Human Evolution Is Not Taught In Public Schools

[BlackSand]

.

Human Evolution is taught so people can fight with each other over something that doesn't make a bit of difference ... ​

.

 

[noonereal]

If you have to proof-read to find basic spelling mistakes, that says more about you than you probably want revealed.

I prefer people who are smart over people who are educated. They bring far more value to the table.

it's just self-indulgent pseudo-intellectual,

I think a place for such contemplation exists before university. I can recall at 15 having these discussions in the back of the bus on my way to and from prep school.
All those in these pseudo-intellectual conversations went on to do something meaningful in life. It was the kids who had no such intellectual curiosity that have added little.

 

[noonereal]

.

Human Evolution is taught so people can fight with each other over something that doesn't make a bit of difference ... ​

.

and it can also be said, creationism is taught so people can fight with each other over something that doesn't make a bit of difference ...

 

[BlackSand]

.

Human Evolution is taught so people can fight with each other over something that doesn't make a bit of difference ... ​

.

and it can also be said, creationism is taught so people can fight with each other over something that doesn't make a bit of difference ...

.

It could be said that chocolate donuts taste better than chocolate ice cream ... And it still won't make a difference ... ​

.

 

[noonereal]

.

Human Evolution is taught so people can fight with each other over something that doesn't make a bit of difference ... ​

.

and it can also be said, creationism is taught so people can fight with each other over something that doesn't make a bit of difference ...

.

It could be said that chocolate donuts taste better than chocolate ice cream ... And it still won't make a difference ... ​

.

deplorables, you can't live with them, you can't get rid of them. It's a problem.

 

[BlackSand]

deplorables, you can't live with them, you can't get rid of them. It's a problem.

.

You probably have a lot of problems ... Your insecurities do more to create them, and disallow your ability to evolve ... ​

.

 

[WinterBorn]

What I find most amusing about this sort of thread, and they are fairly common, is that the same fundamentalist Christians who continually attack science are the ones who whine that people are attacking Christianity. Funny how they seem to think one is ok and the other is not.

 

[BlackSand]

What I find most amusing about this sort of thread, and they are fairly common, is that the same fundamentalist Christians who continually attack science are the ones who whine that people are attacking Christianity. Funny how they seem to think one is ok and the other is not.

.

It's going to get interesting when someone employs Intelligent Design,
and actually does something with what they have learned about Human Evolution ... ​

.

 

[Hollie]

What is the best evidence there was a common ancestor for monkeys and humans? I don't want a museum exhibit or text book answer.

View attachment 458116

Huh, this is the best. Where is the common ancestor one, hmmm? If I said humans did not come from chimpanzees, then you guys would be all over me for not knowing about human evolution. Can you just fark yourself now?

Is there some reason why you believe that humans actually did “come from chimpanzees”?

 

[james bond]

What I find most amusing about this sort of thread, and they are fairly common, is that the same fundamentalist Christians who continually attack science are the ones who whine that people are attacking Christianity. Funny how they seem to think one is ok and the other is not.

Where am I attacking science? I thought I was stating a FACT that human evolution isn't taught in schools.

You were one of the few who learned it. It makes me wonder if you learned about the fraud that was presented for the common ancestor and Haeckel -- Haeckel’s Fraudulent Embryo Drawings Are Still Present in Biology Textbooks — Here’s a List | Evolution News Why such fraud in science? This is why we are discussing real vs fake science. Anyway, I admitted the creationists lost trying to get creation science back into science programs like it used to belong. The best is teaching it as religion in public schools. Nothing wrong with that. I even said ID (which I do not advocate) may not pass muster as science, either.

I'm not one of those who whine about people attacking Christianity, but defend it when I can.

What got to me in this thread to the core was fncceo comical science of:

How is it different from what I presented as argument, i.e. the common ancestor Lucy was a chimp.

