We did quite a bit on evolution in my class, but we didn't call it evolution. We stuck to terms like "genetic drift" or whatever have you. The only parents who would equate this to evolution would be those who understood enough biology not to be creationists, so it kept the creationist parents happily ignorant of what their kids were being taught. ("You learned about genetic drift? Oh how nice, I'm glad they're not teaching you any of that evolution nonsense.")Originally posted by Ethelred
Somehow even in high school biology classes evolution is still hidden away from the tender minds of American youth. Controlled ignorance.
You didn't miss much, trust me. High School biology is so bad in the US that you can learn more from one issue of Scientific American than you can in an entire school year. Some leading scietists even reviewed our nations science text books and flunked them. http://www.sciencenews.org/20010317/bob9.aspWhat I know of biology I learned outside of clases.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0929020538.htm
Kansas is not a Southern State. Its not quite as bad you are thinking though.Originally posted by DarkCloud
I can almost bet that 10% of that 33 live in Kansas as they are attmepting to outlaw evolutionary theory again.
http://www.kcfs.org/
Thanks to the wisdom of Kansas voters, new science standards were adopted in February 2001, which re-emphasized the theory of evolution as the unifying theme of modern biology.
I guess its the legislature that is hard of learning. The voters seem to have a better grasp on reality.
They don't CARE how long science says evolution took. Not the young Earth creationists anyway. They don't think the Earth is old at all so the claims of billions of years don't faze them one bit.The creationists merely do not have a grasp of how LONG it took these things to evolve.
Isolationism seems more Republican to me. Bush was planning on going a bit isolationist until September 11. At least he learned how stupid that was. Not completely brain dead I guess. I don't understand why he was on the side of isolationism though since his father certainly wasn't.I don't think it is dying. At least among Democrats in America. And anyways, "true" isolationism never existed. America was always intervening in Latin America from the 1870's onwards.
So then what do you want to call it?Originally posted by Logical Realist
Maybe the numerical relationships described by math exist but math itself cannot. Math is just a field of study, remove any being capable of studying math and you remove math. For the time being.
If the numerical relationships exist without Man then it would be charitable to call this hair splitting on your part. Shall we call it numericalrelationshipsthatwecan'tcallmathbecausema nisnotaroundtocallitthatology.
I will stick with calling it math. The numerical relationships don't need Men but Men need words to discuss them.
kansas is part of the southern "bible belt"
and bush was isolationist because the people were isolationist. The people didn't want war. The american people are idiots.
They should either invervene in EVERY foreign war (Yugoslavia and AFRICAN WARS!) or they should intervene in NONE!!!(!#(@&$(!@
Can't they decide what they want.
And democrats are more isolationist- they don't want people to buy weapons and arms.
-->Visit CGN!
-->"Production! More Production! Production creates Wealth! Production creates more Jobs!"-Wendell Willkie -1944
Woah! Hold on there, Nelly!Originally posted by DarkCloud
The american people are idiots.
Try using the word some...
Democrats are the world's saviours... they want to get into every country and solve all of the problems.
I never know their names, But i smile just the same
New faces...Strange places,
Most everything i see, Becomes a blur to me
-Grandaddy, "The Final Push to the Sum"
Its not Southern. Its that simple. The Bible Belt is not limited to the South.Originally posted by DarkCloud
kansas is part of the southern "bible belt"
Bush is isolationist because HE is isolationist. He didn't even get the majority of the votes.and bush was isolationist because the people were isolationist. The people didn't want war.
Thank you. I apreciate you staggering ignorance about the American public.The american people are idiots.
And you call Americans iditiots. Perhaps you need you need to work on your own logic. You are short on it.They should either invervene in EVERY foreign war (Yugoslavia and AFRICAN WARS!) or they should intervene in NONE!!!(!#(@&$(!@
Actually we decide every election. Its the Italians that can't decide.Can't they decide what they want.
You have no idea of what you are talking about. First your wrong. Second the conclusion does not follow from the premise.And democrats are more isolationist- they don't want people to buy weapons and arms.
By that illogic the Brits are isolationist because they REALLY don't allow people to buy arms.
I am a democrat. I have a pistol.
All right I don't have any bullets for it. So what?
As a group they are.Originally posted by MrBaggins
Woah! Hold on there, Nelly!
Try using the word some...
As are any group of people unless the group has a wise and enlighetened leader.
Ethelred- what is it then- Midwestern?
In kansas the stereotype is a bunch of southern hicks much like Arkansaw or Tejas.
