Reply to Shtal (Interesting facts, for believers) - Page 6

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."

Actually Nature is true whether or not you accept it.  Science is just an accurate or inaccurate interpretation of nature depending upon available technology and what one is trying to prove. That's why scientists disagree.

micaho,
travels and I were having a conversation, not a discussion, we know each other.
It's her thread.

As for injecting politics yes off topic, and you sound like a sore loser who can't get past it.

As for nature, no matter how it is interpreted it is undeniable.

Yes scientists disagree, until enough evidence compels them to except proven findings as reliable, verifiable fact, until new evidence contradicts those facts.
I have no more faith in science than I do religion.
Circumcision has it's origins in religious ceremonies and is not medically required.
The medical community considers it cleaner to be circumcised than not which is false.

There are all kinds of sexual mutilations of both sexes based on superstition that occur around the world to this day.

Timing has to do with bleeding, infection, and the newborns developing system and is subject to both religious views and medical opinions of a doctor.

Game cocks have their combs cut and spurs removed during the new moon to minimize bleeding, there are specific times to castrate as well for new pigs and calves.

Your question, were they created or evolved is directed at what, if it's political and about opinions I don't think it applies.

Evolve simply means change sorta like growing up and maturing, coping with other changes, learning new things, excepting things you cannot change and moving on.

It is a fact that all things must evolve in order to survive.

Moons.

Ohhh gezzz where to begin (lol)

I am not thinking outside the realm of ridiculousness Travels, what is ridiculous is what YOU are saying pretty much is debunked by the links YOU posted for me to understand. Have you read your own links ?

* "Funny, that's precisely what you do with the Bible!" *

Yes, IMO the Bible could be contingent because it could be or it could not be testaments by God. Contingent doesn't mean necessary or impossible, just because I'm writing this doesn't mean it's actual (necessary or impossible) to the whole universe BUT I am writing this and you see it, so it's contingent because it could be or it couldn't be written by me. The Bible is contingent because people did write it or people didn't write it.  Now some might suggest it's impossible and or necessary (I personally think the Bible was necessary because I believe in "intelligent design" or "creation") but for arguments sake here - it could be or it couldn't be. So yes, the Bible could be contingent. (LMAO)

Your first link - wow interesting read, I wonder who is funding them - but I digress !! (lol) A true theory is "observations" what you see and know to be real, yet still could be falsified by peer reviews, statements and verifiable evidences. 911 Truth is a "theory" For me to even say evolution is a theory is a stretch because the "theory of evolution" has never been observed and known to be real by observation, it is all based on assuming events or "changes" took place and can never be tested or verified today. It's a one way thought process with no verification or confirmation based solely on assuming. According to your first link posted - they give the right description of theory but leave out one word to conform the reader to it's final conclusion which is "evolution is not just a theory" (LOL) I mean, it's almost like reading a college humor publication drawing in the crowd of "intelligent design" by those who advocate evolution. That article is not what you think it was travels. lol

I'll give it a theory status just because that's all I ever knew it be, but it's definitely not a fact or law and according to your link it's not even a theory !! It fits more as a philosophy or belief system or maybe even a religion leaving that page. LMAO That was a fun quick read though, thanks.

Your second link - well, I'm not sure why you even posted that (LOL) because for one, it's a page to join a group called "TalkOrigins" and has nothing of value to our discussion here from your point of view. But (lol) as I was reading, it clearly states "mainstream scientific responses" those who impose a challenge to the mainstream will be met with scorn. (para) I do understand, simply reading this OT section alone - "intelligent design" is NOT mainstream. (LMAO) I did join TalkOrigins because after reading about 20 mainstream publications last night - I was compelled to do so. It does state however robo moderation is content neutral .. and so far so good. (lol)

As far as the 8th day - that's been medically proven and us arguing over it will only result in whether God exists or he doesn't exist. (LMAO)

I must go check on Pappy now, but I did have something else I wanted to say but it left my brain after my laughing spell on your first link.

BE,
do you agree with any of Darwins observations?
Just curious.

Moons.

Some things I do but for the most part I side with Einstein. I'll explain later. Ron Paul is going to give P1 Farewell Speech on the House Floor shortly - but I'll be back. lol

No need to explain,
I was just curious.

Um, Ron Paul, where's he going?

BE, I'm not giong to go around in circles with you, your logic is flawed because you will not consider an alternative to the supernatural.  The real world is the only place we can weigh evidence, everything from there is opinion.  It'll suffice to say that creation (anthing but) science will continue to fail time and again in court, because it lacks evidence on a grand scale.... unlike real science, which does have hard evidence to support it.  That would be real life evidence, not faith.  And that's the way it should be, creation should be taught in church and taken for what it's worth there, because it's the only place it will ever gain an iota of respect.

Evolution vs. Creation = Astronomy vs Astrology

He's retiring from Congress Moons, only a few more day now.

I can't believe that Nancy Pelosi she's on CSPAN now saying how finally the most outspoken critic of unconstitutional policy is gone and this administration is now more united to move America forward.  (para) Can you believe that POS. I hope the US Military is listening to every word that  scumbag spews.

How can she say that about the only critic of unconstitutional policies and get away with it on national TV ?? WTF !!!

* "It'll suffice to say that creation (anthing but) science will continue to fail time and again in court, because it lacks evidence on a grand scale." *

In court ? lol

You couldn't even prove in a court of law monkeys did push-up's before they suddenly macroevolved to humans. You would have to present a monkey as evidence and that alone would present doubts human evolved from a monkey !!!!  lol

Seriously though, court of law ? or court of public opinion ?

