Arizona schools proposing drafts to remove the word "evolution" from science books

[Blake]

"The Arizona Department of Education hopes to make changes to science standards, which will affect K-12 districts and charter schools. The changes include removing the word "evolution" in some areas and describing it as a "theory" in others....."

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-education/2018/05/22/arizona-draft-school-science-standards-removes-evolution-diane-douglas-intelligent-design/628941002/

[spurraider21]

i have no problem with them calling the theory a theory, provided that they define theory in the scientific sense and not the colloquial sense.

removing it altogether is nonsense

[Blake]

Lolsmh old fart


.Ed Reitz, 92,*testified in support of the changes at the community meeting.

"The teaching of evolution is something that concerns me because it is a theory and it is not science," stated Reitz.*

The great-grandfather read part of a book he wrote on the issue.*

Over 70 years now we have been teaching our youth that we have came from pre-existing vertebrates and God, the creator, is not allowed to be taught in most of our public schools," read Reitz. "The result is now what we are observing in colleges and universities*throughout the land.


..Reitz*believes evolution is a theory and is not science. He said if evolution was not taught in schools, Christian parents would not have to use school vouchers so their children can attend private schools.*

"Betsy DeVos is a Christian lady and she favors much of the use of vouchers and some people are upset with her because of that but that's the Christian point of view," Reitz said.*"We want creation taught in schools and God brought back in."*

[dabom]

:lol

[boutons_deux]

Private Florida Christian madrasas receiving taxpayer dollars are teaching humans lived with dinosaurs — and slavery wasn’t so bad

https://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Dinosaur-Jesus.jpg


https://www.rawstory.com/2018/06/private-florida-schools-receiving-taxpayer-dollars-teaching-humans-lived-dinosaurs-slavery-wasnt-bad/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[spurraider21]

i have no problem with them calling the theory a theory, provided that they define theory in the scientific sense and not the colloquial sense.

removing it altogether is nonsense
"The teaching of evolution is something that concerns me because it is a theory and it is not science," stated Reitz.*

facepalm

[Spurtacular]

i have no problem with them calling the theory a theory, provided that they define theory in the scientific sense and not the colloquial sense.

removing it altogether is nonsense

You should get a life if you have a problem with it, tbh. Most kids could give a fuck about this; and there are much bigger problems in the world. But I get that you're really into info control as a liberal and so this is probably like top five or ten for you. :lmao

[spurraider21]

You should get a life if you have a problem with it, tbh. Most kids could give a fuck about this; and there are much bigger problems in the world. But I get that you're really into info control as a liberal and so this is probably like top five or ten for you. :lmao
science should be taught in science classes. it's a remarkably simple concept... which should be right up your alley

science and technology are becoming more and more prevalent in our daily lives. laws have to be formed around them. having an uninformed population is just a recipe for disaster when it comes to decision-making

[Spurtacular]

science should be taught in science classes. it's a remarkably simple concept... which should be right up your alley

science and technology are becoming more and more prevalent in our daily lives. laws have to be formed around them. having an uninformed population is just a recipe for disaster when it comes to decision-making

Science isn't in trouble. Stop.

This is about your own political agenda.

[Pavlov]

What is derp derping about now?

Oh -- his personal vendetta.

[Chris]

Atheist Blake upset about Arizona school books. Good lord.

[Pavlov]

You can tell Chris and Derp have nothing to say about the actual issue.

[spurraider21]

Science isn't in trouble. Stop.
science isn't in trouble as long as they continue to teach science in science classes


This is about your own political agenda.
this is about my agenda to have science taught in science classes

[Chris]

science isn't in trouble as long as they continue to teach science in science classes


this is about my agenda to have science taught in science classes

You would throw a fit if they taught Christianity in the Christianity classes. Good thing they don't exist under your agenda.

[spurraider21]

You would throw a fit if they taught Christianity in the Christianity classes. Good thing they don't exist under your agenda.
christianity would absolutely belong in christianity classes. private schools have them all the time. i went to an armenian school where we had weekly religion classes through middle school. i didnt throw a fit.

but the first amendment prevents that from happening in public schools. the supreme court, even with conservative judges, have adhered to that interpretation. but nothing prevents them from having science classes.

and science should be taught in science classes. its a very simple concept

[Blake]

You would throw a fit if they taught Christianity in the Christianity classes. Good thing they don't exist under your agenda.

Lol Chris line of reasoning.

You'd throw a fit if they even offered an Islam class. This we know.

[apalisoc_9]

Jesus is brown.

[Chris]

Jesus is brown.

Probably black. Revelation 1:14, 15 - His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters;

[Spurtacular]

science isn't in trouble as long as they continue to teach science in science classes



Science doesn't hinge on the general public's belief or non-belief in the theory of evolution. Stop.

[Chris]

Science doesn't hinge on the general public's belief or non-belief in the theory of evolution. Stop.

Arn

Darwinism -OK! :tu Christianity - NOPE! :td

[spurraider21]

Science doesn't hinge on the general public's belief or non-belief in the theory of evolution. Stop.
it doesn't have to "hinge on it" for me to have a position on it. that's a straw man.

i think science should be taught in science classes. tell me why you think that something other than science should be taught in science classes.

[Pavlov]

Science doesn't hinge on the general public's belief or non-belief in the theory of evolution. Stop.Upon what does science hinge?

[spurraider21]

Arn

Darwinism -OK! :tu Christianity - NOPE! :td
1) the theory of evolution is scientific. therefore it should be taught in science classes :tu

2) christianity is not scientific. therefore it should not be taught in science classes :tu

3) i dont know what darwinism is. if you are referring to some worship of charles darwin, then no, that's not science, and should not be taught in science classes. if you are just referring to the theory of evolution (which has since been modified since darwin's time), then go back to point #1

[Spurtacular]

it doesn't have to "hinge on it" for me to have a position on it. that's a straw man.

i think science should be taught in science classes. tell me why you think that something other than science should be taught in science classes.

The straw man is that you are saying I'm saying you can't have a position. I've argued that this is not a really big issue; you are pretending that it is. Also, speaking of straw mans, when did I say science shouldn't be taught?

:lol All this from the guy who was lecturing me that I see what I want to see.

