intelligence' was the "god" of the Bible. |
|
Date: 5/23/2003 5:59:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
The undisputed existence of a creator is the only way to know, FOR SURE, that something has been created. We can find the manufacturer (creator) of almost anything we use in our daily lives, any piece of machinery, electronic gadget/gizmo, etc, that has even existed. IF someone insists that life (or that DNA molecule, Dan) is so complex or so unlikely that it 'just has to have been created', then that person must be consistent in his or her logic. IF a creator (god) is needed to explain the complexities that we see, then the creator would be that much MORE complex than the creation. Cough up a creator! Who created the creator? Now, here you arrive at regress. Going in circles. IF creationists want to toss logic, reason and common sense to the wind, and keep on INSISTING that the creator was NOT created, then you arrive at the possibility that the Universe itself is uncreated. The existence of the Universe.....in all its complexity and unlikelyhood, would STILL be more likely....than the existence of the complex universe PLUS the existence of an even MORE complex creator. |
|
Date: 5/23/2003 2:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 54987
Wow Thinker! You have me reeling back in awe. I just wanted to ask you a question. Would you agree that life is intelligent? Whether it is a product of a creator or not. Is life intelligent? My position is that WE are the very said intellligence, and by 'WE |
Date: 5/23/2003 4:16:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
KC, about the transitional fossils? To list all of them would take up pages and pages here. I promise you a very good read if you will go to this EXCELLENT website that has pages and pages, and is very easy to read and understand.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html |
|
Date: 5/23/2003 4:18:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
And, I would strongly urge anyone to check out the above site, as many many other evolution questions are answered. |
|
Date: 5/23/2003 4:53:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Koolade, I'm not quite sure what YOU mean by "Is 'LIFE' intelligent". That is rather vague, stated simply as you have. Come again? |
|
Date: 5/23/2003 4:56:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Are you asking what one means when they ask if there are any other intelligent life on other planets? |
|
Date: 5/23/2003 8:18:00 PM
From Authorid: 54987
Well I don't know why half my reply is missing... must have hit submit too soon. Well, in my view all life on earth is the intelligence that we think is behind the universe. Only it is not 'behind' but very much right here. Life itself is constantly creating itself. We are the self creating intelligence. What some call God is what WE are. There is no behind the scenes creator, otherwise there would have to be something also behind that creator. I suppose what I was asking was if you consider life itself to be the intelligent creator. |
|
Date: 5/23/2003 9:32:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
*raises one eyebrow* erm... *repeats slowly* life itself the intelligent creator? C'mon, whatta ya smokin' Koolade? LOL . Can get what you mean, except for possibly life replicating; reproducing, pollenating, but.....that's evolution. Naw, you have to go back to a beginning for there to be a creation, and then to the creator of that creation, and then .... |
Date: 5/23/2003 9:47:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
KC ask about Macroevolution. hehehe...these creationists always gotta toss that out there; always denying it. They never come up with anything in the way of polls or surveys among Zoologists and biologists (you know, those scientists who deal directly with evolution) or tell us which ones of these biologists and zoologists reject macro-evolution in favor of the Biblical account of creation. Again, please refer to the website I mentioned above as it explains what and or how macro-evolution occurs.