Bush is isolationist because the PEOPLE want to be isolationist, the politicaians cater to the PEOPLE. that is why the parties are so much alike. They don't want to alienate the people.
I am not short on logic- they should have a consistent foreign policy. Not- we'll intervene only when Europeans are having genocidal wars.
Blah Blah. Can't decide as in a consistent policy.
AS in people buying weapons and arms- I meant the MILITARY they want to shrink the military. Generally, Republicans want to enlarge it, \
-->Visit CGN!
-->"Production! More Production! Production creates Wealth! Production creates more Jobs!"-Wendell Willkie -1944
Well Kansas is north of Texas and west of Illinois... doesn't seem anywhere in the South... It is considered Midwest.
Why do countries do anything? For the good of their people. When we take out Afghanistan it's because we stand to gain from the situation. Africa as of now doesn't provide any incentive tfor America and there is no large constituency asking for us to intervene. That, and many times countries ask for assistance (Saudi Arabia).
I never know their names, But i smile just the same
New faces...Strange places,
Most everything i see, Becomes a blur to me
-Grandaddy, "The Final Push to the Sum"
Americans aren't into groups that way. We don't depend on a paternalist leader to do our thinking for us.Originally posted by DarkCloud
As a group they are.
As are any group of people unless the group has a wise and enlighetened leader.
Its about as Midwestern as its possible to be.Ethelred- what is it then- Midwestern?
Arkansas is Southern. Texas is TEXAS not Southern. Texas is part of the South but its not realy Southern. Its part of the South-West and in many way a typical Western State except that it was once a slave state.In kansas the stereotype is a bunch of southern hicks much like Arkansaw or Tejas.
Texas is a unique state. It doesn't fit into categories very well but it best fits the West these days. It never had the aristocracy that the Deep South had. Its true religion is football. American football. I am not Texan but I think many Texans would agree with me on this.
Americans are not as isolationist as you think. It varies from place to place of course. We would I suppose prefer to mind our own bussiness. Which sounds good to me but our bussiness is worldwide these days and has been for since the Civil War and much more so since WWII. The Pacific Coast economy is strongly connected with Asia the East Coast is more connected to Europe.Bush is isolationist because the PEOPLE want to be isolationist, the politicaians cater to the PEOPLE. that is why the parties are so much alike. They don't want to alienate the people.
That is silly. We intervene when its in our interests and that is consistent enough. We intervened in Somalia. It did not go well. Continued intervention would not be in US interests in most countries there. Dead Americans is never in US interests.I am not short on logic- they should have a consistent foreign policy. Not- we'll intervene only when Europeans are having genocidal wars.
Which has nothing to do with isolationism. Its just a matter of priorities on spending. Republicans decrease the military when it suits them and Bush senior did that and he was no isolationist. Reagan increased it and he too was not an isolationist.AS in people buying weapons and arms- I meant the MILITARY they want to shrink the military. Generally, Republicans want to enlarge it, \
Stupid>Originally posted by DarkCloud
As a group they are.
As are any group of people unless the group has a wise and enlighetened leader.
*snip*
1 a : slow of mind : OBTUSE b : given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner c : lacking intelligence or reason : BRUTISH
Well I'm not stupid... and I'm part of this group. I know many other individuals whom I would not catagorize as stupid.
I won't argue with you about the President being dumber than a bag of hammers... but... ok there's no but there..
However, he doesn't make all the descisions... they are made by committee, and by elected official. Many of whom are not stupid.
If you can prove the stupidity of the U.S. as a whole grouping, I'd like to see it.
Also, if you can come up with some countries with consistently enlightened leaders... I'd like to see that too.
Oh, so now the creationists have all crawled back under their rocks, the evolutionists have nothing left to do but fight each other?
At least the good guys won
I have not gone away to hide under a rock. I have not had time to make a thoughtfull post because I have a report due, and I need to spend time on that and other things that I need to do. But I have not gone into hiding. As for other people, I have no idea what they are doing. Some of them may be like me, dont have time. I can only speak for my self. I will make a post soon though, been doing research on this subject in my spare time.Originally posted by Lung
Oh, so now the creationists have all crawled back under their rocks, the evolutionists have nothing left to do but fight each other?
At least the good guys won
There is a new thread on the subject. Just got moved here from Civ3 general. Someone was complaining the Theory of Evolution as a Great Wonder.
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=47752
That thing started today and it allready on page NINE.