[Pavlov]

The straw man is that you are saying I'm saying you can't have a position. I've argued that this is not a really big issue; you are pretending that it is. Also, speaking of straw mans, when did I say science shouldn't be taught?What are you actually saying about science's being taught in schools?

All I've seen are vendetta posts.

[spurraider21]

The straw man is that you are saying I'm saying you can't have a position. I've argued that this is not a really big issue; you are pretending that it is. Also, speaking of straw mans, when did I say science shouldn't be taught?

:lol All this from the guy who was lecturing me that I see what I want to see.
oh, so all that to say that you agree with me that science should be taught in science classes, and not christianity :tu

glad we're on the same page. coulda skipped a lot of dialogue

i just think the issue is more important than you do. that's ok.

[Spurtacular]

oh, so all that to say that you agree with me that science should be taught in science classes, and not christianity :tu

glad we're on the same page. coulda skipped a lot of dialogue

i just think the issue is more important than you do. that's ok.

Well, one I don't think you have to be Christian to believe in intelligent design. But isn't it interesting that that triggers you without me even bringing it up? Easy call for Chris, tbh.

I think that the genesis of Earth and mankind is all rooted in theory; so it's a bit of a strawman for you to hide behind some pretend pure science on this one.

[spurraider21]

Well, one I don't think you have to be Christian to believe in intelligent design. But isn't it interesting that that triggers you without me even bringing it up? Easy call for Chris (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1656), tbh.
you didnt have bring it up. it is the subject matter of this thread. ever since post #3.


I think that the genesis of Earth and mankind is all rooted in theory; so it's a bit of a strawman for you to hide behind some pretend pure science on this one.
as long as the theory is scientific, it should be taught in science classes.

[Spurtacular]

you didnt have bring it up. it is the subject matter of this thread. ever since post #3.


as long as the theory is scientific, it should be taught in science classes.

I haven't made any religious arguments whatsoever for it (in this thread or any other even).

Kids are learning the building blocks of science. You're basically crying that kids might catch wind of a theory not sanctioned by liberals and possibly have a different truth than yours.

[Blake]

Well, one I don't think you have to be Christian to believe in intelligent design. But isn't it interesting that that triggers you without me even bringing it up? Easy call for Chris, tbh.

I think that the genesis of Earth and mankind is all rooted in theory; so it's a bit of a strawman for you to hide behind some pretend pure science on this one.

Intelligent design isn't science either.

Reading Chris and derp's retarded posts on this subject just further confirm to me how important this is.

[Spurtacular]

Intelligent design isn't science either.



It's a theory of genesis just like evolution is one. Designating either as an absolute science is sketchy. Try to keep up, cuck.

[Pavlov]

I haven't made any religious arguments whatsoever for it (in this thread or any other even).

Kids are learning the building blocks of science. You're basically crying that kids might catch wind of a theory not sanctioned by liberals and possibly have a different truth than yours.You're saying 21 is concerned kids won't be taught science in science class.

Pretty reasonable of him tbh.

[Pavlov]

It's a theory of genesis just like evolution is one. Relegating either as an absolute science is sketchy. Try to keep up, cuck.You are displaying a profound ignorance of science. You're just the kind of person who wants to replace science with religion -- even if you have to use the "intelligent design" fakery.

[Blake]

It's a theory of genesis just like evolution is one. Designating either as an absolute science is sketchy. Try to keep up, cuck.

No it's not.

ID had it's day in court to show that it is science and got blown out.

Another few pages and you might catch up.

[spurraider21]

It's a theory of genesis just like evolution is one. Designating either as an absolute science is sketchy. Try to keep up, cuck.
Genesis isn't a scientific theory. It therefore has no place in science classes.

These concepts are incredibly simple tbh.

[Pavlov]

Genesis isn't a scientific theory. It therefore has no place in science classes.

These concepts are incredibly simple tbh.NO YOU CUCK PZWNED

[johnsmith]

People that don’t want evolution taught in schools are absolutely the same as flat earthers.

For that matter, I wish someone would explain to all those opposed of evolution as to what a “theory” means in a scientific sense.

[Chris]

Genesis isn't a scientific theory. It therefore has no place in science classes.

These concepts are incredibly simple tbh.

“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.“ - Albert Einstein, 1941

Guess you know more than Einstein.

[johnsmith]

“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.“ - Albert Einstein, 1941

Guess you know more than Einstein.

So your argument is “Einstein made this comment and therefore creationism should be the only thing taught in school”?

Am I getting that right?

[Pavlov]

“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.“ - Albert Einstein, 1941

Guess you know more than Einstein.It was published in 1954, and I wholeheartedly agree with Einstein:


Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts.

So keep religion out of the science class. Easy peasy.

[Blake]

“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.“ - Albert Einstein, 1941

Guess you know more than Einstein.

How old do you think the earth and the universe both are, Chris?

[johnsmith]

How old do you think the earth and the universe both are, Chris?

I work with an extremely religious dude that genuinely thinks the world is roughly 4,000 years old because of his religious upbringing....he’s an idiot.

[dabom]

It was published in 1954, and I wholeheartedly agree with Einstein:



So keep religion out of the science class. Easy peasy.

:lol

[Pavlov]

“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.“ - Albert Einstein, 1941

Guess you know more than Einstein.And if you choose to die on Einstein Hill, old Al will gladly pull the trigger:


The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me.

Yeesh, Chris.

[Spurtacular]

Genesis isn't a scientific theory. It therefore has no place in science classes.

These concepts are incredibly simple tbh.

genesis (little g) as in a beginning, dude. Ffs, you're so triggered. And you're also a nazi pretending that your uncomfirmed science is higher than others. Get over yourself.

[Pavlov]

genesis (little g) as in a beginning, dude. Ffs, you're so triggered. And you're also a nazi pretending that your uncomfirmed science is higher than others. Get over yourself.What is your theory of genesis?

[Spurtacular]

How old do you think the earth and the universe both are, Chris?

:lol Ya'll should know you've lost when cucks like blake think they're scientific thinkers.

[Spurtacular]

I work with an extremely religious dude that genuinely thinks the world is roughly 4,000 years old because of his religious upbringing....he’s an idiot.

And you know it's not, somehow? (BTW, 6,000 is the more accepted #). I think it's idiotic for you to pretend like you know something you don't know.