Just because something complex or unlikely has happened does not prove intelligent design. Creationists must prove the existence of a creator FIRST, before trying to grapple with the creation question. To infer design from appearance (complexity) is premature. We detect design from PRIOR knowlege of a designer. This can't be over emphasized. We ultimately establish design from the presense of a designer. That is what design is: the work of a designer. |
Date: 5/24/2003 2:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 52140
I think that Creation should be taught. Many say there should be equality in world. Well, they teach evolution, why not Creation? Its a belief of how the world was formed? I think that its rididculous that only one and not the other can be taught. If they do not want both taught, then niether should be taught or refered to in the book. Just boring old science.Oh yeah, while on the subject of biology, I think that taking notes in class, from an overhead should be illegal and a felony!!!!  |
|
Date: 5/24/2003 3:00:00 PM
From Authorid: 52140
oh yeah, also, since the scientists don't know how to name things small easy words like paleoanthropologist, binomial nomenclature, phylogenetic tree, electrophoresis, etc, I think there should be a rule that teachers should teach in a fun way! With all those big words, the ... less that genius kids will probably get bored (me!) |
|
Date: 5/24/2003 5:04:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Hi Jesus Freak. while I DO agree with you that science should be explained in a more simple and easier manner for kids; I do not agree that creation should be taught, and many of the reasons I have already stated here. and I DO understand why YOU think creation should be taught as well; for you simply do not understand what science is, what it says, and what religion is. It is so much easier, simpler, a neat and tidy little way just to say "yep, God did it" and be on your merry way. Don't forget, I, too, was taught the Baby Jesus Storylike account of creation from the time I was a little girl. I DO have the utmost respect for ANYONE who just simply says what you have to me; "I don't know much about Science, it's boring; I believe in Jesus Christ", and let it go at that. That is the way we could all co-exist, but the problem is, there are those many who do NOT know jack diddly squat about science, who do not WANT to know, but insist on the religious creation version being taught as FACT, when it is in direct contrast to everything SCIENCE has shown us to be true. To be sure, there is a all-out struggle, by organized religious groups, who will stop at nothing, and I mean nothing, in order to get creation "science" back in the classrooms and eliminate evolution altogether. There are many many cases in our courts where the creation vs. evolution has been challenged (most of them in Bible Belt states) and evolution won out every time. Also, Did you know that the Jewish and the State of Israel sponsor many of the Archeology claims? There are so many hoaxy claims, and even when it is discovered and announced as a hoax, millions do not want to hear it, but it spread the story anyway as fact! (Go back up there and read my reply where I talk about Supressed evidence). DUH! Israel's claim for Nationhood vanishes if the Genesis and Exodus stories cannot be supported. WHY do you think there has always been and always will be turmoil and bloodshed between Israel and Palestine? |
Date: 5/24/2003 5:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 3688
when i was in school they taught the big bang theory and the theory of evolution..... lthough my teachers always said something to the effect of "you don't have to believe this...but for this course you have to learn it" and i was one of the lucky ones that didn't have a contradiction between what i was taught at home and what i was taught in school...  |
|
Date: 5/24/2003 5:41:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Umm, thanks Dreamerpoet. The teacher or teachers were saying "you don't have to believe it, but you HAVE to learn it....".....Geez, that sounds like a teacher that has her back to the wall; a teacher that has restrictions placed upon her as to what she can say or not say, teach or not teach, and has to be careful not to offend the delicate sensibilities of creationists. NO surprise. This is something I am reading from other teachers as well. Also, you have the very VERY big problem such as this: Science teachers who ARE Christians. Imagine being in THAT position! Thanks, DP, you've given me something to think about, and check out with our local school system. |
|
Date: 5/24/2003 5:57:00 PM
From Authorid: 3688
I just wanted to add....that I was in college by this time....and I sorta got the impression she said it ONLY because there was an older lady in the class that woulda thrown a fit..but......I believe this instructor is Christian..... |
|