And thats without me adding to it.
Here is another one that just popped up
Religious evolution
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=47728
The threads are being created faster than the Bible has Jehova creating in Genesis.
I am busy reading about the new patch myself.
One thing that I can see form the things I have read recently and form the threads in here, that evolution vs. creation is more of a controversy then I ever thought. I never knew that it is such a hot subject. I saw the evolution thread in the Civ3 forum too, and the first time I looked at it was 4 pages, a few hours I came back and it was 9 pages. Like I said maybe we should have a debate with a planel of judges, since so many people are debating this all over the forums here at apolyton.
JACK'S BACK!!!Originally posted by Jack_www
I have not gone away to hide under a rock. I have not had time to make a thoughtfull post because I have a report due, and I need to spend time on that and other things that I need to do. But I have not gone into hiding. As for other people, I have no idea what they are doing. Some of them may be like me, dont have time. I can only speak for my self. I will make a post soon though, been doing research on this subject in my spare time.
I never said you were one of the bad guys, JackI just said that we were the good guys
At least you have an open mind, and don't resort to perpetuating lies, at least not deliberately. While there certainly have been scientists with closed minds throughout history, science has thrived on the premise that all knowledge is challengable. It is the fundamental search for the truth that is the secret to the success of science, and that process may never end, because the universe is extremely complex and guards it's secrets very well.
In my research I have found a interesting article. Allthough I dont know how accurate the info in it is, I still found it interesting and will post it to see what you guys think.
TIME ENOUGH FOR EVERYTHING
Two B.C. academics devise a theory to merge Creation theory and evolution
As science finds ever more evidence confirming the universe is billions of years old, Biblical accounts of a seven-day Creation are increasingly seen as metaphorical, even by the faithful. According to a new theory devised by two B.C. academics, however, the two views of the universe need not be seen as exclusive.
While working on a science fiction film, Chris Montoya, a 49-year-old psychology professor at the University College of the Cariboo in Williams Lake, B.C., and his friend, Simon Fraser University physics student Graeme MacKay, wondered how a Creator's interactions with the earth would affect time. Some scientists have already speculated that, because God exists outside mankind's space and time, time for Him moves at a different rate than for us. Messrs. Montoya and MacKay have taken that concept a step further by creating a mathematical equation to show how the Biblical account of Creation and the fossil record could both be true using Einstein's theory of general relativity.
Their theory begins with the idea that God experiences time differently than humans. Prof. Montoya estimates the entire history of the universe to be about 17 of God's days. The academics' equation has found five points where the Bible and the fossil record line up almost perfectly. Four of these points are days (in God's time) three, four, five and six of the Bible's account of creation.
Prof. Montoya also cites Psalms 90:4, where David writes that "a thousand years are as a day in your sight." When David wrote these words ca. 500 BC, this was during God's day 12, when a day in God's timeline would last 1,000 human years, according to the equation. "If David is just using a metaphor, how did he happen to use the right number of years?" asks Prof. Montoya. "We're talking about sheep herders. They couldn't have managed to put everything in the right order in their Creation accounts based on what they knew. It's like someone was leaving a little message for us to find once we discovered how time works in our universe."
Stuart Sutherland, an earth-origins specialist at the University of B.C., calls the academic's work "an interesting concept...but I would be cautious about shoehorning and stretching things to make a theory fit." The professor, who has a Christian background but does not attend church, believes science and theology can exist side by side, as they are intended to address different things. "Science asks how; religion asks why...When you find that you don't know all the answers, it's actually quite gratifying as it gives you more to investigate."
Prof. Montoya, who also believes in God without being particularly religious, believes that when it comes to the origins of the universe, science and religion should work together. "There's evidence an intelligent design is at work in the universe," he says. "I'd agree with the Psalmist that we are 'fearfully and wonderfully made.'"
PHOTO (COLOR): Psychology professor Montoya: (left) and assistant MacKay: God's time is different from ours.
Source: Report / Newsmagazine (National Edition), 2/18/2002, Vol. 29 Issue 4, p49, 2/3p, 1c
Author(s): Hiebert, Rick
Thats not something a scientist would say. Its a theological remark.Some scientists have already speculated that, because God exists outside mankind's space and time, time for Him moves at a different rate than for us.
Two academics? A physics STUDENT and a psychologist does not constitute two academics.
Huh I know whats coming. They are going to truncate time and increase the rate of radioactive decay.Montoya and MacKay have taken that concept a step further by creating a mathematical equation to show how the Biblical account of Creation and the fossil record could both be true using Einstein's theory of general relativity.