What made me go into a rage against him is I caught him in a lie and the hypocrisy that leftists present. I would be skewered if I said humans didn't come from monkeys (chimpanzee). They would point out it was a mysterious common ancestor. That's why I am trying to find out more information about this common ancestor. So far, no evidence. Will you admit there is no evidence for a common ancestor (besides the controversial fossil claimed to be "it.")?

We haven't even got to bipedalism. Is there a chromosome for that? You should be able to answer that.

 

[Dagosa]

Sure, why teach a theory that may not be true and the majority of Americans (85% to 90%) do not believe?

You need to get a good natural science book that discusses evolution before embarrassing yourself anymore in claiming you know what a theory is or is not.

Why bother? there is no empirical chain of evidence for any form of life that proves evolution is a fact, so you should take a science course and learn about empirical methodologies before spamming threads with cult rubbish.

That’s exactly right. There is no evidence that literally establishes any thing in science as an absolute fact. You’ve just defined a theory. Absolutely no form of problem solving can do that. It’s why science ALWAYS includes a level of certainty based upon a statistical inference. That is much more reliable then guess. Science uses consensus then developers a level of certainty from it.

Anyone who has a better way of providing understanding in problem solving has failed since the scientific method was developed and i improved upon. I highly recommend you research the “ scientific method” as well. what's your alternative to consensus of the conclusions by the majority of the smartest and most dedicated people doing the research ? Is an alternate....just listening to one guys opinion over every research facility in the world ?

 

[Dagosa]

Sure, why teach a theory that may not be true and the majority of Americans (85% to 90%) do not believe?

You need to get a good natural science book that discusses evolution before embarrassing yourself anymore in claiming you know what a theory is or is not.

This isn't about natural science. There are plenty of threads here of creation science vs evolution. This is about what the majority of Americans believe and it isn't human evolution, i.e. humans evolved from monkeys. They believe in creation. It also touches what people are willing to allow to be taught in schools such as creation as a religion. Or ID as science.

So, in regards to books, you can use your book in evolution science classes while the Bible can be used in creation classes.

All science is dealt with the same way, not just natural science. Science text books are submitted to the appropriate education facilities who do the research on their authenticity and agreement among the entire scientific community. If you can get a Bible to be agreed upon by every major corporation that uses evolution for example as a science tool, go for it. There are industries throughout the world that uses evolution theory for their product development from foods to vaccines. If you think a Bible is an alternative to these agreed upon science text, none of these people could get a job. That’s why universities and public schools need accreditation.

 

[Dagosa]

What I find most amusing about this sort of thread, and they are fairly common, is that the same fundamentalist Christians who continually attack science are the ones who whine that people are attacking Christianity. Funny how they seem to think one is ok and the other is not.

Where am I attacking science? I thought I was stating a FACT that human evolution isn't taught in schools.

You were one of the few who learned it. It makes me wonder if you learned about the fraud that was presented for the common ancestor and Haeckel -- Haeckel’s Fraudulent Embryo Drawings Are Still Present in Biology Textbooks — Here’s a List | Evolution News Why such fraud in science? This is why we are discussing real vs fake science. Anyway, I admitted the creationists lost trying to get creation science back into science programs like it used to belong. The best is teaching it as religion in public schools. Nothing wrong with that. I even said ID (which I do not advocate) may not pass muster as science, either.

I'm not one of those who whine about people attacking Christianity, but defend it when I can.

What got to me in this thread to the core was fncceo comical science of:

How is it different from what I presented as argument, i.e. the common ancestor Lucy was a chimp.

What made me go into a rage against him is I caught him in a lie and the hypocrisy that leftists present. I would be skewered if I said humans didn't come from monkeys (chimpanzee). They would point out it was a mysterious common ancestor. That's why I am trying to find out more information about this common ancestor. So far, no evidence. Will you admit there is no evidence for a common ancestor (besides the controversial fossil claimed to be "it.")?