[Blake]

genesis (little g) as in a beginning, dude. Ffs, you're so triggered. And you're also a nazi pretending that your uncomfirmed science is higher than others. Get over yourself.

Evolution is confirmed science. ID isn't.

You're really ignorant.

Another few pages, you might catch up

[Blake]

And you know it's not, somehow? (BTW, 6,000 is the more accepted #).

Accepted by kooks maybe.

You're completely wrong and stupid.

[Spurtacular]

Evolution is confirmed science. ID isn't.

You're really ignorant.

Another few pages, you might catch up

The theory of evolution, dumbass. Don't play your little cuck games with me, boy.

:lol Dumbfuck with his little "really ignorant" add-on.

[Brazil]

Murica' fuck yeah

:lmao

[Blake]

:lol Ya'll should know you've lost when cucks like blake think they're scientific thinkers.

It's pretty basic stuff. You've lost but you'll spend another 20 pages here strutting.

[Blake]

The theory of evolution, dumbass. Don't play your little cuck games with me, boy.

:lol Dumbfuck with his little "really ignorant" add-on.

Yes, the theory of evolution is confirmed science.

Strut!

[Chris]

It's confirmed science you guys!

[Pavlov]

:lol Ya'll should know you've lost when cucks like blake think they're scientific thinkers.What is your theory of genesis, derp?

[Pavlov]

It's confirmed science you guys!You kind of shut up about Einstein, Chrissy -- why?

[Blake]

It's confirmed science you guys!

Who are you talking to

[johnsmith]

And you know it's not, somehow? (BTW, 6,000 is the more accepted #). I think it's idiotic for you to pretend like you know something you don't know.

I didn’t say I know how old it is ya dummy....I said that the guy I work with is an idiot....my point was that there’s a direct correlation between believing the Earth is 4K (or 6k) and being an idiot.

But I don’t expect you to understand that....after all, you think he Earth is 6k years old.

[Chris]

Genesis and Science: A Comparison

Genesis: (First day) — 15 billion to 4.5 billion years ago

“In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth.”

Science:

At some point in the history of time between, 9 and 15 billion years ago, the origins of the universe began. There was absolutely nothing but emptiness, when suddenly an infinitely hot and dense spot called the singularity appeared. From that spot there was an unimaginable gigantic explosion, called the Big Bang, and within less than a fraction of a second, the entire universe was formed. This was the start of everything that exists — matter, energy, time and every atom that was ever created. The sun and earth itself were estimated to have been formed about 4.5 billion years ago.

This is the accepted scientific explanation for the start of the universe.

But science can’t tell us everything. The great mystery is how that hot, dense spot (called the singularity), the first thing in the emptiness, the start of the universe, got there? Science tells that some unimaginable power must have put it there because from it came everything that exists in the universe. Some scientists just say “an unimaginable power” put it there, while others give a name to “that unimaginable power”: they call it God. The greatest living astrophysical scientist, Stephen Hawking, says, “Anyone who chooses to believe in a Universal Creator is standing on ground as solid as a scientist who denies Creative Purpose as First Cause. Because of the laws these same scientists have discovered, there is absolutely no way to tell what made it happen. Whatever you choose is an act of pure faith.”

So the claim that God created Heaven and Earth matches with science.

Genesis: (First day)

“God said, ‘Let there be light.’”

Science:

During the Big Bang, electrons caused very small packets of light making the whole universe glow.

The sun was formed 4.5 billion years ago along with the Earth.

So the start of the universe and then the start of the sun and Earth on the first day of Genesis definitely coincide with contemporary science.

Genesis: (Second day) — 4.5 billion to 3.75 billion years ago

“God said, ‘Let there be firmament in the midst of the waters and let it separate the waters from the waters.’”

Science:

Water-rich asteroids and protoplanets collided with prehistoric earth, bringing water. Later, gaseous emissions from volcanoes added additional water. This occurred approximately 4.4 billion years ago. Over the next several billion years, as the earth cooled, water vapor began to escape and condense in the earth’s early atmosphere. Clouds formed and enormous amounts of water fell on the earth. The waters were separated, water on earth and water in the atmosphere. So day two fits with science and is in the correct order.

Genesis: (Third day) — 3.75 billion years ago

“And God said, ‘Let the waters under the Heaven be gathered together in one place and let the dry land appear.’”

Science:

The beginning of the oceans and the separation of the land mass areas occurred on Earth about 3.75 billion years ago. Again, it fits with science and is in the right order.

Genesis: (Third day)

“And God said, ‘Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed and fruit trees bearing fruit.’”

Science:

This section of Genesis’ third day is out of sequence. Plants, grass, and fruit bearing trees, did not appear until after sea creatures. Although microscopic single cell algae (bacteria or archaea microbes) are a plant and appeared at this time, it is not the advanced forms of plant life described in Genesis. Again, the appearance of flora did not take place at this time according to contemporary science.

Genesis: (Fourth day)

“And God said. ‘Let there be light in the firmament of Heavens to separate the day from the night.’”

Science:

This phrase is confusing because the Sun’s creation was earlier, so why is light mentioned here? There is nothing to compare here between Genesis and science. The open question is why light is repeated on day four.

There are a number of theories to explain this. One is by Dr. Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D., a professor of nuclear physics and earth and planetary sciences at MIT who spent five years on the staff of the MIT physics department. He is also a lecturer in science and spirituality. He contends that the sun, the moon, and the stars were already there but that the atmosphere was opaque. With the cooling of the Earth and the rise in atmospheric oxygen, the atmosphere became transparent, and there was light.

Another interesting theory is presented by Dr. Alan Parker, a respected evolutionary biologist and research fellow at Oxford University. He speculates that this second reference to light on day four of Genesis refers to the evolution of vision. If there was no vision, then there was, in a sense, no light. So the lights were “turned on” in the evolution of sight in animals. “To separate day from night” refers to the time before and after sight.

Genesis: (Fifth day) — 3.5 billion years to 635 million years ago

“And God said, ‘Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures. Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas...’”

Science:

This is exactly what happened. Life began in the sea. The earliest fossils of life, single-celled bacteria, are found in ancient rocks deposited in the oceans 3.5 billion years ago. By 1.2 billion years ago, the first complex multicellular life had evolved. The oldest evidence of full animal life in the oceans comes from about 635 million years ago.