Which is wrong as I allready pointed out. The Bible does NOT match the fossil record even with time distortion.The academics' equation has found five points where the Bible and the fossil record line up almost perfectly. Four of these points are days (in God's time) three, four, five and six of the Bible's account of creation.
He didn't."If David is just using a metaphor, how did he happen to use the right number of years?" asks Prof. Montoya.
Well they didn't get it right so there is no sense in pretending this hard about the rest."We're talking about sheep herders. They couldn't have managed to put everything in the right order in their Creation accounts based on what they knew. It's like someone was leaving a little message for us to find once we discovered how time works in our universe."
Well maybe I don't know where they are going since they didn't actually go anywhere. The made some false claims about the Bible having the right order and they changed the Bible's timescale. Nothing else. Maybe the two speculators had a lot more to say that didn't get into this rather sappy article.
Notice that all they did there was claim the Bible has the right order which it doesn't and go the thousand years as a day route which does not equal billions of years. Not one mention of Relativity except to invoke the phrase as if it had magical meaning on its own without need to explain.
This isn't new. Its a rehash of stuff I can show you on the net. I bet they were going to claim that the basic constants of time and radiation have changed. Without evidence of course. That gimmick doesn't work. It has the rate of radioactive decay so jacked up the Earth would be a molten ball of rock.
Jack you took physics. That could be construed as making you a physics student. It wouldn't make you an academic would it? You should have been able to see the article was nonsense from that alone.
I really dont even know were they based all there stuff on. I supected it was not very accurate, but I found it interesting and just wanted to see what you guys think. The way I found this article was that I was doing a sreach using the term "fossil record" and this was first on the list of articles I got back. I have found other info in more reputable sources and been looking at New Scientist, Scientific America, and others along this line.
Ethelred, you party pooper, youOriginally posted by Ethelred
This isn't new. Its a rehash of stuff I can show you on the net. I bet they were going to claim that the basic constants of time and radiation have changed. Without evidence of course. That gimmick doesn't work. It has the rate of radioactive decay so jacked up the Earth would be a molten ball of rock.
If you could, for example, create a big bang that didn't destroy your three dimensions, time could be altogether different. The universe you created may age millions of years per second of your time, but there may be no way of correlating time between the two universes, at least from the perspective of the createe. Alas, trying to match up our time with god's is grasping at straws.
Also, the model proposed by Jack assumes that the biblical timeline is correct. If you're going to meld emperical evidence with myth, you get nothing but compromised facts i.e. myth
Jack, i suggest you try searching for the truth through evidence, rather than to find a theological angle on everything. Truth and salvation may be different things
Ah, possibly, but I would rather classify it as south. Oklahoma is definitely in the south. Kansas, yes there is a gray area.Originally posted by MacTBone
Well Kansas is north of Texas and west of Illinois... doesn't seem anywhere in the South... It is considered Midwest.Yes, I udnerstand this. It makes economic and political sense. But since the US is attempting to give the world its image as the "world peacemaker" workign for the good of the world- they aren't doing very well when they don't have a cohesive foreign policy for everywhere.
Why do countries do anything? For the good of their people. When we take out Afghanistan it's because we stand to gain from the situation. Africa as of now doesn't provide any incentive tfor America and there is no large constituency asking for us to intervene. That, and many times countries ask for assistance (Saudi Arabia).
Ah, look at people's adherences to their parties.Americans aren't into groups that way. We don't depend on a paternalist leader to do our thinking for us.
About minding the business- what about Yugoslavia?Americans are not as isolationist as you think. It varies from place to place of course. We would I suppose prefer to mind our own bussiness. Which sounds good to me but our bussiness is worldwide these days and has been for since the Civil War and much more so since WWII. The Pacific Coast economy is strongly connected with Asia the East Coast is more connected to Europe.
As for the rest of what you said- I agree.
Ah, but it would likely have created greater world goodwill for the US.That is silly. We intervene when its in our interests and that is consistent enough. We intervened in Somalia. It did not go well. Continued intervention would not be in US interests in most countries there. Dead Americans is never in US interests.
Stupidity of the US as a whole- not intervening in WWII sooner. They could have quickly crushed the Axis. Although this was more a british and french problem of appeasement for hitler.If you can prove the stupidity of the U.S. as a whole grouping, I'd like to see it.