Date: 5/24/2003 6:21:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Jeez louise and egad! Just imagine this scenario: Let's say a science teacher is teaching a room full of students "The Earth's core spewed chemicals from plumes and erupting volcanos. These chemicals began to react with each other as they were heated, churned together in violent wave action in the primordial soup and was subjected to immense electrical discharges in the form of violent lightning. Molecules began to catch other molecules in an inevitable, random manner caused by this process. Eventually, extremely primitive organic molecules formed from inorganic ones. It was in the 1920's that this theory was first conceived independently by Russian scientists A.I. Oparin and scotsman J.B.S. Haldane. But in the 1950's two scientists Harold C. Urey and Stanley Miller designed an apparatus that simulated early Earth's atmosphere. A combination of H2, CH2, H20, and NH3 was subjected to electrical discharges that simulated lightning. Analysis after one week showed amino acids and building blocks of organic material had been synthesized. Similar experiments have produced Nucleotide bases of RNA, ribonucleic acid, important in relaying information from DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid, that controls the synthesis of proteins. The famous double helix model of DNA discovered in 1953 by Francis Crick and James Watson contains adenine, cytosine, quanine and thymine. It is THIS combination of A, C, G, T, that constitutes the DNA code. RNA and DNA are the building blocks of life and are present in every living thing. Human DNA is 98.6% the same as Chimpanzees making humans a closer relative to Chimps than Chimps are to Gorillas. And, surprisingly, human DNA is only 40% different from a vegetable".......ah, but YOU DON'T HAVE TO BELIEVE ANY OF THIS, KIDS!" *rolls eyes* Is it any wonder why kids would just as soon take the easy road, the no think; no work; no reason, no logical way out......"Yep, I say God did it, case closed" !!??? |
Date: 5/24/2003 6:45:00 PM
From Authorid: 3688
yeah i know....i agree.... If it was ME i'd have said "learn it" and have that be the end of it....lol but...with the area i was raised in i'm really not surprised by anything... |
|
Date: 5/24/2003 7:08:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
I DO understand, DP. I DO. Oh dear, I do have to say that whoever said "ignorance is bliss" really must have certainly known what he was talking about. I'm going to do a post within the next day or so, and I am going to title it "Does the Bible try to keep its adherents ignorant?". I promise it will be an easy read, but will be written in such a way as to make sense to all, and it sure will be interesting. MY Thanks, for your interest and all your response here. |
|
Date: 5/24/2003 7:44:00 PM
From Authorid: 54987
I wasn't smoking anything Thinker... just trying to fathom the unfathomable. You consider yourself intelligent don't you? Well if you combine the intelligence of all of us, combined with that of other living things then that is an awesome amount. Each of us creates every day of our lives. We create our thoughts, and they in turn manifest into reality. Well what I'm saying is that that awesome intelligence may be the creator of the universe. Not a supernatural being, but our combined life energy. Here! It's your turn for the spliff. |
|
Date: 5/24/2003 8:36:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Yes, WE DO create our own thoughts; WE DO control our own thoughts, which forms OUR own reality. And, yes, "an awesome intelligence MAY HAVE (key word: MAY) been the creator"....BUT, BUT....BUT NO ONE knows that; as that is outside of our world, beyond the natural world as we know it. We know that the Universe exists and an awful lot which science has shown, as to the evolution of all that inhabits Earth, and that is all we know. Anything beyond that is speculation and or has yet to be discovered. |
|
Date: 5/24/2003 9:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 3688
thank goodness thinker.... i like your posts but i steer away from anything having to do with the bible because i don't fully understand what they mean |
|
Date: 5/24/2003 10:13:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
I know what you are saying, but THIS one, you will fully understand, I promise. |
|
Date: 5/24/2003 10:33:00 PM
From Authorid: 3688
cool thinker.....i don't reply often to your posts but i find them very interesting i just tend not to enter religion or debate posts often |
|
Date: 5/24/2003 10:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 54987
But I was meaning that this 'awesome intelligence', i.e. US not any Supreme super being, is the true 'creator' of this existence. We underestimate our own collective power. I'd like to ask you something else. What is personality? And where do we store memories? |
|
Date: 5/24/2003 11:01:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