Isn’t it incredible that 4000 years ago, ancient man could have conceived that life started in the water?

Genesis: (Fifth day)

“‘...and let the birds fly above the earth.’”

Science:

According to contemporary science, this is out of sequence. Birds did not appear until later. However, flying insects did appear at this time, and this could be a remote but possible explanation.

Genesis: (Sixth day) — 250 million to about 6000 years ago

“And God said, ‘Let the Earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind; cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kind.’”

Science:

This is exactly as science reports: life began in the water and then expanded onto land.

Genesis: (Sixth day)

“Then God created man in his own image ... Male and female created He them ... And God formed man of the dust of the ground ... He took one of Adam’s ribs and made a woman.”

Science:

Nothing in this section resembles science at all. The only correct thing is that man was at the end of the chain of life. One coincidence that has been noted is that just as Adam’s rib was used to form another person, Eve, the first life forms, single-cell organisms, divided to form other single-cell organisms. Admittedly, this is a stretch.

Genesis: (Sixth day)

“God said, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth and subdue it and have domination over fish of the sea and over birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the Earth.’”

Science:

It is obvious that today, man does have domination over every fish, every bird, and every living thing that moves across the Earth. Genesis was right: man dominates the Earth.

Genesis: (Seventh day)

“So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it because on it, God rested from all the work He had done.”

Science:

“Blessed and hallowed the seventh day.” This has nothing to do with science, but it is relevant in that what Genesis said has been reflected in life. Today all major religions have a holy day to rest: Muslims have Friday, Jews Saturday, and Christians Sunday. Other religions take a day of rest, and even nonbelievers do it. So that matches perfectly with Genesis. Still, many question the idea that God would rest. Why does God have to rest? Again, this is not a scientific question, but it’s compelling nonetheless. But why not rest? Christ, Moses, and Mohammad all rested, so why not God?

A review of how the 12 elements of the biblical creation story compare to science.

Nine are scientifically correct, and just two are in the wrong order: birds and plants.
One is scientifically wrong: the creation of man.
Two are not relevant to science — the hallowed seventh day, and the second mention of light.
When Genesis was written about 4000 years ago, humans were almost universally illiterate. The alphabet was being perfected, writing (not hieroglyphics) was still new, calendars were still not perfected, and books and paper didn’t even exist.

But nevertheless, the writers of the Bible somehow figured out that creation occurred first with the universe, then the Earth, then light, then water, then land rising out of the water to separate land and sea, all in the proper order according to contemporary science.

Then, most amazingly of all, these ancient Hebrew scholars and Old Testament writers figured out, in accordance with modern science, that the origins of life started in the water. Scientific information on the subject was not developed until over 3500 years later.

Of course, the religious interpretation has a different answer to these questions. They say that Genesis is correct because when Moses wrote the first four chapters of Genesis, he received the information directly from God. So the creation of Earth and life is as God reported it. If a few things in Genesis are out of order, maybe science will later discover that Genesis was right.

So there you have it, the Bible and science.

[Blake]

K, now explain the eventual inbreeding of Adam and Eves kids

[spurraider21]

genesis (little g) as in a beginning, dude. Ffs, you're so triggered. And you're also a nazi pretending that your uncomfirmed science is higher than others. Get over yourself.
it's not "my science." it's just science. do you know what the scientific process is? do you know what a scientific theory is?

even with a little g, genesis isn't a scientific theory.

evolution is a scientific theory.

this is really simple stuff tbh

[spurraider21]

:lol chris posting opinion blogs from huffington post

[Chris]

:lol 21 willfully ignoring the correlations between science and Genesis because reasons.

[spurraider21]

:lol 21 willfully ignoring the correlations between science and Genesis because reasons.
Genesis isn't scientific. Therefore it shouldn't be taught in science classes.

Do you know what the scientific method is?

Just because something may or may not be right, doesn't mean it is or isn't scientific. If i said "hey guys, I think Lithium atoms have 3 electrons... just a gut feeling" then I wouldn't be saying anything scientific, even though what I said might be accurate.

[Blake]

:lol 21 willfully ignoring the correlations between science and Genesis because reasons.

:lol :lol :lol Chris believes in the book of Genesis

[spurraider21]

atheist blake attacking his religion

[Chris]

Atheist Blake :lol

[spurraider21]

:lol 21 willfully ignoring the correlations between science and Genesis because reasons.

so while i still maintain that this is accurate...


Genesis isn't scientific. Therefore it shouldn't be taught in science classes.

Do you know what the scientific method is?

Just because something may or may not be right, doesn't mean it is or isn't scientific. If i said "hey guys, I think Lithium atoms have 3 electrons... just a gut feeling" then I wouldn't be saying anything scientific, even though what I said might be accurate.

i find myself with some spare time so i'm going to go through your huffington post blog piece


Genesis: (First day) — 15 billion to 4.5 billion years ago

“In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth.”

Science:

At some point in the history of time between, 9 and 15 billion years ago, the origins of the universe began. There was absolutely nothing but emptiness, when suddenly an infinitely hot and dense spot called the singularity appeared. From that spot there was an unimaginable gigantic explosion, called the Big Bang, and within less than a fraction of a second, the entire universe was formed. This was the start of everything that exists — matter, energy, time and every atom that was ever created. The sun and earth itself were estimated to have been formed about 4.5 billion years ago.

This is the accepted scientific explanation for the start of the universe.

But science can’t tell us everything. The great mystery is how that hot, dense spot (called the singularity), the first thing in the emptiness, the start of the universe, got there? Science tells that some unimaginable power must have put it there because from it came everything that exists in the universe. Some scientists just say “an unimaginable power” put it there, while others give a name to “that unimaginable power”: they call it God. The greatest living astrophysical scientist, Stephen Hawking, says, “Anyone who chooses to believe in a Universal Creator is standing on ground as solid as a scientist who denies Creative Purpose as First Cause. Because of the laws these same scientists have discovered, there is absolutely no way to tell what made it happen. Whatever you choose is an act of pure faith.”

