Why is Georgia a f****ed up state? - Page 2

rottwylor · 01-30-2004, 05:17 PM

Well... they will replace Biological Chances and Evolution with Adam and Eve. Thats what will happen. I highly doubt that this will pass... but it's really annoying that it is happening. Just because some parents don't want their children to grow up with a proper education, doesn't mean that every child should be subjected to the same ideas. It's just rediculous. What if the same parents decide that they don't want thier children to learn about dinosaurs, because they weren't in the bible... WHEN DOES THE INSANITY STOP!!

Ginkasa · 01-30-2004, 05:21 PM

Although I myself am a creationist, I realize that not everyone is and I accept that. I also realize that school is not a place that is meant to impose beliefs on children, but educate them in the ways of the world.

Thus, I can kind of understand the rational behind this.

It doesn't make it any less stupid.

Banning either creationism or evolutionism (or the names of them) is not the way to go. Schools need to teach both theories and let the students decide. There should be no censoring on either side.

My Biology teacher last year was (is) a very devout Christian, and he didn't hide it. He did, however, teach evolution although he said himself he didn't believe it. He allowed the students themselves to make the choice without trying to impress either theory more than the other.

I can see the good intentions behind banning "evolution," but intentions aren't everything.

Besides, as people have already said, it does nothing. The actual word used means nothing if the definition is the same.

*shrugs and walks away*

rottwylor · 01-30-2004, 05:53 PM

Well... I can respect people for believing in creation over evolution. So I won't say you're wrong for believing in that. However, not every religion is consistant with one another on creation, so I don't think it's wise to bring religion, and religious beliefs into the school system. That would just upset people more. It's just way more touchy to do than it is science. Creation isn't proven, god hasn't been proven. Science is a proven thing. Dinosaurs, early hominds, animals evolving.. It's just a proven fact that evolution exists. Biological Chances I don't think is accurate enough to explain evolution. Biological Chances should be reserved for things like a sudden mutation in a species or conjoined twins. Evolution is a constant ongoing process... we're evolving now... slowly but surely. We don't have the same features we did 10,000 years ago. Our features are different from cro-magnon man and neanderthals. Taller, we walk more upright, less body hair, smaller teeth, etc. It's all part of evolving. So to say that creation and evolution should both be taught, I think would cause a lot more problems. Considering evolution is proven and creation isn't. I think creation should be taught at home or in the church, and to take the word evolution out because it's a "buzzword" and to replace it with a phrase like "biological chance" is ignorant. We are truly dumbing down america with all this PC crap.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01...ion/index.html

Ok...I'm rambling, I'll probobly come back and edit this later as I'm trying to get out of the office... I hope my point is coming across, lol

Ginkasa · 01-30-2004, 06:06 PM

Obviously they shouldn't get into specific religions when talking about creationism. Just the idea that a divine being created us.

And it is not a "proven fact" that evolution exists. There are holes in it, such as the infamous missing link and the whole "if life can only come from pre-existing life, how did the first living thing come into being?" and all that. Besides, I don't see how some strange scientist whom you've never, and will never, meet is more trustworthy than the Bible or a priest. Because some other guy you've never met says he is?

Anyway, that wasn't the point of my first post. The point was that if they're going to go through the trouble of being politically correct, they should teach both theories and allow students to choose rather than censoring or banning either side and forcing one view over another.

*shrugs and walks away*

Stonecutter · 01-30-2004, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Strangler

I will not let ignorant bible beating jackasses to affect the education of my kids.

Yet you're going to vote for Bush in 2004.........................................................................

One Winged Angel · 01-30-2004, 10:33 PM

Even though I believe in Christianity... evolution can be accepted. Time is of no element to god.

What I'm saying is a million years could easily equal 7 days to god. The ****ing hicks dont seem to grasp that concept yet.

GameMaster · 01-30-2004, 11:12 PM

Yeah, I was reading this at school today, it definatley backs up my stereotype of Georgia people.

Hero2 · 01-30-2004, 11:58 PM

I hate those kinds of people they should die a horrable death them and the people who want to ban video games bastards all of them.

rottwylor · 01-31-2004, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ginkasa

Obviously they shouldn't get into specific religions when talking about creationism. Just the idea that a divine being created us.

And it is not a "proven fact" that evolution exists. There are holes in it, such as the infamous missing link and the whole "if life can only come from pre-existing life, how did the first living thing come into being?" and all that. Besides, I don't see how some strange scientist whom you've never, and will never, meet is more trustworthy than the Bible or a priest. Because some other guy you've never met says he is?

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

One Winged Angel · 01-31-2004, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ginkasa

Obviously they shouldn't get into specific religions when talking about creationism. Just the idea that a divine being created us.

And it is not a "proven fact" that evolution exists. There are holes in it, such as the infamous missing link and the whole "if life can only come from pre-existing life, how did the first living thing come into being?" and all that. Besides, I don't see how some strange scientist whom you've never, and will never, meet is more trustworthy than the Bible or a priest. Because some other guy you've never met says he is?

Anyway, that wasn't the point of my first post. The point was that if they're going to go through the trouble of being politically correct, they should teach both theories and allow students to choose rather than censoring or banning either side and forcing one view over another.

*shrugs and walks away*

Actually, they theorized that the 1st signs of life on earth came from a lightening bolt.