NO, we are not the creator of our existence. You KNOW that; if you know anything about evolution. And I do agree, most of us always underestimate our capabilities (although SOME grossly OVER estimate THEIR abilities). When I do my post on the topic I mentioned, keep this in mind, for it will be made very clear. DreamerPoet, I wrote this long reply to you, but alas, dearheart, it was on ANOTHER post about child abuse! That tells me to go to bed; as it is late, been a long day, and by golly that never happened to me before. *blush* tis soooo embarrassing. Nite! |
|
Date: 5/24/2003 11:08:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Koolade, you night owl, ya wanna keep me going all night, eh? Our memories are stored within the brain. If you'd like to study up on the exact portion of the brain that pertains to memory, I am sure you could locate it on the web somewhere. Personality is the outward, physical exibition of all that is within, but also in edition to, it can be a cover up for what is inside. If you'd like me to expound on that, I'd be happy to tomorrow, but I'm falling asleep hear. *snore* zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz n-n-n-nite. |
|
Date: 5/25/2003 7:11:00 AM
From Authorid: 54987
Well now you've had a good nights sleep I will continue. So there is a specific place in the brain that 'holds' our memories. If we cut that part out (and I admit that the portion, if damaged, does impair memory) could we access those memories using scientific methods? So, personality is the outward expression of what is inside. Well what is this thing that is 'inside'? |
Date: 5/25/2003 8:40:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Koolade, Do you know what the disease that former President Reagan has? It is a horrible affliction effecting memory loss, and the brain cells are slowly eroded away, and no there is no way to repair that loss, thus, you'd be unable to get to that memory bank. There are treatments to slow the erosion, and more and more research is being done, but when the brain is severely impaired or damaged or lost, etc, there goes the memory.  What is this "thing" inside? Oh, many components make up the human body. A magnificent blood pump called the heart, with four chambers, directing the flow of blood continually throughout the body; it is oxygenated and regenerated, renewed by rich red corpuscles from marrow in the bones; miles and miles of teeny tiny capillaries, and vessels; specialized enzymes to break down food and thus nourish our bodies with essential nutrients, and on and on, but I think you really mean the BRAIN, and all its capacity and functions. EVERYTHING that we do, think, and express, comes from the brain. How we see things, interpret , cognition abilitions, to assimilate and retain data and knowlege. Our enviroment, family, friends, academic, geographical locations, life experiences, genes, etc., all are factors in how the outcome or our personality is formed. For example: Beyond any doubt, if I had stayed in a small town in Southeastern Kentucky, and had not gone out into the world, and lived so many different places, and saw and experienced many different peoples and cultures, geographical areas, and exposed to so much more; I am quite certain that I would have been very different from the way I am now. Most likely I would have had a bunch of kids, been a quite and conservative, good little church-going, well, what I would call...generic? person. You know, those many many people you know and run into all the time; they are sweet, good hearted, and all that, but many times if you start a conversation about something like seperation of church and state, or the Constitution and the Founding fathers.....why, they give you a deer-caught-in-the-headlights look, and exclaim "WHA? whats ya talking 'bout? I never heard of such a thang!". They are comfortable, complacent, and very often lazy. They don't like it when you shake their tree; don't want to think to much, or think too hard; or think at all. They want to be entertained; want their comforts, and they want them now, and always always employ the expediency factor; that is the easiest way, the fastest way to those comforts. THAT is why the crooked politicians, the scammers and schemers, and $$$money grubbing hucksters give them what they WANT; and LIE, and lie, and LIE . And so it goes. |
|
Date: 5/25/2003 10:26:00 AM
From Authorid: 54987
Phew! OK. I'd better get back to the point of the post then. Because there is such a division over the two 'theories', i.e. creationism and evolution, I think students should be educated about both viewpoints. I think education is about learning about the world, even its misconceptions and faulty thinking. Too much of our education is brainwashing. We are consumers of trash for the most part. Those in high places don't want us to think for ourselves. But I'm not finished with my questions... I just got to do some more research. I'll try not to make it too late next time though LOL. |
|
Date: 5/25/2003 10:28:00 AM
From Authorid: 54987
OKay I'm back!! Just a quick one... What exactly is a thought? |
Date: 5/25/2003 11:09:00 AM
From Authorid: 36687