The top ten major court cases about Evolution and Creastionism

by Molleen Matsumura & Louise Mead

1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not permit a state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any particular religious sect or doctrine. (Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) 393 U.S. 97, 37 U.S. Law Week 4017, 89 S. Ct. 266, 21 L. Ed 228)
2. In 1981, in Segraves v. State of California, the court found that the California State Board of Education's Science Framework, as written and as qualified by its antidogmatism policy, gave sufficient accommodation to the views of Segraves, contrary to his contention that class discussion of evolution prohibited his and his children's free exercise of religion. The anti-dogmatism policy provided that class discussions of origins should emphasize that scientific explanations focus on "how", not "ultimate cause", and that any speculative statements concerning origins, both in texts and in classes, should be presented conditionally, not dogmatically. The court's ruling also directed the Board of Education to disseminate the policy, which in 1989 was expanded to cover all areas of science, not just those concerning evolution. (Segraves v. California (1981) Sacramento Superior Court #278978)
3. In 1982, in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, a federal court held that a "balanced treatment" statute violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Arkansas statute required public schools to give balanced treatment to "creation-science" and "evolution-science". In a decision that gave a detailed definition of the term "science", the court declared that "creation science" is not in fact a science. The court also found that the statute did not have a secular purpose, noting that the statute used language peculiar to creationist literature. The theory of evolution does not presuppose either the absence or the presence of a creator. (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982) 529 F. Supp. 1255, 50 U.S. Law Week 2412)
4. In 1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court held unconstitutional Louisiana's "Creationism Act". This statute prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools, except when it was accompanied by instruction in "creation science". The Court found that, by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind, which is embraced by the term creation science, the act impermissibly endorses religion. In addition, the Court found that the provision of a comprehensive science education is undermined when it is forbidden to teach evolution except when creation science is also taught. (Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) 482 U.S. 578)
5. In 1990, in Webster v. New Lenox School District, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that a school district may prohibit a teacher from teaching creation science in fulfilling its responsibility to ensure that the First Amendment's establishment clause is not violated and that religious beliefs are not injected into the public school curriculum. The court upheld a district court finding that the school district had not violated Webster's free speech rights when it prohibited him from teaching "creation science", since it is a form of religious advocacy. (Webster v. New Lenox School District #122, 917 F. 2d 1004)
6. In 1994, in Peloza v. Capistrano School District, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court finding that a teacher's First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is not violated by a school district's requirement that evolution be taught in biology classes. Rejecting plaintiff Peloza's definition of a "religion" of "evolutionism", the Court found that the district had simply and appropriately required a science teacher to teach a scientific theory in biology class. (John E. Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, (1994) 37 F. 3rd 517)
7. In 1997, in Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana rejected a policy requiring teachers to read aloud a disclaimer whenever they taught about evolution, ostensibly to promote "critical thinking". Noting that the policy singled out the theory of evolution for attention, that the only "concept" from which students were not to be "dissuaded" was "the Biblical concept of Creation", and that students were already encouraged to engage in critical thinking, the Court wrote that, "In mandating this disclaimer, the School Board is endorsing religion by disclaiming the teaching of evolution in such a manner as to convey the message that evolution is a religious viewpoint that runs counter to ... other religious views". Besides addressing disclaimer policies, the decision is noteworthy for recognizing that curriculum proposals for "intelligent design" are equivalent to proposals for teaching "creation science". (Freiler v Tangipahoa Board of Education, No. 94-3577 (E.D. La. Aug. 8, 1997). On August 13, 1999, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision; on June 19, 2000, the Supreme Court declined to hear the School Board's appeal, thus letting the lower court's decision stand.
8. In 2000, Minnesota State District Court Judge Bernard E. Borene dismissed the case of Rodney LeVake v Independent School District 656, et al. (Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum, Court File Nr. CX-99-793, District Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of Minnesota [2000]). High school biology teacher LeVake had argued for his right to teach "evidence both for and against the theory" of evolution. The school district considered the content of what he was teaching and concluded that it did not match the curriculum, which required the teaching of evolution. Given the large amount of case law requiring a teacher to teach the employing district's curriculum, the judge declared that LeVake did not have a free speech right to override the curriculum, nor was the district guilty of religious discrimination.
9. In January 2005, in Selman et al. v. Cobb County School District et al., U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper ruled that a evolution warning label required in Cobb County textbooks violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The disclaimer stickers stated, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." After the district court's decision, the stickers were removed from Cobb’s textbooks. The school district, however, appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and in May 2006 the Appeals Court remanded the case to the district court for clarification of the evidentiary record. On December 19, 2006, the lawsuit reached a settlement; the Cobb County School District agreed not to disclaim or denigrate evolution either orally or in written form.
10. On December 20, 2005, in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover, U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III ordered the Dover Area School Board to refrain from maintaining an Intelligent Design Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. The ID policy included a statement in the science curriculum that "students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory and other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design." Teachers were also required to announce to their biology classes that "Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind". In his 139-page ruling, Judge Jones wrote it was "abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause". Furthermore, Judge Jones ruled that "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". In reference to whether Intelligent Design is science Judge Jones wrote ID "is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community". This was the first challenge to the constitutionality of teaching "intelligent design" in the public school science classroom. (Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688)