Some useful stickers for Alabama Schools
Wonderful.
While we're at it, we'd better put some stickers on the maths textbooks:
"This book states that the value of pi is approximately 3.14159. This theory is contrary to some beliefs, and should therefore be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
Because the biblical value of pi is 3:
"Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."
4:2, 2 Chronicles
posted by TheLoneAmigo @ 8:44 pm
14 comments
14 Comments:
I don't get it. What are you talking about?? Why should you put some stickers in your math notebooks? I just don't get it. Maybe if I read this again later, I'll understand this...
I find it very interesting that you would think of the Theory of Evolution as being scientific. It's scientific in the same way the Theory of Humors (causes body fluids as the causes of sickness) is scientific.
I hate to break it to you, but random guesswork does not constitute science. A massive lack of evidence, including evidence to point to a fairly young earth (6,000-20,000 years), entirely discredit any form of biological evolution.
The stickers are perfectly valid. They remind people that a theory is not necessarily the truth.
The earth can't be very old, and modifications in DNA structure which would be necessary for Evolution are always fatal. It's like hitting someone on the head with a sledgehammer and expecting him to instantly come up with a cure for cancer. Instead, he's going to die, or suffer some great consequences.
DNA changes are the same way. When human DNA changes, it causes deformities. Somehow I don't view Mongoloidism as a great leap forward for the human race...
You can't teach Evolution under the guise of science. You're very welcome to teach it as a theory, but it requires more faith than does Creationism. Don't forget to give equal time to the other candidate.
Pardon me, I typed too fast...
"A massive lack of evidence, coupled with evidence that points to a fairly young earth (6,000-20,000 years), entirely discredits Evolutionism."
Okay. Now explain the biblical value of pi to me.
How absurd. I should start calling you "LoneAmigo, King of the Strawmen."
I haven't paid any attention to the Biblical value of pi. However, there are such things as estimates; if you try to use two estimates to come up with an exact answer, you're in trouble.
Now deal with the issue at hand.
If that is an estimate, the bible cannot be completely literally true. QED
My oh my, doesn't that theory leave things open for interpretation. It basically allows you to argue whatever you want, ignoring sections of the Bible selectively. How do you say what's "historical" and what's not?
Why couldn't Genesis be a story? The Bible's got some great stories (though terribly written, but the plot itself is good).
I cannot believe this rubbish.
These stickers are indicative of a society falling apart. Next there'll be book burning.
It is funny that we went to war in Afganistan to fight rubbish like this, while it is going on in our own backyard. Says a lot for Alabama's education department.
Anon... most of those stickers are jokes. But the one about evolution is real.
I don't think this is tantamount to book burning, but I do think that it's the wrong thing to do.
Evolution is a scientific theory. It should be viewed critically and open-mindly.
However, creationism is just plain wacky.
So Creationism is wacky?
How is it not wacky to believe that a system left to itself will tend toward a greater state of order? In case you didn't know, that goes against a basic law of the natural world. And since you believe the natural world is all there is, then you can't logically believe in evolution. Everything travels toward a state of disorder, and life is a highly organized state.
Right. You make plenty of sense.
Evolution is not a "theory of origin". Big bang theory is a theory of origin. Organic soup theory is a theory of origin. Creationism, though one of the stupider theories, is a theory of origin.
Evolution is a theory of developement. When you create competing software algorithms, they evolve towards the most efficient algorithm. When you put mice in a particular environment so that mice with a specific trait are more likely to survive, the population will evolve towards having that trait. Evolution is a proveable theory: the mice experiment above, etc.
Creationism is not a proveable theory, unless of course God comes and says "I was right and you were wrong! Nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah!".
Nullus Anxietas,
TLA
How do they get the traits? They evolve them.
The evolution of legs (short, probably innacurate but an example):
1. Fish develops lungs to survive being beached. (There's more to it than this, but this is about legs)
2.Some fish's genes produce stronger fins, via mutation.
3. Fish with stronger fins are more likely to survive.
4. Fish with stronger fins breed more than those with weaker fins.
5. Offspring of strong-fin fish have stronger fins. Weak-finned offspring less likely to survive.
6. Rince and repeat until strong-fins have strong enough fins to push themselves up beaches rather than down(and a myriad of other factors, but whatever).