Catherine (hehe I called you by your name!) I don't take a Science class anymore, but when I was in it, I didn't really learn anything! lol, I think I learned more in Elementry school! For Real! I think we should be taught the crap they give us on the MAP Tests which is usually just about astronomy and we spend all year talking about plants...Maybe thats why I passed with a very low D LOL  |
|
Date: 5/25/2003 11:37:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Koolade! whattaYamean "What is a thought"? Where you going with this line of questioning? A thought is pondering about something, weighing facts and trying to make a decision about something; or perhaps recalling an experience, either bad or good. The brain is this very complex computer-like system of nerves, ganglia, circuits and synapses, and thoughts are stored there, and are brought to the forefront deliberately or randomly for mulling over. geez, you know, all that kinda stuff. *can't wait 'til he ask the next question* LOL ! |
|
Date: 5/25/2003 11:41:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Monica! Hi there, long time no see ya. Thank you for your reply. From your description, I take it that science class was BORING. No surprise. What was your teacher like? Was he/she just a robot drone of some sort; kinda like they looked about as interested in the subject as you were? *sigh* |
|
Date: 5/25/2003 11:49:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Koolade, SCIENCE classes should be about SCIENCE. Religion and the supernatural should be left to the church and the home. Now, it is perfectly ok to bring up the creation story, as a reference, kinda like "Now, students, you may or may not have heard of the Biblical account of this or that" and then go on to EXPLAIN the differences and why or how SCIENCE and the scientific method is the best way for determining the truth. Ahhhh, but that is the ideal. Truth is, even most teachers don't know half the time where THEY themselves stand; what THEY really believe, why, or haven't given it all that much thought. We need educators to be enthusiastic, dedicated, and committed to TRUTH no matter where it leads. |
|
Date: 5/25/2003 1:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 54987
Well I agree with you on the science and religion thing. I know about the physical parts of the brain. You say we store thoughts in the substance of the brain. Well in order for physical matter to be stored it has to be physical. Thoughts and ideas don't have physical substance. You believe they do. So what substance are thoughts made up of? What are these particles called thoughts and ideas? You analogy of Ronald Reagan is true up to a point. I will make a further analgy. You put a tape into a recorder. The recorder is faulty, but the tape is fine. The recorder (brain) cannot play the tape, but the tape (memory in the sense of past thoughts)are still intace, but cannot be accessed because of fautly mechanism. Where I was going with the thought thing was just to find out what your views are on those things that don't seem to have any physical existence. I understand that you believe that there is nothing other than physical matter. This is only discussion ... not argument. I am interested in how the atheist deals with it. |
|
Date: 5/25/2003 1:38:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Please forgive me, if I have in any way, made it seem like I was arguing. I was just 'funnin' with you, as the saying goes. It is hard to do that on here. If in person, I'd poked you and said "Koolade!", you'd know I was just paying around. |
|
Date: 5/25/2003 1:45:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Ok, I get where you were going with the thought thing. Well, my dear, I am NOT a brain surgeon; not someone who could get into the exact components of the brain, what it is made of, how it evolved, where it has evolved, the comparison of a human brain versus that of animals; whether the size has anything to do with capacity, or anything of an evolutionary matter specifically regarding the HUMAN brain and the workings of the human brain in relation to evolution, but I know that it has evolved and has came a very long many millions of years away from our primitive ancestors. |
|
Date: 5/25/2003 1:56:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
The Medical sciences can and does explain exactly what and how thoughts are formed and processed, and I am positive that a person's VISION, their eyes have everything or most everything to do with thoughts. And, if there is a lack of eyesight, it is a taught thing, and the sense of Hearing or touch is greatly brought to the forefront, making up for the loss of sight. ALL the senses are used, but SOME are greater than others. I'm not able, many times to explain what I understand, and or think about. It is the case here, with this particular question. It is frustrating, but without that physical matter and all that is contained therein, there is no brain activity, and thus a person is braindead. Only the workings of vital organs are keeping someone alive. |
|
