Judge rules against ‘intelligent design’

[Dracil]

Someone with such a narrow-minded view of homeschooling should not be encouraged to homeschool. With such limited resources and such a poor attitude about the whole process, his children would certainly be better off under professional care. If only to get them away from an ego that thinks he knows what's better for our children than their loving parents do. Unfortunately, sending them to school won't accomplish that.

Ego? I'm not the one who thinks I'm somehow better equipped than professionals to do their jobs. Nor am I the one trying to force other people's children to learn the hogwash known as Creationism and Intelligent Design in science classes. Fascinating twist of logic you have there. Then again, I can't say I'm surprised, given the source.

Oh yeah, and way to quote-mine my post and leave out the "however" bits.

 

[chaoschristian]

My apologies to the OP if my minor rant has now thrown this thread off track.

Dracil: If I read more into you original statement than you intended, then I apologize. Any debate that we or anyone else might want to have regarding homeschooling needs to take place in the appropriate forum.

That said, please know that not all homeschoolers are teaching their children creationism.

 

[Dracil]

Yeah, I know. I definitely wasn't trying to generalize *all* homeschooling as bad. Sorry if it came out that way.

 

[david_x]

not to undermine your profesionalism Dracil, but you were trained be the same Government that passed this ruling, were you not?

It seems the government will have us believe their narrow-minded ideals. One must learn to question human authority, especially that which bands God. (no i'm not saying were not "free" here, but the illusive freedom we have is the ideal fed to us by the government our whole lives.

 

[Dracil]

No, I wasn't actually.

 

[The Lady Kate]

It seems the government will have us believe their narrow-minded ideals. One must learn to question human authority, especially that which bands [sic] God.

As well as human authority which claims to speak on God's behalf... I've found such authority is often far more questionable.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060104/ap_on_re_us/evolution_showdown

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

all the millions upon millions of transitional fossils that should be in the earth if evolution was true?

And why do you think there should be more than the many tens of thousands, if not millions of transitional fossils that have already been found?

Go to your local forest preserve and dig up several 1 meter square sites to a depth of 1 meter, keeping track of how many skeletons you find and at what depths... then get back to us about how many fossils should be found.

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

Go to your local forest preserve and dig up several 1 meter square sites to a depth of 1 meter, keeping track of how many skeletons you find and at what depths... then get back to us about how many fossils should be found.

The National Parks Department won't mind then? Cool.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

The National Parks Department won't mind then?

Not one bit.

The local sheriff might though.



Permit-wise it might be easier to find a farmer willing to let you dig up his
fields in the offseason if you promise to replace all the dirt.

Modern subdivisions tend to have so much dirt moved around you would have to go 3-5 meters down before you hit "virgin" earth.

Fact is that in a few places a careful person can find dozens of fossils in a day, and all of them transitional.

And many other places you'd be hardpressed to find anything at all.

 

[vossler]

Fact is that in a few places a careful person can find dozens of fossils in a day, and all of them transitional.

Just what is it that is considered transitional? I mean according to the definition that I'm aware of, if I was buried in a field and someone dug up my bones I should be labeled transitional because according to evolution aren't we all in a state of transition?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Just what is it that is considered transitional? I mean according to the definition that I'm aware of, if I was buried in a field and someone dug up my bones I should be labeled transitional because according to evolution aren't we all in a state of transition?

Technically yes, everything is a slight bit different from it's parents and children. That is one of the major misunderstandings that we have to clear up every day is seems. Evolution is not about dogs giving birth to cats, it is about slight changes adding up. So both the Bibles "Every kind reproducing after its kind" and the theory of evolution are not only compatible, but saying the exact same thing. It is only when people add the idea to the Bible that each kind was separately created by God, that the problems arise in some peoples minds.

 

[vossler]

Technically yes, everything is a slight bit different from it's parents and children. That is one of the major misunderstandings that we have to clear up every day is seems. Evolution is not about dogs giving birth to cats, it is about slight changes adding up. So both the Bibles "Every kind reproducing after its kind" and the theory of evolution are not only compatible, but saying the exact same thing. It is only when people add the idea to the Bible that each kind was separately created by God, that the problems arise in some peoples minds.

So according to TOE all bones or fossils are transitional, nothing stays constant. Since my ancestors were apes, in the future my offspring will be some other mammal with different characteristics.

They'll probably look back and talk about how primative we were and discuss whether or not the intelligence we displayed would even be considered intelligent by their present standards, not unlike we currently do.

I wonder what their verdict will be. Judging by what goes on today, I don't think it will be very favorable.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

So according to TOE all bones or fossils are transitional, nothing stays constant. Since my ancestors were apes, in the future my offspring will be some other mammal with different characteristics.

They'll probably look back and talk about how primative we were and discuss whether or not the intelligence we displayed would even be considered intelligent by their present standards, not unlike we currently do.



I wonder what their verdict will be. Judging by what goes on today, I don't think it will be very favorable.

Probably not too different from us, remember that we still have all the same basic characteristics of any other of the "ape" super family.



And yes, they might look back upon us and some of our ideas like we look back on flat earthers, geocentrists and any other idea that seems silly to us now, but did not at the time. I choose not to worry too much about that, I just do the best I can with what I have. I doubt I'll be too offended once I'm gone from this world and home with the Lord anyway.



Are you so worried by what someone in the far future might think of you? Why?

 

[vossler]

Are you so worried by what someone in the far future might think of you? Why?

Not in the least, I just thought it would be interesting being a fly on the wall while they laugh about some of the things we talked about.

 

[david_x]

No, I wasn't actually.

so, by whom

 

[Dracil]

Try reading my profile.

Oh, and for the record, I don't like your government (especially the current one).

Any more off-topic questions?

 

[david_x]

Try reading my profile.

Oh, and for the record, I don't like your government (especially the current one).

Any more off-topic questions?

Ohhh, whooops my bad. I forgot to check your country, sorry!

Yeah i really can't stand this counry either, to propagandized.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Just what is it that is considered transitional? I mean according to the definition that I'm aware of, if I was buried in a field and someone dug up my bones I should be labeled transitional because according to evolution aren't we all in a state of transition?

Before answering I just want to say that I suggest reading the talkorigins.org transitional fossil faq that somebody else pointed out earlier.

To answer your question, essentiallly, yes..

Most narrowly, and contradicting what I wrote, one should probably define transitional as meaning a species that has been fit into an evolutionary sequence.

Some species are not transitional because they are dead ends, having gone extinct before any other species evolved from them. Others are not yet transitional. But it seems likely that most fossils we have found are either transitional or closely related to a transitional species.

My point was that there are places where there are lots of animals but few bones, much less fossils. To repeat the claim that every, or even most, transitional species should have left fossils and that we should have already found them suggests to me a failure to think through the problems of fossil formation and preservation.

 

[vossler]

To answer your question, essentiallly, yes..

So since it appears all humans are of the same classification, at least when it comes to evolution, we're all undergoing some sort of transition together. No one is being left behind right?