I am trying to make clear that evolution is NOT fact. Why should these things be taught to our schoolchildren as the ONLY possible solution, and why are teachers and educators so criticized when they even think about mentioning alternatives?
Obviously YOU are more confused. No, microprocessors are NOT living creatures, and they do NOT reproduce. And a microprocessor, even given trillions of years, would not 'turn into' a living creature. This is what you are saying happens with evolution. Inanimate objects, blasted with enough radiation and cosmic 'randomness', turn into living creatures. Can't you see that it's the same picture?
Fill that box with balls. First, you have to HAVE balls (they don't just magically appear!). Second, you have to have a box. Third, you need someone to cut the hole in it, and something to cut it with. These are all non-random processes. Finally, you need someone to shake the box. Yep, that was real 'random' wasn't it?
You're taking Bible verses out of context. That's like finding the following phrase in the encyclopedia related to cows: "A young male is called a bull-calf; a young female before she has calved is called a heifer (pronounced "heffer")." and applying it to people. (article. You simply didn't read the entire passage, and within its context.
If you would read the context of Bible passages, you would find that some things apply/applied directly to the Israelites.
This is what makes people so confused about the Bible: teachers take one phrase/sentence/word here and there and try to make a point when they're taking the whole thing in a way that it was not meant to be taken.
Yes, the FOOL has said in his heart that there is no God.
The "theories" of evolution have not been proven. It is therefore wrong to teach evolution as FACT. Students should be presented with BOTH sides of the issue so that they can make up their own minds. If evolutionary teachings are so shaky that they can't take criticism, there's something wrong! Maybe evolution is NOT the answer!.
It's interesting that you use the word "created" when talking about the origins of heavier elements.
No good references? How about looking at the living creatures themselves? Sometimes I think peolpe get their noses in the textbooks with their simplified 'diagrams' of the evolutionary process and forget to look at the actual creation itself. There are MANY animals that could not have evolved slowly over time: they would have died before some absolutely necessary parts came into being. For example, the bombardier beetle, who shoots exploding chemicals. If this beetle had not had ALL the necesary parts ALL AT ONCE, it could never have survived the first blast of explosives. It could NOT have evolved these features one at a time, over time, because unless ALL the features were PERFECT on the first generation, the creature would have become extinct by blowing itself up! There could not have been intermediate creatures, becuase they would have destroyed themselves.
Which book? Which experiments? Please be specific.
I understand what you're saying: that even though the odds of such an event occuring are so astoundingly low, people who hold to the evolutionary teachings are more willing to place their faith (yes, I said FAITH) in something SO UNLIKELY, than to consider that there is a possibility that a Creator made things just the way they are.
How many times would the big bang have had to happen in order to get things just right? Where did all those raw materials come from?
Are you trying to say that it only took ONE big bang? Be reasonable. And even then, you don't account for the existance of the raw materials.
I am just curious: have you ever seriously *considered* the creationist view from a logical standpoint? from the standpoint of the evidence?
If you consider, when evolutionary philosphy is applied in governmental situations, we end up with systems like communism and socialism. When creationist philosophy enters the picture, we get things like "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
How can *order* come from *disorder*? If the idea that "higher" beings came from "lower" beings over time is true, why couldn't we throw a tree in a pit, along with chemicals and metal, blow the whole thing up, and get a set of encyclopedias? I mean, if you kept doing that for billions of years, you're bound to get a complete set of encyclopedias at SOME point, right? WRONG. Chance does not account for the adding of INFORMATION to a system. Also, as is very obvious to even a child, you don't use disordered processes to put things in order.
Consider the modern PC. It didn't happen by chance, but was created by intelligent beings who planned and designed it. Introduction of disorder into a computer system (magnetic disruptions, dirt, heat, etc...) do not make a better computer system over time, they DESTROY the system. How then could something like a living being be a result of accidents and random processes?
Some people think creationism is "dangerous" to teach/believe. However, if you carefully examine the situation, evolutionary teachings are far more destructive: if a person believes he is nothing but an evolved reptile/monkey/amoeba/etc..., why would it be wrong for that person to take another person's life or to steal/kill/rape/pilliage/etc...? If creatures simply evolved, there are no reasons to act in a certain "moral" way. Survival of the fittest, right? So if I can kill you and get your food, why not? (Obviously, we have laws which represent the conviction deep down in our souls that KILLING IS *WRONG*.)