So the claim that God created Heaven and Earth matches with science.
so im gonna go ahead and say that's pretty generous.

a) the bible doesn't really claim there was a big bang. it says he created heaven and earth. nowhere does it say it expanded out of a super dense/hot singularity. basically this is saying "we know the universe exists, therefore genesis is accuarate." that's kinda weak

b) i dont know that scientists call it an "unimaginable power" or where the author is getting that from. rather, i would point to what carl sagan said.

- if we decide that the answer of "where did god come from" is an unanswerable question, why not just skip a step and say the beginning of the universe is an unanswerable question
- if we decide that god always existed, why not skip a step and decide that the universe (or the pre-big bang material) always existed

c) calling the big bang an "unimaginable gigantic explosion" isn't really an accurate representation of the theory. "big bang" was a name that was given to mock the idea of an original expansion... the big bang is much better described as an expansion than an explosion. that's more pop culture than science (the notion that it was a big eruption/explosion)


Genesis: (First day)

“God said, ‘Let there be light.’”

Science:

During the Big Bang, electrons caused very small packets of light making the whole universe glow.

The sun was formed 4.5 billion years ago along with the Earth.

So the start of the universe and then the start of the sun and Earth on the first day of Genesis definitely coincide with contemporary science.
again, this is basically saying that because we have light, the bible is accurate. the same can be said of any writing that ever mentions light in any way.


Genesis: (Second day) — 4.5 billion to 3.75 billion years ago

“God said, ‘Let there be firmament in the midst of the waters and let it separate the waters from the waters.’”

Science:

Water-rich asteroids and protoplanets collided with prehistoric earth, bringing water. Later, gaseous emissions from volcanoes added additional water. This occurred approximately 4.4 billion years ago. Over the next several billion years, as the earth cooled, water vapor began to escape and condense in the earth’s early atmosphere. Clouds formed and enormous amounts of water fell on the earth. The waters were separated, water on earth and water in the atmosphere. So day two fits with science and is in the correct order.

Genesis: (Third day) — 3.75 billion years ago

“And God said, ‘Let the waters under the Heaven be gathered together in one place and let the dry land appear.’”

Science:

The beginning of the oceans and the separation of the land mass areas occurred on Earth about 3.75 billion years ago. Again, it fits with science and is in the right order.
a) this is a good example of something demonstrably wrong. the "firmament" is supposed to be some dome-globe type thing around the earth that separates us from "the waters above" aka heaven. except we know there isn't water above. the blue sky is a reflective property from what is on earth. we aren't standing below some giant ocean, protected by a big dome

b) even before the bible, we knew that we had oceaans and land in between. so the fact that the bible says we will have water and land in between isn't some astounding claim.


Genesis: (Third day)

“And God said, ‘Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed and fruit trees bearing fruit.’”

Science:

This section of Genesis’ third day is out of sequence. Plants, grass, and fruit bearing trees, did not appear until after sea creatures. Although microscopic single cell algae (bacteria or archaea microbes) are a plant and appeared at this time, it is not the advanced forms of plant life described in Genesis. Again, the appearance of flora did not take place at this time according to contemporary science.

blog acknowledges that this is incorrect


Genesis: (Fourth day)


“And God said. ‘Let there be light in the firmament of Heavens to separate the day from the night.’”

Science:

This phrase is confusing because the Sun’s creation was earlier, so why is light mentioned here? There is nothing to compare here between Genesis and science. The open question is why light is repeated on day four.

There are a number of theories to explain this. One is by Dr. Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D., a professor of nuclear physics and earth and planetary sciences at MIT who spent five years on the staff of the MIT physics department. He is also a lecturer in science and spirituality. He contends that the sun, the moon, and the stars were already there but that the atmosphere was opaque. With the cooling of the Earth and the rise in atmospheric oxygen, the atmosphere became transparent, and there was light.

Another interesting theory is presented by Dr. Alan Parker, a respected evolutionary biologist and research fellow at Oxford University. He speculates that this second reference to light on day four of Genesis refers to the evolution of vision. If there was no vision, then there was, in a sense, no light. So the lights were “turned on” in the evolution of sight in animals. “To separate day from night” refers to the time before and after sight.

the bolded part here is pretty laughable mental gymnastics tbh :lol

i think they know damn well that this is also incorrect but are trying to make some incredible contortions to try to go back and make it all fit. not to mention, the explanation requires the theory of evolution to be true, which sort of defeats the purpose of the discussion in this thread


Genesis: (Fifth day) — 3.5 billion years to 635 million years ago


“And God said, ‘Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures. Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas...’”

Science:

This is exactly what happened. Life began in the sea. The earliest fossils of life, single-celled bacteria, are found in ancient rocks deposited in the oceans 3.5 billion years ago. By 1.2 billion years ago, the first complex multicellular life had evolved. The oldest evidence of full animal life in the oceans comes from about 635 million years ago.this one is actually on point. life began in the sea.


Genesis: (Fifth day)

“‘...and let the birds fly above the earth.’”

Science:

According to contemporary science, this is out of sequence. Birds did not appear until later. However, flying insects did appear at this time, and this could be a remote but possible explanation.

:lol now we are confusing insects with birds? naw, we can't buy that. the divine wouldn't mess that up.


Genesis: (Sixth day) — 250 million to about 6000 years ago


“And God said, ‘Let the Earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind; cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kind.’”

Science:

This is exactly as science reports: life began in the water and then expanded onto land.we already established this above. life in the sea came first. why are we giving credit twice for the same claim? :lol

although nobody can ever define what a biblical "kind" is. it's a frustrating conversation


Genesis: (Sixth day)

“Then God created man in his own image ... Male and female created He them ... And God formed man of the dust of the ground ... He took one of Adam’s ribs and made a woman.”

Science:

Nothing in this section resembles science at all. The only correct thing is that man was at the end of the chain of life. One coincidence that has been noted is that just as Adam’s rib was used to form another person, Eve, the first life forms, single-cell organisms, divided to form other single-cell organisms. Admittedly, this is a stretch.
i'll just leave it at the bolded


Genesis: (Sixth day)

“God said, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth and subdue it and have domination over fish of the sea and over birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the Earth.’”

Science:

It is obvious that today, man does have domination over every fish, every bird, and every living thing that moves across the Earth. Genesis was right: man dominates the Earth.we all know that humans are running the show... i dont think we needed a divine text to tell us that. and "domination over the other animals" isn't really a scientific idea either. humans still get crapped on by germs every now and again, too


Genesis: (Seventh day)

“So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it because on it, God rested from all the work He had done.”

