|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2004 3:37 pm
k_gilmore darwin said his theory was not complete. he stated that he had no clue in hell how an eyeball would have evolved, because, according to him, the eyelid, which is seperate from the eye, would not of evolved without something to be a lid for, and the eye would not have evolved without a lid to keep it clean and protect it, otherwise it would be damaged too easily. makes sense, but there are some animals without eyelids. What if the eye evolved under a transparent membrane, which later evolved into an opaque sheath to block bright light?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2004 3:46 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 2:33 pm
Fiendsworth k_gilmore darwin said his theory was not complete. he stated that he had no clue in hell how an eyeball would have evolved, because, according to him, the eyelid, which is seperate from the eye, would not of evolved without something to be a lid for, and the eye would not have evolved without a lid to keep it clean and protect it, otherwise it would be damaged too easily. makes sense, but there are some animals without eyelids. What if the eye evolved under a transparent membrane, which later evolved into an opaque sheath to block bright light? It would also have to evolve to be able to blink, because there would be no point for the transparent membrane toshift positions. Perhaps the eye was slowly created, from something that can only sense intensity of light (Like when you close your eyes, and can see brightness, if you look at a light), evolved from then on into the eye we currently have, and the eyelid grew to protect it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 4:16 pm
It's not really that difficult to see how the eye could have evolved. Even some single celled organisms, especially those with chlorophyll, have light sensitive organelles. If you can see better, then more imperfect copies of yourself will be more likely to exist in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 1:21 pm
Quite suprisingly, this has yet to happen in good 'ol Alabama, but I doubt the amount of time it will take nusto cristians to completely dominate the state can't be too far away. A least we got rid of Roy Moore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:49 am
Personally, I think the state mandate of teaching more information, about ANY topic, is AWESOME. I'm all about teaching intelligent design alongside evoltion. I think any person who does not believe that a person should make a decision based upon all the theories, ideas, and information availible to them is full of s**t, and ID, as dumb as it is, factors into this. Reading ID and evolution, I find it painfully obvious which is reasonable. All my bio classes let kids argue during the evoltuion portion, so it would get discussed, and more info would come out than the book could ever hope to teach. Really, I think it's the best way to teach such ideas.
The libelous stickers, the health books that claim abstinance is the ONLY contraceptive, and not requireing schools to teach evolution next to ID, those things all suck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 6:47 am
Lydia Desdemona Personally, I think the state mandate of teaching more information, about ANY topic, is AWESOME. I'm all about teaching intelligent design alongside evoltion. I think any person who does not believe that a person should make a decision based upon all the theories, ideas, and information availible to them is full of s**t, and ID, as dumb as it is, factors into this. Reading ID and evolution, I find it painfully obvious which is reasonable. All my bio classes let kids argue during the evoltuion portion, so it would get discussed, and more info would come out than the book could ever hope to teach. Really, I think it's the best way to teach such ideas. The libelous stickers, the health books that claim abstinance is the ONLY contraceptive, and not requireing schools to teach evolution next to ID, those things all suck. I agree intelligent design should be mentioned, as a non-scientific creation hypothesis. In fact, it would be even better if we could mention any and all creation myths ever created. But ID, as much as say the Norse creation myth, must not be taught as a truth in a science class; as much as science goes, the truth is "evolution" and "abiogenesis", for lack of better models. If other, unfounded myths must be taught, it should be outside of science classes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 8:56 pm
Sotek http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/11/30/MNGVNA3PE11.DTL oh my! crying sweatdrop this country is going to the pits. Soon there are going to be witch trials all over again evil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 10:24 pm
If something like this ever happens at my school I will literaly implode.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:43 am
quick my fellow believers the science is too close we must repress opinions and brand the world with OUR FACTS.... any good text book should present what we know about evolution and what we dont... its good science...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 3:26 am
The most important thing I ever learned from religious education (which is a normal lesson in school in the UK, and everyone has to learn it) is that all religions are equally dumb.
Religions always look retarded from an objective perspective; the only reason that people inside the religions can't see that is because they've never known anything else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 6:45 am
referring back to the side discussion about the evolution of the eye, dan-erik nilsson has studied this topic. here is a great link that has a clip showing nilsson explaining his theory. ^_^
i despise ID theory. these theorists can object evolution with whatever facts they may have, but they still need to come up with evidence for their own theory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 4:10 pm
I personally thaink it's about time. I can't understand how people can believe something that Darwin himself later said wasn't true. Even most scientists now claim that there must be someone who created the universe, though not many admit to it being God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 5:53 am
windswept_fury I personally thaink it's about time. I can't understand how people can believe something that Darwin himself later said wasn't true. Even most scientists now claim that there must be someone who created the universe, though not many admit to it being God. Both are creationist myths. And both are untrue. Most scientists are not creationists. And Darwin never said any such thing. Evidence for my points her is somewhere in the links above. I don't have time to find them right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 3:40 pm
redem Both are creationist myths. And both are untrue. Most scientists are not creationists. And Darwin never said any such thing. Evidence for my points her is somewhere in the links above. I don't have time to find them right now. Or are they? I never said scientists were creationists, I said that most believe in some divine power. Don't mistranslate my words. And you'd know he never said that how? I'm not gonna go searching for false answers. You people keep talking about you're right. Give proof.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