7. Strong fins becomes legs over generations due to strengthing.
A basic overview, anyway.
Oh me oh my. Evolution at its saddest.
"When you put mice in a particular environment so that mice with a specific trait are more likely to survive, the population will evolve towards having that trait."
But that's interference. That's not a system left to itself, as it would have been during Evolution. Do me a favor: put rats in an aquatic environment and see if they evolve into fish. Do it in any way you wish. In fact, just make me a race of rats with fins. Or furry miniature whales. Anything except a typical soggy rat.
You really seem to like the evolution of fins into legs. But please, tell me what environment a creature with half-fins, half-legs would live in? If the fins are evolving into legs, then they wouldn't be fit for swimming, but walking would be an impossible task as well, and the creature would die. That's a simple fact.
Ah, blind cave fish. How interesting it is that you can breed many, many generations of fish in total darkness, and they will still retain their eyes. Their ability to see may be lost, but their offspring will continue to have eyes and their sight will not be affected.
You see, some things about animals can change. But that doesn't mean that their genes have changed, and if their genes haven't changed, then their offspring will be completely normal, not inheriting any of the characteristics of its parents. If my dad is a body builder (and my mom too, for that matter), it won't matter one bit when I'm born. I won't be born with excessive strength. I will have the ability to work out, and gain strength, but that will be of my own doing, not my parents', and I will not be able to pass those characteristics on.
As for your evolution of legs, it's kinda funny that while your strengthened fins are evolving (which wouldn't allow for life on dry land anyway), you must also be developing a myriad of other systems that would allow the fish to survive on dry land. Very convenient that they all evolved at once, don't you think?
And what brought about the mutation that led to stronger fins? It really doesn't matter; mutated organisms are generally sterile and are not fit for survival. Do you perhaps think Mongoloidism is a great step forward for the human race? Of course not. You hope with all your heart that these mutations can cause something desirable to happen, but it doesn't work that way. A genetic change is almost always fatal for the organism, and when it's not fatal, it leads to sterility and/or deformation.
Also interesting is that some desirable genetic traits can be linked to undesirable genetic traits. What's the use of having stronger fins, for example, if the fish's mouth is deformed? This isn't always the case, but it happens often enough to further the impossiblity of Evolution.
And another thing: There is no evidence that an organism can evolve into another organism. The race can grow stronger, but it will never evolve structures that it didn't already have. If it has legs, it will not grow wings. It can't, because it doesn't have the genetic capability to do so.
Finally, let's please not forget that statistics work against your arguments too. In a trillion years, you couldn't evolve single-celled organisms into human beings. That's mathematics talking, not Creationism.
It's also very interesting that Evolutionists claim the earth is very old, when there is no way it could be. Meteoric dust would have covered the earth miles deep in the approximately 4.5 billion years that it took for life to evolve. The sun would have also burned out. There would be no dry land on earth either, because of the rate of water formation. In 4.5 billion years, there would be VAST amounts of helium in the air due to radioactive processes, and yet helium is relatively rare.
If man evolved a million years ago, as you claim, then according to population statistics, there would be (10 to the 27,000 power) people on the face of the earth. However, if there were only 8 people at the Biblical time of the flood, the number of people that should be here today works out to about 4 billion, which is certainly closer to the truth than your "scientific" theory. Only 10,000 years ago, the earth's magnetic field would have been as strong as a magnetic star, which is highly improbable.
So there was no time for Evolution to occur given the age of the earth (about 6,000-8,000 years). And Evolution has been proven to be impossible anyway (adaptation is possible, but it does not lead to new organisms or even new structures on organisms).
So uh, where's the science in your "scientific" theory of Evolution?
Otters can move about on land. I'd say they have about half-fin half-legs. Did you actually read my example?
I doubt that your so-called proofs of the Earth's age are actually in any way related to reality, but in any case, there are also proofs that the Earth is howevermany bajillion years old.
Show your "mathematical proof" against evolution.
But, in any case, we've had this argument before.You won't change my views. And I won't change yours.
Start Ranting
<< Home