Science:

“Blessed and hallowed the seventh day.” This has nothing to do with science, but it is relevant in that what Genesis said has been reflected in life. Today all major religions have a holy day to rest: Muslims have Friday, Jews Saturday, and Christians Sunday. Other religions take a day of rest, and even nonbelievers do it. So that matches perfectly with Genesis. Still, many question the idea that God would rest. Why does God have to rest? Again, this is not a scientific question, but it’s compelling nonetheless. But why not rest? Christ, Moses, and Mohammad all rested, so why not God?
zactly

and then the article recaps. not sure how this was supposed to be convincing.

[Spurtacular]

I didn’t say I know how old it is ya dummy....I said that the guy I work with is an idiot....my point was that there’s a direct correlation between believing the Earth is 4K (or 6k) and being an idiot.

But I don’t expect you to understand that....after all, you think he Earth is 6k years old.

Ah. Well, cuck Blake is an idiot, but I don't pretend there's a correlation between theory of evolution not being true and that. So, no fail. And I don't expect you to understand cos you're an idiot too. :lmao

[Chris]

so while i still maintain that this is accurate...

No one was questioning the definition of scientific theory.



i find myself with some spare time so i'm going to go through your huffington post blog piece


so im gonna go ahead and say that's pretty generous.

a) the bible doesn't really claim there was a big bang. it says he created heaven and earth. nowhere does it say it expanded out of a super dense/hot singularity. basically this is saying "we know the universe exists, therefore genesis is accuarate." that's kinda weak

b) i dont know that scientists call it an "unimaginable power" or where the author is getting that from. rather, i would point to what carl sagan said.

- if we decide that the answer of "where did god come from" is an unanswerable question, why not just skip a step and say the beginning of the universe is an unanswerable question
- if we decide that god always existed, why not skip a step and decide that the universe (or the pre-big bang material) always existed

c) calling the big bang an "unimaginable gigantic explosion" isn't really an accurate representation of the theory. "big bang" was a name that was given to mock the idea of an original expansion... the big bang is much better described as an expansion than an explosion. that's more pop culture than science (the notion that it was a big eruption/explosion)

Of course the Bible doesn't claim there was a Big Bang - duh.

Carl Sagan's chicken or the egg quote is nice, but I've heard that a thousand times. We're talking about the similarities between Genesis and science.



again, this is basically saying that because we have light, the bible is accurate. the same can be said of any writing that ever mentions light in any way.

This is you rationalizing.



a) this is a good example of something demonstrably wrong. the "firmament" is supposed to be some dome-globe type thing around the earth that separates us from "the waters above" aka heaven. except we know there isn't water above. the blue sky is a reflective property from what is on earth. we aren't standing below some giant ocean, protected by a big dome

b) even before the bible, we knew that we had oceaans and land in between. so the fact that the bible says we will have water and land in between isn't some astounding claim.

Your "damn globe thing" is a theory and has nothing to do with the article. This is you conflating.



blog acknowledges that this is incorrect

Thanks for the clarification. Stunning analysis.


the bolded part here is pretty laughable mental gymnastics tbh :lol

i think they know damn well that this is also incorrect but are trying to make some incredible contortions to try to go back and make it all fit. not to mention, the explanation requires the theory of evolution to be true, which sort of defeats the purpose of the discussion in this thread

The article was written by one person. There is no "they."


this one is actually on point. life began in the sea.

Great.



:lol now we are confusing insects with birds? naw, we can't buy that. the divine wouldn't mess that up.

No one is confused about birds or insects.


we already established this above. life in the sea came first. why are we giving credit twice for the same claim? :lol

I don't think anyone is taking credit. This is an analysis of Genesis and each day.


although nobody can ever define what a biblical "kind" is. it's a frustrating conversation

Scholars have studied the Bible for an entire lifetime and still have questions at the end of the day. It's a fascinating book.



we all know that humans are running the show... i dont think we needed a divine text to tell us that. and "domination over the other animals" isn't really a scientific idea either. humans still get crapped on by germs every now and again, too

You're upset that there is a similarity there. That's understandable.


zactly

and then the article recaps. not sure how this was supposed to be convincing.

Amazing how you've managed to say absolutely nothing but declare victory at the same time. You're welcome to disagree with the article but your analysis leaves little to be desired.

[Blake]

Atheist Blake :lol

"Similarities between Genesis and science" :lol :lol

[Spurtacular]

it's not "my science." it's just science. do you know what the scientific process is? do you know what a scientific theory is?

even with a little g, genesis isn't a scientific theory.

evolution is a scientific theory.

this is really simple stuff tbh

Damn, all that shameless grandstanding just because you wouldn't accept a clarification (definition) that I just gave you!

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genesis

[Blake]

Damn, all that shameless grandstanding just because you wouldn't accept a clarification (definition) that I just gave you!

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genesis

Lol still doesn't get it.

A few more pages maybe

[Spurtacular]

Lol still doesn't get it.

A few more pages maybe

What don't I get, cuck Blake?

:lol I guaran-fucking-tee you got nothing.

[johnsmith]

Ah. Well, cuck Blake is an idiot, but I don't pretend there's a correlation between theory of evolution not being true and that. So, no fail. And I don't expect you to understand cos you're an idiot too. :lmao

That was just terrible....at least be funny.

[Spurtacular]

That was just terrible....at least be funny.

Terrible to an idiot doesn't mean a thing, tbh. Don't worry, the non-idiots get it.

[Chris]

Terrible to an idiot doesn't mean a thing, tbh. Don't worry, the non-idiots get it.

:lol

[spurraider21]

Damn, all that shameless grandstanding just because you wouldn't accept a clarification (definition) that I just gave you!

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genesis
nice definition

that is still not a scientific theory

[Spurtacular]

nice definition

that is still not a scientific theory

I used the word in proper context. Do you dispute that? I honestly don't even care if you answer. I'll pass on the W; you're being too obtuse for me to really want it.