Also, if you can come up with some countries with consistently enlightened leaders... I'd like to see that too.
Stupidity of the US- electing clinton a second time after he lied. However, I don't blame them, Dole was no prize banana either.
As for the second thing you said- I cannot prove that- I think all humans as a group are stupid.
-->Visit CGN!
-->"Production! More Production! Production creates Wealth! Production creates more Jobs!"-Wendell Willkie -1944
To paraphrase a certain famous British Newspaper... "if thats proof, I'm a banana."Originally posted by DarkCloud
*snip*
Stupidity of the US as a whole- not intervening in WWII sooner. They could have quickly crushed the Axis. Although this was more a british and french problem of appeasement for hitler.
Stupidity of the US- electing clinton a second time after he lied. However, I don't blame them, Dole was no prize banana either.
As for the second thing you said- I cannot prove that- I think all humans as a group are stupid.
Your first two points are open to extreme debate. They hardly quantify proof.
Your last statement is alas... probably true.
This a more than just a bit off topic and the thread has been replaced. HOWEVER there are few bits I am not letting go anyway.
People join parties they agree with. Why shouldn't they stay with their beliefs? It isn't entirely true anyway that people alway stick with their parties. Large numbers of Southerners suddenly woke up one day in the 60's and noticed that the Democratic party believed in racial equality so they switched parties. The seemingly imortal Senator Strom Thurmond being the most obvious example.Originally posted by DarkCloud
Ah, look at people's adherences to their parties.
On a personal note, I used to be a Republican. I quite when I decided that Reagan couldn't possibly be a good President if he kept his Secretary of the Interior for so long. Greedy KillerWatt was the worst man possible for the job.
'Use it all up cause the end of the world is coming Real Soon Now.'
He thought world was going to end in 2000. Just the right man for the most important conservation job in the country. No excuse for that IDIOT being in office for more than the time it takes to fire him the first time he opened his mouth.
[QUOTE]
About minding the business- what about Yugoslavia?[QUOTE]
Disaster in Europe is hardly good for the US and it was our European allies that wanted us to do something. Why they couldn't clean up the mess themselves is something you should know more about than I do.
Ugly mess that was and I note that the Islamic nations carefully neglect noticeing that there were a Moslems that we were saving.
Yeah just like Yugoslavia, hmmm. If the Somalies are unwilling to have peace we can't force it on them without taking over the place completely. In the Balkans all of Europe had a interest in peace except the Serbs. In Africa only the Europeans and Americans gave a damn. Without a local interest we could never succeed.Ah, but it would likely have created greater world goodwill for the US.
We couldn't have done that. If you look at it carefully you will notice that Roosevelt spent the time building up the US military in terms of personel and weaponry. The US simply was not ready to fight yet even if the country had wanted to. When the US Army began to increase its size they had to use wooden toy rifles at first. Thats how ill prepared the US was.Stupidity of the US as a whole- not intervening in WWII sooner. They could have quickly crushed the Axis. Although this was more a british and french problem of appeasement for hitler.
Untill WWII the US Army was usually at the magnificently terrifying strength of 50,000 between wars. Just enough really to start training a new army. Barely.
He did a good job. Why not re-elect him? Lying about his private life where no one had business asking questions in the first place is hardly going to suprise anyone.Stupidity of the US- electing clinton a second time after he lied. However, I don't blame them, Dole was no prize banana either.
Misanthropy is more of an attitude towards oneself than an accurate reflection on the human race. That people have self interests that you aren't cognizent of is not a sign of stupidity.As for the second thing you said- I cannot prove that- I think all humans as a group are stupid.
Then again there a lot of people that think the world was created in six days. Thats willfull ignorance at best.
Well I had to say something on topic didn't I?
Question for Young Earth, Flood Cretionists.
What did the animals eat after the Flood?
According to your assumptions everything was buried under mud/rock/dirt after the water vanished. According to the bible all the forests were underwater for 150 days. No known forest can survive that without dying. And the water which covered the Earth was salt water, therefore it destroys living cells that are not accustomed to live in sea, unless some creationist can explain how it wasn't.
Please don't answer God did a Level 4 Summon Food spell.
"A witty saying proves nothing."
- Voltaire (1694-1778)
Obviously not Vagrant
He's God. To him its only a level 2 Summon Food spell
I'm building a wagon! On some other part of the internets, obviously (but not that other site).
Oh yeah, that's right. So silly of me.
"A witty saying proves nothing."
- Voltaire (1694-1778)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks