Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It ain't necessarily so
It ain't necessarily so
De things dat yo' liable to read in de Bible
It ain't necessarily so
Li'l David was small but oh my
Li'l David was small but oh my
He fought big Goliath who lay down and dieth
Li'l David was small but oh my
Oh Jonah he lived in de whale
Oh Jonah he lived in de whale
For he made his home in dat fish's abdomen
Oh Jonah he lived in de whale
Li'l Moses was found in a stream
Li'l Moses was found in a stream
He floated on water 'til ole Pharaoh's daughter
She fished him she says from that stream
It ain't necessarily so
It ain't necessarily so
Dey tell all you chillun de debble's a villain
But 'taint necessarily so
To get into Hebben don' snap for a sebben
Live clean, don' have no fault
Oh I takes de gospel whenever it's pos'ble
But wid a grain of salt
Methus'lah lived nine hundred years
Methus'lah lived nine hundred years
But who calls dat livin' when no gal'll give in
To no man what's nine hundred years
I'm preachin' dis sermon to show
It ain't nessa, ain't nessa
Ain't nessa, ain't nessa
It ain't necessarily so ~ George and Ira Gershwin
I didn't realize any public schools were not teaching evolution.
The problem with teaching creationism as a scientific theory is its based in religious belief and not science. Even if evolution has holes and is unprovable, it's agreed on by a majority of scientists while creationism is debated and takes many forms even among Christians. It's not appropriate for science classes. Teaching it in philosophy or world religion classes would be alright.
Sorry, but as I have stated in previous posts, Creationism should be taught in religious institutions as it always has been. There is no way to teach it in public schools without teaching it as a from of Mythology.
I don't know where the link is but the USA ranks only second from the bottom behind Turkey for the belief in Creationism. The nation is being dumbed down enough and to teach Creationism with the same importance that science is taught is ridiculous.
Evolution is theory. It should not be taught as fact that we evolved from a common primate ancestor.
You really think Christians are stupid? Atheists are so arrogant and pompous.
Not stupid, just completely deceived on the issue of "god" in general, and evolution/creationism in this case.
It isn't based on stupidity, but, rather a completel and total fear of facing the reality of mortality, i.e. that you are born, you live, and your die, and that is all there is for you - period! That finalty of death is horrifying and hence distortes beyond any recognition, any hope of clear thinking on this issue. Hence, the heart-felt belief in an absolute fantasy (god, creationism, heaven, hell et al).
Last edited by Robin Rossi; 03-15-2013 at 12:37 PM..
As a matter of fact, my building's superintendant is Muslim and he and his family are some of the nicest, gracious and respectful people that I know. I have had problems with rude Americans and Russian neighbors, but have never had a confrontation or problem with my Muslim neighbors.
I suspect that the above is true because you haven't recited something like you did below about the man's religion. And you like to talk about the right having boogeymen? Don't let your Christian neighbors get you; you know they're coming for you....
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc
It ain't necessarily so
It ain't necessarily so
De things dat yo' liable to read in de Bible
It ain't necessarily so
Li'l David was small but oh my
Li'l David was small but oh my
He fought big Goliath who lay down and dieth
Li'l David was small but oh my
Oh Jonah he lived in de whale
Oh Jonah he lived in de whale
For he made his home in dat fish's abdomen
Oh Jonah he lived in de whale
Li'l Moses was found in a stream
Li'l Moses was found in a stream
He floated on water 'til ole Pharaoh's daughter
She fished him she says from that stream
It ain't necessarily so
It ain't necessarily so
Dey tell all you chillun de debble's a villain
But 'taint necessarily so
To get into Hebben don' snap for a sebben
Live clean, don' have no fault
Oh I takes de gospel whenever it's pos'ble
But wid a grain of salt
Methus'lah lived nine hundred years
Methus'lah lived nine hundred years
But who calls dat livin' when no gal'll give in
To no man what's nine hundred years
I'm preachin' dis sermon to show
It ain't nessa, ain't nessa
Ain't nessa, ain't nessa
It ain't necessarily so ~ George and Ira Gershwin
Suzy ... do you understand the differences between "suggestions" and "facts"? Anybody can "suggest" anything .. and people do it all of the time. Some of the suggestions are good, and some are down right idiotic. Neither constitute a fact.
The big clue that you are not actually dealing with facts .. let alone proven fact is the part "A new study suggests ...". Whenever you see that in the future, you can now assume it isn't a fact, or even a reasonable opinion.
Furthermore, it's rather obvious that you didn't actually read the linked article in it's entirety, or you don't understand the argument, because if you did, you might have discovered that it actually supports my opinion more than yours.
For example: (from your linked article)
"Powner's most recent work suggests that DNA might have come first, attempting to create DNA nucleotides through similar methods to those he used to make RNA nucleotides in 2009. Prebiotic chemists have largely ignored DNA, because its complexity suggests it cannot possibly form spontaneously."
Does that sound even a little bit familiar? I think that I've mentioned the improbability of DNA having come into existence by accident, due to it's complexity. But that is not really the significant revelation in those couple of sentences. The important information that resides between the lines is:
1) there is a raging debate among evolutionists and microbiologists even about what held the biological code for the earliest cell replication ... the majority have leaned toward RNA predating DNA in early organism creation/replication, due to it's less complex structure (though still too complex for spontaneous or accidental existence). While others disagree and insist that DNA was first (probably because DNA creates RNA, not the other way around). This is like the old debate about which came first, the chicken or the egg.
2) The problem with RNA theories is that the only observable method of RNA creation is during DNA transcription. So without DNA to make RNA ... there is no demonstrable way of RNA creation, other than the same argument used for DNA ... that it must have formed by random accident out of raw building blocks found in the environment, including some magical conditions that existed Billions of years ago that don't exist now (which can never be proven or verified, obviously). There we are back to square one ... that whole random mixing of raw material forming a complex data storage device and it's code contained therein.
3) These efforts to show how RNA could have developed naturally, only address the structure of the molecule itself, and not the complex code contained in the fully constructed molecule! This falls well short of the need to demonstrate natural occurrence, rather than design. Inorganic raw material creating an actual coded language by random mixing of raw material? Really? You see ... this is the problem with those who want to attribute the creation of life as a product of spontaneous, random processes ... because evolution can only begin once there is something that exists which can evolve. Since evolution relies on natural selection, a replicating cell must first exist in order for a "selection" to occur. Yet, RNA, DNA, and self replicating cells are all three much too complex to have formed randomly. It's a preposterous theory driven not by any reasonable evidence .. but by a deep, dogmatic desire to disprove creationism and the existence of God. Those among the evolutionist believers are indeed married to material science, which maintains a fundamental rejection of anything even remotely hinting toward the existence of anything that is non-material science ... and while Intelligent Design does not prove or even attempt to prove a supernatural God was that intelligent designer ... the mere inference is enough to warrant a similar attack for which creationists are targeted by the evolutionists.
But until the material scientists can successfully create a living cell from only inorganic material ... and for decades they've been trying without a modicum of success ... evolution being the answer to how life first came into existence will remain an unproven, and rather hair brained idea that came from a minority element of archaic 1800's pseudo science which has evolved into the modern pseudo science that should know better, but apparently doesn't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