If we evolved, how can one person force another person to obey any laws? Why should we? Why don't we just act like animals, if that's all we are?
Slashdot Mirror
I am trying to make clear that evolution is NOT fact. Why should these things be taught to our schoolchildren as the ONLY possible solution, and why are teachers and educators so criticized when they even think about mentioning alternatives?
Fill that box with balls. First, you have to HAVE balls (they don't just magically appear!). Second, you have to have a box. Third, you need someone to cut the hole in it, and something to cut it with. These are all non-random processes. Finally, you need someone to shake the box. Yep, that was real 'random' wasn't it?
You're taking Bible verses out of context. That's like finding the following phrase in the encyclopedia related to cows: "A young male is called a bull-calf; a young female before she has calved is called a heifer (pronounced "heffer")." and applying it to people. (article. You simply didn't read the entire passage, and within its context.
If you would read the context of Bible passages, you would find that some things apply/applied directly to the Israelites.
This is what makes people so confused about the Bible: teachers take one phrase/sentence/word here and there and try to make a point when they're taking the whole thing in a way that it was not meant to be taken. Yes, the FOOL has said in his heart that there is no God.
The "theories" of evolution have not been proven. It is therefore wrong to teach evolution as FACT. Students should be presented with BOTH sides of the issue so that they can make up their own minds. If evolutionary teachings are so shaky that they can't take criticism, there's something wrong! Maybe evolution is NOT the answer!.
I am curious: how about Linux graphics-handling libraries? Has anyone seen any vulnerabilities to this issue in them?
It's interesting that you use the word "created" when talking about the origins of heavier elements. No good references? How about looking at the living creatures themselves? Sometimes I think peolpe get their noses in the textbooks with their simplified 'diagrams' of the evolutionary process and forget to look at the actual creation itself. There are MANY animals that could not have evolved slowly over time: they would have died before some absolutely necessary parts came into being. For example, the bombardier beetle, who shoots exploding chemicals. If this beetle had not had ALL the necesary parts ALL AT ONCE, it could never have survived the first blast of explosives. It could NOT have evolved these features one at a time, over time, because unless ALL the features were PERFECT on the first generation, the creature would have become extinct by blowing itself up! There could not have been intermediate creatures, becuase they would have destroyed themselves.
Which book? Which experiments? Please be specific. I understand what you're saying: that even though the odds of such an event occuring are so astoundingly low, people who hold to the evolutionary teachings are more willing to place their faith (yes, I said FAITH) in something SO UNLIKELY, than to consider that there is a possibility that a Creator made things just the way they are. How many times would the big bang have had to happen in order to get things just right? Where did all those raw materials come from? Are you trying to say that it only took ONE big bang? Be reasonable. And even then, you don't account for the existance of the raw materials. I am just curious: have you ever seriously *considered* the creationist view from a logical standpoint? from the standpoint of the evidence?
If you consider, when evolutionary philosphy is applied in governmental situations, we end up with systems like communism and socialism. When creationist philosophy enters the picture, we get things like "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
How can *order* come from *disorder*? If the idea that "higher" beings came from "lower" beings over time is true, why couldn't we throw a tree in a pit, along with chemicals and metal, blow the whole thing up, and get a set of encyclopedias? I mean, if you kept doing that for billions of years, you're bound to get a complete set of encyclopedias at SOME point, right? WRONG. Chance does not account for the adding of INFORMATION to a system. Also, as is very obvious to even a child, you don't use disordered processes to put things in order. Consider the modern PC. It didn't happen by chance, but was created by intelligent beings who planned and designed it. Introduction of disorder into a computer system (magnetic disruptions, dirt, heat, etc...) do not make a better computer system over time, they DESTROY the system. How then could something like a living being be a result of accidents and random processes? Some people think creationism is "dangerous" to teach/believe. However, if you carefully examine the situation, evolutionary teachings are far more destructive: if a person believes he is nothing but an evolved reptile/monkey/amoeba/etc..., why would it be wrong for that person to take another person's life or to steal/kill/rape/pilliage/etc...? If creatures simply evolved, there are no reasons to act in a certain "moral" way. Survival of the fittest, right? So if I can kill you and get your food, why not? (Obviously, we have laws which represent the conviction deep down in our souls that KILLING IS *WRONG*.) If we evolved, how can one person force another person to obey any laws? Why should we? Why don't we just act like animals, if that's all we are?