The Guardian wrote:

First off; Creationism is a credible scientific theory, just as Evolution, and so on. This is not iun any way connected to the Believe in God. As some believe that instead of God, an intelligent Designer created the universe; in some case "aliens".

What is the point of only teaching one theory in class, and not making children aware of the others? Ignorance? As for your opinions, that creationism should remain outside of school do you have anything against it other than your pitiful excuses? That it is not grounded in thought? Because it questions other theories?

There is no logical reason why children should be made aware of the vast amount of theories. While the teacher themselves can place a personal spin on the subject, I highly disagree with only teaching one.

Tieko wrote:

... Wow. I don't know where to start.
Credible means that it can be backed up - which is not the case with creationism. We can show evolution occur through natural selection using organisms that reproduce quickly - such as bacteria.
Secondly, aliens could not create the universe because
A) That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard
B) By definition the universe is everything that exists, so before the universe began there would have to be 'nothingness' - as we have defined it so far.
The only reason the idea of 'intelligent design' is not completely ignored is because 'God' is 'omnipotent' ie the religious community has made him out to be untouchable by reason.

Ignorance... wow... I'm sorry, but you are just the stereotypical Texan. If you want to talk about ignorance you should observe the religious community over the last thousand years or so. And pitiful excuses? Why are they pitiful? I suggest you back up your claims before making bullshit statements
As for questioning other theories - if you've ever been to an educational facility you will realize that there are many theories, as have their been MANY MANY theories over time - we simply refine them and present the one that appears to be most likely at the time.

As for you disagreeing with the school's only teaching one... well, as I've said that is not wholeheartedly true Though I must admit it is hard to teach two theories evenly when one has significantly more evidence than the other.

The Guardian wrote:

Very well, we shall do this the hard way.

Evolution, behind all the facades, is a crumbling structure at all things its base, the cornerstone to the belief. Even as you read this post, you are already moving the cursor toward the 'reply' button, to try and point out where I am wrong, however you have yet to debunk the theory, only defy, the right to millions the right to learn what is.

Not some fake sense of reality, thinking that all believe in this theory. As clearly, just as I am standing here, there are those who laugh at the thought, Atheists, Christians. Yes, at times we are baffled. However under it all there is something to be found; truth.

Behind all of the old men, screaming their opinions as facts, there is what all look for. Not one here, nor one of the past, future or present will, have, or has ever proved Evolution(One species evolving into another).

Stereotypical? Am I to assume you are not? Everyone is, however though one has the choice not to, do such, it is hard to resist. In this case, you are sadly mistaken, I am not the common Texan, neither the average citizen. However this is not what the subject is about is it? however you did lower your standards to attack. For your information, I will tell you what I am considered; patriot, and among other things, one who gives all. No, I am not the typical Texan.

Moving on, to the specifics mentioned in your above post. This is known as micro-evolution, where a bacteria will commonly form an endo spore, and over time become resistant to it, however this is not proof for macro(the evolution of animals/creatures from nothing).

Tieko wrote:

Lol, o dear not this again - why do I always seem to get drawn into these debates?

Evolution is not perfect. Actually I even stated that it was not perfect in my previous response ("as have their been MANY MANY theories over time - we simply refine them and present the one that appears to be most likely at the time.") Secondly, you want to say I haven't defied yours? Where have you defied Natural selection? You are a hypocrite. I will however defy your religious viewpoint.
First of all, let us look at the simplest debunk. 'Intelligent design' ... May I point out how many creatures have emerged on this planet that have HUGE flaws in their design? Often these flaws lead to eventual extinction, or the variety dies off. Even more common, a new feature will cause the organism to die off very early in it's life. I am not overly familiar with many flaws of extinct animals, but I will address one flaw seen in the human form that we (among other animals) have learned to live with due to behavioural adaptations. SEX ORGANS! Yes, the sex organs of the Homo Sapien (and many other mammals actually) are located in an extremely awkward position that makes sexual intercourse difficult relative to other possibilities. Consider the squid who can eject semen from a specialized tentacle. Wouldn't it be easier if we could do that while fingering a girl? Perhaps even more easy if the girl's orifice was located on her back or other openly exposed area! D: I hope you won't let your mind drift due to the nature of this, but I hope you see that 'God' could have thought that out a bit better. Enough debunk for you or do I really need to waste my time with more?

"the right to learn what is" - I like (not really) how you assume your viewpoint is absolutely correct xD especially since your religion has only considered true 'intelligent design' recently xD

As for the old man comment, I have already said I never claimed Evolution to be 100% fact, I said it is the most likely and supported model we have thus far.

Lol xD Stereotypes make my life xD I mentioned the stereotype only because I thought it was funny, and I thought this debate could use a lighthearted break As far as how we look at Texans though, you are stereotypical. In Canada, the stereotype is you all are highly religious but have nothing worthwhile to support it with Very ignorant people. But again, lighthearted comedy for you (Ps American patrioticm is a joke. Even I hate my own country, North America is has proven to be pathetic in recent years and one should not feel loyalty to it.)

Microevolution D:! Funny thing is, microorganisms evolve from the same methods that macroorganisms due, they simply can express the results of it faster due to a rapid reproductive rate. So debatabley yes, it is for all intensive purposes proof. However, since you won't believe that I will point out a very commonly supported proof - domesticated birds and dogs. Let's look at birds since I'm getting bored of this. I believe it was passenger pigeons that were domesticated and over many generations of breeding (forced natural selection by human intervention) that caused certain traits to become magnified making once very similar organisms into very distinct varieties. True, they are not different species, but that is because their differentiation was given what... a hundred years? I dunno how long they were breeding pigeons for. Nevertheless, that is incredibly shorter than the time allotted for change. Millions of years was spent evolving complex organisms, and I think it may even have been one or two billion years of evolving microorganisms into macroorganisms q: so you can see how this change is occuring.