[monosylab1k]

Chris quoting Einstein is one of the funnier things on this board :lol

[spurraider21]

No one was questioning the definition of scientific theory.
thats news to me. derpy seems to think genesis (small g!) is a scientific theory


Of course the Bible doesn't claim there was a Big Bang - duh.
ok... so you are disagreeing with the huffpo opinion piece that tries to connect the dots and claim the bible does in fact align with the big bang theory.

basically you are boiling down the similarity to:

1. Science says the universe started with the "big bang"
2. Genesis says the universe started at some point

therefore they are in alignment. that's a weak parallel


Carl Sagan's chicken or the egg quote is nice, but I've heard that a thousand times. We're talking about the similarities between Genesis and science.
yes, we are. but your article also claimed that scientists, at large, ascribe the big bang to "some unimaginable power." i questioned that claim and presented sagan's quote as an alternative


This is you rationalizing.
if that's what you want to call it

1. genesis claims god made light
2. light exists

therefore genesis is in alignment with science

?

if pointing that weak comparison is "me rationalizing" then sure


Your "damn globe thing" is a theory and has nothing to do with the article. This is you conflating.
i dont think you know what conflating means. it's verbatim the word of the bible.

"So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome."

the bible treats the skies/heavens as though it were an ocean/sea. we know that not to be true. we know there isn't a dome that separates us from the sky. that's not "conflation." i really think you dont know what that word means when you keep using it in these contexts


Thanks for the clarification. Stunning analysis.
it didnt need clarification, so i didn't clarify. article says that doesn't align with science, so it made my point for me


The article was written by one person. There is no "they."
good catch :tu

make sure you get all the important details


Great.
:tu


No one is confused about birds or insects.
your article says "According to contemporary science, this is out of sequence. Birds did not appear until later. However, flying insects did appear at this time, and this could be a remote but possible explanation."
either it does not align with science, or they confused birds with flying insects. i'll let you choose, i'm good either way


I don't think anyone is taking credit. This is an analysis of Genesis and each day.
the article pointed out for a second time that life originated in the sea. i'm just pointing out that they made a redundant point.


Scholars have studied the Bible for an entire lifetime and still have questions at the end of the day. It's a fascinating book.
i agree that it's fascinating. but if the question at hand is if genesis aligns with science, then you would need to have a working definition of a "kind" to make that determination.


You're upset that there is a similarity there. That's understandable.
i'm upset that the bible acknowledges that humans are at the top of the food chain? not at all. what i'm saying is making that claim isn't a sign of scientific validity. it's akin to saying "the oceans are made of water. therefore my claims are aligned with science." if you pointed out how silly that was, does that mean that "you're upset that there is a similarity there?"


Amazing how you've managed to say absolutely nothing but declare victory at the same time. You're welcome to disagree with the article but your analysis leaves little to be desired
huh? i went through each of the article's main points. on a couple of points, they showed that genesis is in conformity with our observations in certain things (light, in fact, exists. life originated in the sea). it correctly pointed out some areas where genesis does not conform with observations (dome separating the seas, plants appearing before animals). it also drew some incorrect parallels (acted like genesis and the big bang are in conformity with one another. even you agreed that they aren't)


so i think my point was fairly clear. and of course, as i mentioned in my previous post,

Just because something may or may not be right, doesn't mean it is or isn't scientific. If i said "hey guys, I think Lithium atoms have 3 electrons... just a gut feeling" then I wouldn't be saying anything scientific, even though what I said might be accurate.

the bible saying some things that happen to be accurate doesn't suddenly turn it into a work of science.

[spurraider21]

I used the word in proper context. Do you dispute that? I honestly don't even care if you answer. I'll pass on the W; you're being too obtuse for me to really want it.
neither Genesis or genesis are scientific theories. i dont understand what point you're trying to make now.

i dont even think you're trying to make a point. you're just saying words

[Spurtacular]

neither Genesis or genesis are scientific theories. i dont understand what point you're trying to make now.

i dont even think you're trying to make a point. you're just saying words

Oh, my hell. Theory of evolution or intelligent design both regard the genesis. Seriously, you can't have a great record as a lawyer.

[spurraider21]

Oh, my hell. Theory of evolution or intelligent design both regard the genesis. Seriously, you can't have a great record as a lawyer.
a) evolution doesn't regard genesis... it is merely the mechanism by which life diversifies. the theory of evolution doesn't describe how life began or how the universe began (genesis)

b) even if we assume that evolution and ID both have to do with genesis, that still doesn't make genesis a scientific theory. and as of now there is nothing scientific about ID

[Spurtacular]

a) evolution doesn't regard genesis... it is merely the mechanism by which life diversifies. the theory of evolution doesn't describe how life began or how the universe began (genesis)

b) even if we assume that evolution and ID both have to do with genesis, that still doesn't make genesis a scientific theory. and as of now there is nothing scientific about ID

Genesis: origin of

This sh** isn't hard to comprehend.

[spurraider21]

Genesis: origin of

This sh** isn't hard to comprehend. My hell.
yes. and what do you think evolution is the "origin of?"

evolution does NOT describe the origin of life

[Spurtacular]

yes. and what do you think evolution is the "origin of?"

evolution does NOT describe the origin of life

It's (theoretically) the origin of mankind, no?

[spurraider21]

It's (theoretically) the origin of mankind, no?
mankind, yeah. but not the universe/earth/life

[Spurtacular]

mankind, yeah. but not the universe/earth/life

We were talking about theory of evolution from the get go, not the big bang theory, bro. Again though, I don't care. This is a mind numbing discussion.

[spurraider21]

We were talking about theory of evolution from the get go, not the big bang theory, bro. Again though, I don't care. This is a mind numbing discussion.
agreed. that's why i've been scratching my head trying to figure out what the fuck point you've been trying to make

[Winehole23]

I don't think he knows either.

[Pavlov]

Oh, my hell. Theory of evolution or intelligent design both regard the genesis. Seriously, you can't have a great record as a lawyer.


Genesis: origin of

This sh** isn't hard to comprehend.


It's (theoretically) the origin of mankind, no?


We were talking about theory of evolution from the get go, not the big bang theory, bro. Again though, I don't care. This is a mind numbing discussion.What's your theory of genesis?