Date: 5/25/2003 2:05:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
I think that if a Neurologist; brain surgeon, or psychiatrist explained the senses, nerves, and brain and how it all connects, it would all make sense, but to go off into thoughts being from somewhere else , from an entity of sorts, is stretching it; for us who aren't at that level of Science; we are not scientists; we only know how THEY arrive at decisions and conclusions about the human body, and thus treat them when they are ill. No medication and or treatment course is to be given or prescribed unless it has been clinically studied, tested, and years of trial plus FDA approval. |
|
Date: 5/25/2003 2:13:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
When you say "I know that you believe in nothing more than physical matter". Did I ever say that? There IS more than physical matter, but it is HUMAN EMOTIONS. And those emotions are governed by what is being filtered through the senses and brain. Then you have this thing called Genetics; genes, throughout the millions of years, and predispositions to certain diseases, disorders, and behaviors; and then...well, it's that evolution thing. |
|
Date: 5/25/2003 5:45:00 PM
From Authorid: 54987
I aceept what you say. However, I have never had a satisfactory explanation of what thoughts are composed of. To store something in physical matter, it must also be physical. There is a huge gap of understanding here. Scientists can only measure physical matter with physical apparatus, and therefore limited to that particular spectrum. The nearest science has got to that goal is that as we get nearer to fundamental particles, we find that our thoughts begin to interfere in our perception as to what is a particle and what is a wave form. This leads to the hypothesis that thought is very important in the forming of matter. So maybe without thought there can be no matter. Maybe even thought precedes matter? Maybe, like water turns to steam and then back to water, thought turns to matter and back to thought again. Emotions are still thoughts and ideas. This is why I am open-minded about the existence of some other dimension, based on thought, beyond the physical. I am not a wiccan, or a pagan. I have no belief in a super being as in the bible. I have no label... I am done with labels as they are so limiting. |
|
Date: 5/25/2003 5:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 54987
I know you were just playing around! But what makes you YOU... that unique wonderful person you are that cannot be duplicated is the result of thought processes - the building blocks of your uniquness. Anyway you're still my favorite atheist and I think you're fab. Hugs |
|
Date: 5/25/2003 6:29:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Aw, shuckies, Koolade, ya make me blush. I like you too. You know, I've had so many believers say they think true love comes from "God"; and I know that many think we nonbelievers are somehow void of love, emotion. My senses and my brain is my method of arrival at truth. Love involves trust, attraction, and devotion. And just because we cannot explain the existence of certain things, does not mean that therefore a god exists. IF love and tenderness are explained by the existence of a god, then I have to ask then why are so many people who believe in a god so utterly devoid of any tendencies that we would even call humane? The ancient Jews, Christians, and Muslims were butchers. These three warring sects still account for much of todays bloodshed. Belief and Knowledge are two different, mutually exclusive things. I see faith as being an inferior and detrimental, and inaccurate method for gaining truth. Our children should be taught to look at life and all of the Natural world; and all its complexity and problems, and look for SOLUTIONS based upon what IS, in a realistic, fact based truth seeking, scientific method. |
|
Date: 5/27/2003 1:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 52140
Hey thinker! Im sorry its taken me so long to reply to your post. I wanted to tell you the reason there is much conflict dates back to the time of Abraham. God predicted the conflict with Israel and the Palestinians thousands of years ago. Which brings me to another question, how did all the prophecies come about? The bible was written thousands of years before this stuff happened and then it comes true. Also, you've inspired me to write a post thanks, God bless. |
Date: 5/29/2003 12:03:00 AM
From Authorid: 13897
hmmmm well when I was in high school, actually we didn't really learn about anything like that. I was mostly in Chemistry classes, which didn't need evolution to be taught. But what I remember in gradeschool was being taught evolution. i went to all public schools. I think evolution should only be taught in schools because it's based on scientific reason and research. and something i've wondered is for people who think creation should be taught in public schools.. well, whose creation theory? which religion? there definately is not only one, and each is as valid as the next!  |
