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.
Firstly, you can teach your kids whatever floats your boat, I ain't stopping you.
Secondly, evolution is an important concept that has major scientific importance, so it would be downright silly not to teach it, whether you "believe" in it or not. You are free to dispute anything, if you so chose. But science is a class, and religious beliefs and myths is not, not in public school, anyway.
Thirdly, you really need to read a book, because the answer to your question is that we did not evolve from apes. If you had any basic understanding of evolution at all you would know this. That's why "the government" needs to teach it in school - although it obviously went somewhat over your head, so there aren't any guarantees that people will actually take it in.
Fourthly, evolution does not prove or disprove the existence of a creator. So there's no need to demonize it on that account.
Lastly, it's awful that so many people still think this way. Scary. Especially those with the ability to create policy. Gawd help us.
What's really scary is how many of these people sit on so-called "Science Committees" in the house. It's like putting the head of Iran to sit on the Jewish Relations committee.
People do not have kids to have them indoctrinated by the government, people. If parents want to teach THEIR kids that God created the universe, that is their right as parents of THEIR kids.
Sure. Which has nothing to do with anything. What, if anything, "created the universe" is not a question for which there is any verifiable scientific answer.
Teaching kids--at home, and in whatever latrine of a church the parents may attend--that the earth and human life is 9,000 years old is fine and dandy too. Just not in science class.
BTW, for all of you folks who are so sure of a scientific theory that has never been proven, can I just ask, if humans evolved from apes, then why are there still apes on this planet? Why did only some of the apes "evolve"? No one ever seems to be able to answer that, along with a whole lot of other questions that pop up when one tries to prove evolution.
Evolution: just another tired excuse to try to disprove there is a Creator so that there is no absolute standard of right and wrong.
You know, like most others, I happily discuss just about any issue. Doing so, however, requires that the other person has, at the very least, a cursory knowledge of the subject of the discussion.
This: "if humans evolved from apes, then why are there still apes on this planet?" shows one thing above all: That you have failed to even pay the slightest attention to the topic of evolution. If you had, you would NEVER bring up such a rather inane question - assuming that you have at least average intelligence.
BTW, for all of you folks who are so sure of a scientific theory that has never been proven, can I just ask, if humans evolved from apes, then why are there still apes on this planet? Why did only some of the apes "evolve"? No one ever seems to be able to answer that, along with a whole lot of other questions that pop up when one tries to prove evolution.
Evolution: just another tired excuse to try to disprove there is a Creator so that there is no absolute standard of right and wrong.
First, humans are apes. 'Ape' is a biological clade. Specifically, we are members of a sub-group known as the great apes -- we humans, as well as chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans.
Second, there is nothing in evolution that requires ancestral populations to go extinct when a genetically distinct daughter group separates from a parent group. If you were even passingly familiar with evolution, you would understand this. But you clearly are completely ignorant of evolution. And yet you're convinced it is scientifically lacking. You might want to ponder that. It's like railing against radiometric dating without even knowing what an isotope is. You lack even the most rudimentary understand required to even judge evolution. Yet you do. Consider that.
Which brings us to your problem -- you don't oppose evolution because it is lacking in answering any substantive questions, you oppose it because you don't like the reality. You haven't even the most tenuous grasp of evolutionary processes, and they're not necessary, because your refusal to believe is based on what you want to believe, not on any rational assessment of the evidence.
Here's a question for you: why am I not black? I'm white, of northwestern European extraction. But my ancestors, tens of thousands of years ago, were dark-skinned sub-Saharan Africans. You do accept at least that much of human development, right? Or is that part of your denialism, too? Anyway, millions of Africans have stayed dark-skinned, while millions of people like myself, whose ancestors lived in Europe until very recently, became lighter-skinned. Why? Evolution. Here's a hint -- different environmental factors affected my recent ancestors than affected those dark-skinned Africans. You do understand that different groups, living in different places, are subject to different evolutionary pressures, correct?
And there's your answer. If you can understand it. A big "if", I know.
Okay -- we'll all believe in evolution and survival of the more fit and that the weak should be allowed to die off.
All this welfare and food stamps is contrary to what evolution would have -- those who are incapable of getting food -- well nature would take it's course on them.
Most Engineers are conservatives and libertarians because they don't need a PhD/Masters and their private enterprise job responsibilities involve real-world problem solving and pragmatic, common-sense conservatism.
Complete non-sequtor...Engineering principles which are at is core applied physics has nothing to do with "commo-sense conservatism".
Rubio is doing the same partial pandering bit that that crazy creationist Piyush Jindal is doing. They're giving the appearance of being sensible by disavowing Romney's ridiculous parting shots while harboring anti-scientist beliefs and pushing legislation that would allow creationism in science classes. It's no different than the overall shapeshifting fraud Romney tried to pull. I suspect they'll fail miserably as well. You know, I respect lunatics like Rick Santorum more than these fakes, at least we're sure he's insane because he doesn't try to hide it.
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.