[boutons_deux]

irrefutable evidence here that religion makes one stupid, ignorant, "mind numbed"

[Blake]

neither Genesis or genesis are scientific theories. i dont understand what point you're trying to make now.

i dont even think you're trying to make a point. you're just saying words

:lol

[pgardn]

Well, one I don't think you have to be Christian to believe in intelligent design. But isn't it interesting that that triggers you without me even bringing it up? Easy call for Chris (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1656), tbh.

I think that the genesis of Earth and mankind is all rooted in theory; so it's a bit of a strawman for you to hide behind some pretend pure science on this one.


So continue what intelligent design is and how it is a viable theory in science.

[RandomGuy]

Atheist Blake upset about Arizona school books. Good lord.

Fake Christian upset about atheist post. Holy spaghetti.

[RandomGuy]

I don't think he knows either.

Spurtacular is singularly incapable of learning things. He has tried, very lamely, to occasionally defend his 9-11 controlled demolition theory, among others. He realizes rather quickly he is in over his head and changes the subject as fast as possible.

Were his knowledge of science personified, it would look like an escapee from a concentration camp, if one can pardon the analogy.

[Chucho]

Spurtacular is singularly incapable of learning things. He has tried, very lamely, to occasionally defend his 9-11 controlled demolition theory, among others. He realizes rather quickly he is in over his head and changes the subject as fast as possible.

Were his knowledge of science personified, it would look like an escapee from a concentration camp, if one can pardon the analogy.


Oh, don't be so pedantic.

[spurraider21]

Oh, don't be so pedantic.
i dont appreciate that aspersion

[RandomGuy]

Oh, don't be so pedantic.

:lol

[RandomGuy]

i dont appreciate that aspersion

I think he is referring to spurtacular trying to apply that to me (and failing rather spectacularly) in some thread or another. It was funny.

[spurraider21]

I think he is referring to spurtacular trying to apply that to me (and failing rather spectacularly) in some thread or another. It was funny.
chooch and i have long made fun of spurt's thesaurus use. i was piling on.

[Blake]

chooch and i have long made fun of spurt's thesaurus use. i was piling on.

Indubitably

[Blake]

And you know it's not, somehow? (BTW, 6,000 is the more accepted #).

:lol derp is a young earther.

Of course.

[Blake]

This guy was chosen by Douglas to help decide how evolution should be taught:

"...The earth is just 6,000 years old and dinosaurs were present on Noah’s Ark. But only the young ones. The adult ones were too big to fit, don’t you know.

"Plenty of space on the Ark for dinosaurs – no problem," Joseph Kezele explained to Phoenix New Times' Joseph Flaherty.

Flaherty reports that in August, Arizona's soon-to-be ex-superintendent appointed Kezele to a working group charged with reviewing and editing the state’s proposed new state science standards on evolution....."

https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/creationist-helped-review-arizona-evolution-curriculum-10820376

[RandomGuy]

This guy was chosen by Douglas to help decide how evolution should be taught:

"...The earth is just 6,000 years old and dinosaurs were present on Noah’s Ark. But only the young ones. The adult ones were too big to fit, don’t you know.

"Plenty of space on the Ark for dinosaurs – no problem," Joseph Kezele explained to Phoenix New Times' Joseph Flaherty.

Flaherty reports that in August, Arizona's soon-to-be ex-superintendent appointed Kezele to a working group charged with reviewing and editing the state’s proposed new state science standards on evolution....."

https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/creationist-helped-review-arizona-evolution-curriculum-10820376

It takes some serious dumbasserty to think that Noah's ark was a real story.

[RandomGuy]

so while i still maintain that this is accurate...



i find myself with some spare time so i'm going to go through your huffington post blog piece


so im gonna go ahead and say that's pretty generous.

a) the bible doesn't really claim there was a big bang. it says he created heaven and earth. nowhere does it say it expanded out of a super dense/hot singularity. basically this is saying "we know the universe exists, therefore genesis is accuarate." that's kinda weak

b) i dont know that scientists call it an "unimaginable power" or where the author is getting that from. rather, i would point to what carl sagan said.

- if we decide that the answer of "where did god come from" is an unanswerable question, why not just skip a step and say the beginning of the universe is an unanswerable question
- if we decide that god always existed, why not skip a step and decide that the universe (or the pre-big bang material) always existed

c) calling the big bang an "unimaginable gigantic explosion" isn't really an accurate representation of the theory. "big bang" was a name that was given to mock the idea of an original expansion... the big bang is much better described as an expansion than an explosion. that's more pop culture than science (the notion that it was a big eruption/explosion)


again, this is basically saying that because we have light, the bible is accurate. the same can be said of any writing that ever mentions light in any way.


a) this is a good example of something demonstrably wrong. the "firmament" is supposed to be some dome-globe type thing around the earth that separates us from "the waters above" aka heaven. except we know there isn't water above. the blue sky is a reflective property from what is on earth. we aren't standing below some giant ocean, protected by a big dome

b) even before the bible, we knew that we had oceaans and land in between. so the fact that the bible says we will have water and land in between isn't some astounding claim.



blog acknowledges that this is incorrect



the bolded part here is pretty laughable mental gymnastics tbh :lol

i think they know damn well that this is also incorrect but are trying to make some incredible contortions to try to go back and make it all fit. not to mention, the explanation requires the theory of evolution to be true, which sort of defeats the purpose of the discussion in this thread

this one is actually on point. life began in the sea.



:lol now we are confusing insects with birds? naw, we can't buy that. the divine wouldn't mess that up.

we already established this above. life in the sea came first. why are we giving credit twice for the same claim? :lol

although nobody can ever define what a biblical "kind" is. it's a frustrating conversation


i'll just leave it at the bolded

we all know that humans are running the show... i dont think we needed a divine text to tell us that. and "domination over the other animals" isn't really a scientific idea either. humans still get crapped on by germs every now and again, too


zactly

and then the article recaps. not sure how this was supposed to be convincing.

Props. That was comprehensive, and took some time to do.

I haven't finished scrolling, but am guessing it will be met by either ignoring or [smiley][derision]/[derision][smiley]

[RandomGuy]

It's (theoretically) the origin of mankind, no?

Evolution is the theory of how organisms change over time.

That's it. Species arise and go away.

Your response here was to someone talking about the "origin of life" not the origin of humans. That is either you not understanding, or you understanding, but changing the subject for some reason.