We haven't even got to bipedalism. Is there a chromosome for that? You should be able to answer that.

human evolution is taught as a scientific theory. It’s based upon the scientific method. Until someone has an idea how science works, it’s impossible to understand where they are coming from. It would be good if you gave an alternative to science that every major Corp in the world that uses evolution would accept. They use it to develope products. Bibles have never workEd for that use. Find something better.

 

[Dagosa]

Sure, why teach a theory that may not be true and the majority of Americans (85% to 90%) do not believe?

You need to get a good natural science book that discusses evolution before embarrassing yourself anymore in claiming you know what a theory is or is not.

This isn't about natural science. There are plenty of threads here of creation science vs evolution. This is about what the majority of Americans believe and it isn't human evolution, i.e. humans evolved from monkeys. They believe in creation. It also touches what people are willing to allow to be taught in schools such as creation as a religion. Or ID as science.

So, in regards to books, you can use your book in evolution science classes while the Bible can be used in creation classes.

What a particular number of Americans believe , doesn’t make it true. Going to the bar and taking a poll on how many believe in human evolution is a sad commentary on how you interview for a job at food plant that uses evolution to develope thier products. You get a formal education with an a degree from an accredited school. That tells all the people who are going to pay you, you know something about making their product . Bible studies are not accredited for these efforts. you. Want to preach about the Bible, go for it. But it’s. Not what the vast majority of businesses both small and large, want to hear.

 

[james bond]

It's going to get interesting when someone employs Intelligent Design,
and actually does something with what they have learned about Human Evolution ...

I'm not arguing for ID, but the ID side already have presented several good arguments. What they haven't been able to complete is be accepted as science.

Biology - Evolution cannot explain beauty and complexity (for complexity, we got that with the human and animals eye and ear)
Physics - Fine tuning (I know it from reading Stephen Hawking and his scientists articles from 2007-2011, but they took it all down b/c it went against evo)
Cosmology - Kalam Cosmological Argument I & II

 

[james bond]

All science is dealt with the same way, not just natural science. Science text books are submitted to the appropriate education facilities who do the research on their authenticity and agreement among the entire scientific community. If you can get a Bible to be agreed upon by every major corporation that uses evolution for example as a science tool, go for it. There are industries throughout the world that uses evolution theory for their product development from foods to vaccines. If you think a Bible is an alternative to these agreed upon science text, none of these people could get a job. That’s why universities and public schools need accreditation.

>>If you can get a Bible to be agreed upon by every major corporation that uses evolution for example as a science tool, go for it. There are industries throughout the world that uses evolution theory for their product development from foods to vaccines. If you think a Bible is an alternative to these agreed upon science text, none of these people could get a job. That’s why universities and public schools need accreditation. <<

That is interesting. Which evolution theory do they use? Can you provide a few examples?

No, teaching creation science that was accredited in the past has been replaced by evolution. They replaced the truth for a lie. Anyway, I accepted that and have gotten the wheels rolling to see if it will be taught in schools as religion.

What a particular number of Americans believe , doesn’t make it true.

So is taking a poll of atheist scientists and claiming consensus. It wasn't like that in the past (both sides were involved before ToE). They exchanged the truth for a lie.

 

[BlackSand]

It's going to get interesting when someone employs Intelligent Design,
and actually does something with what they have learned about Human Evolution ...

I'm not arguing for ID, but the ID side already have presented several good arguments. What they haven't been able to complete is be accepted as science.

Biology - Evolution cannot explain beauty and complexity (for complexity, we got that with the human and animals eye and ear)
Physics - Fine tuning (I know it from reading Stephen Hawking and his scientists articles from 2007-2011, but they took it all down b/c it went against evo)
Cosmology - Kalam Cosmological Argument I & II

My comment was in the Present Tense, talking about what someone could do with what they have learned about Human Evolution.
It serves no purpose to argue about it ... It's not going to accomplish anything.

The only thing the argument provides, is the opportunity for people to look towards others in their attempts to validate their beliefs, and manage their own insecurities.

.

 

[Dagosa]

It's going to get interesting when someone employs Intelligent Design,
and actually does something with what they have learned about Human Evolution ...

I'm not arguing for ID, but the ID side already have presented several good arguments. What they haven't been able to complete is be accepted as science.

Biology - Evolution cannot explain beauty and complexity (for complexity, we got that with the human and animals eye and ear)
Physics - Fine tuning (I know it from reading Stephen Hawking and his scientists articles from 2007-2011, but they took it all down b/c it went against evo)
Cosmology - Kalam Cosmological Argument I & II

So what’s your point. Science adds understanding. It doesn’t claim to give you facts down to quantum theory level that very fewer scientist get themselves. But, there is no other method that comes as close or is as accurate as the agreed upon science Developed by all the accredited universities and research facilities. Anyone who wants to disagree with the most successful method of problem solving Needs to first understand it themselves.

 

[Dagosa]

All science is dealt with the same way, not just natural science. Science text books are submitted to the appropriate education facilities who do the research on their authenticity and agreement among the entire scientific community. If you can get a Bible to be agreed upon by every major corporation that uses evolution for example as a science tool, go for it. There are industries throughout the world that uses evolution theory for their product development from foods to vaccines. If you think a Bible is an alternative to these agreed upon science text, none of these people could get a job. That’s why universities and public schools need accreditation.

>>If you can get a Bible to be agreed upon by every major corporation that uses evolution for example as a science tool, go for it. There are industries throughout the world that uses evolution theory for their product development from foods to vaccines. If you think a Bible is an alternative to these agreed upon science text, none of these people could get a job. That’s why universities and public schools need accreditation. <<

That is interesting. Which evolution theory do they use? Can you provide a few examples?

No, teaching creation science that was accredited in the past has been replaced by evolution. They replaced the truth for a lie. Anyway, I accepted that and have gotten the wheels rolling to see if it will be taught in schools as religion.

What a particular number of Americans believe , doesn’t make it true.

So is taking a poll of atheist scientists and claiming consensus. It wasn't like that in the past (both sides were involved before ToE). They exchanged the truth for a lie.

This isnt a science class, this is a discussion. Do the research yourself to answer your questions. . Behavioral science says, that will be more meaningful to you.
Atheism discussion is just a diversion. Catholics believe in science and evolution and the also use the Bible in their own community. Many other religions are not science deniers or non users of evolution. So, throwing atheism in there is invalid. Unless you refuse to use any product developed by science, it doesn’t make sense to me to talk about atheism or any religious reference while discussing science.

 

[Dagosa]

it's just a hypothesis

Evolution is not just a hypothesis you dishonest retard. It's a theory. Ignorant people like you rarely understand the difference though.

I'm not ignorant one who believes in lies haha.

The Bible was never intended as a science or history book. Why teach morality tales as science?

You're right, the Bible is not a science book but it is a history book. However, we find science backs up the Bible. Anyway, I don't want to argue about teaching the Bible and creation science as science. I admit that is a dead curriculum. I don't think ID can be taught as science either as it was demonstrated to not be scientific. However, the Bible and creation science can be taught as religion in public schools. I think that is a worthy pursuit and have put some wheels in motion outside this forum.

Teaching the Bible and creationism in public schools would mean teaching all the other religions as well. Otherwise you would have selected a specific religion for gov't schools. And that is expressly forbidden.

Also, there are a number of things in the Bible that are not backed up by science. Noah's Flood, God through Joshua stopping the sun in the sky, and other specifics are not backed by science.

Help me. Is anything in a Christian Bible backed up by science ? There is no evidence in the Bible itself.....
imo, the two don’t mix. science deals with “ earthly problem” solving. Religion deals with something that as yet, there is no evidence of. But we’re open to anything.