I really hope you'll shut up now, but I have a feeling that your mouse too is heading for the reply button. --sigh-- >.> Story of my life.

The Guardian wrote:

The term, alone, evolution has too broad an interpretation range to begin with, other things strict this belief than just the broad use of the term.(And perhaps over use).

As you put;
"as have their been MANY MANY theories over time - we simply refine them and present the one that appears to be most likely at the time."

However, you left one vital piece of information. We(Those who are considered scientists) present those that seem that way, in our opinion. Is this not true? as you have done this very thing?

Secondly? Where the heck, did you pull that from? Or from what corner of the hat? I am not in any way, saying that the religious teachings are being defied, for you can, and would be thrown in jail for such. I am, however, saying why deny/defy the teachings of, or the awareness of? As you have no reason to do such?

What flaws? Yes, we have diseases, and such. Illnesses' that seemingly cannot be cured, though is not past hope. The human being, though past its flaws has just as much proof that it once was perfect. Such examples as the human spine, such a major part in lifting. Had we had a crane such as this there is no limit to what we could lift. This so called evidence you throw forward is flimsy, and can be swung both ways.

Second, let me, side against you in such a manner. The sexual relations, was meant to be a relationship, not a "drive-by". On, top of that, i think you would even side with me, that the placement of it, else where would compromise their beauty. As such, thinking of it, many guys love it just where it is. As such could it be that the enjoyment of the relationship not necessarily the sex. Enjoy of the moment, per se.

I like how you make assumptions such, like the ones you made questioning my belief, in intelligent design? perhaps you have a bias, a religious bias. In the states as a teacher one, can be placed in jail, and due to that offense never teach again. Now, if you wish re-state your sarcastic comments otherwise forget your attack as that is pretty much useless and should be left out.

And, as you bring up the subject, we will continue as long as we do not forget the main subject. Now, American patriotism, why should I not be patriotic?

Ah, sadly, No. It headed for the "Quote" button. However, I shall even hand you this,an advantage; In your opinion, vs. In my opinion. :p

Yet, you still have no proof other than that of your personal opinion of what is(can be seen, touched and so on).

I really hope now, you learned that it is your opinion keeping your belief in macro-evolution afloat. ;):cool:

Tieko wrote:

You are so full of shit Have I not asked you several times now to state proof (or anything close to it) for your opinion? You have not even attempted to give any reason why 'intelligent design' is anything more than a term. I thought I'd start with that given that I am getting annoyed that you attack my points yet do not have an argument of your own.

As for the term 'evolution' - if you have been paying attention I have been using the term 'Natural Selection' rather frequently it's a bit more specific for you.

Scientists present theories that support empirical and observed evidence. Theologians present theories based on how the story could be turned to incorporate a divine being. If you challenge this I will think even less of you because it is exactly that. Once evolution came around, that as when 'intelligent design' appeared. Not as a held religious idea, but as a counter to the scientific community; and a joke of one at that.

Hmmm your writing has degraded in the next part... I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to in terms of what I 'pulled out of a hat'. And you think that I (or any other individual) would be thrown in jail for defying your church? You are so blind :p As Nietzsche said "Gott ist tot - God is dead", the church has next to no power anymore, I would like to see them try and have me or any other scientist thrown in jail. What is our reason for defying the Church though? Because you won't let go. The age of religion has passed, especially in North America. Society is no longer run by religion, yet your community (at times the minority) attempt to sway public laws and lifestyles to which you have no rightful say.

I am not solely talking about diseases, if you were paying attention I was specifically noting the 'design flaws' that your 'all knowing' lord missed when he made the blueprints of man. And you think we are past our flaws? Ever heard of appendicitis? I know it's over-used as an example, but I'm tired and will just say that is a major problem today :p I suppose I should try and include another... Ummm... How about the design flaw of having the trachea and esophagus right beside eachother? --shrugs-- Perhaps you don't see the flaws with mankind because you - like so many religious figures - like to see yourself as perfect? I could be wrong, but it seems only a real narcissist would deny that they have inborn flaws.

I will also debate that what I put forward is not flimsy - especially if you want to match it against the argument (or lack there of) which you present I'm still waiting on your proof.

HAHA O dear, o dear dear dear. I really hope you don't honestly believe that sexuality was ORIGINALLY meant to be a relationship? Omg. xD wow.
Beauty. Hmmm. You seem to again be pretty simple. Beauty is based upon what society pushes - and by inborn instinct to seek desirable traits (though I doubt you want to hear that). If humans were born with their reproductive organs anywhere else on the body, 'beauty' would be seen as it in that position. It is what we get used to. As for the 'enjoy the moment' aspect - I agree, in our society we should enjoy the moment However, that does not detract from my argument so... :p

If you do not believe in Intelligent Design then... hmmm... I do not know.
On one hand, that would be a good thing, because that means you don't believe that garbage...
On the other hand, it means you've been 'arguing' for something you do not even believe...
On the third hand (which we could very well have evolved but didn't :p) you could simply be trying to create the illusion that you're not biased. To which I don't care, because I think you're an idiot either way.

A religious bias D: ME? Hmmmm by definition no, I am not religious :wink: nice try though. As for arguing that I am biased by not being religious, my parents, grandparents, etc are all religious I know the tale.

One should not be patriotic becaue it detracts from the idea of a global community which is desperately needed at this time if we are ever going to conquer global issues such as the environment and human rights issues. One should not be an AMERICAN patriot because America (and Canada to an extent) is(are) not something to be proud of due to our lack of initiative on the world stage towards helping with certain pressing issues. Mind you, both have done small things in the past to help fight against crimes against humanity, but not enough in the present day to make one feel any loyalty.

... I "you still have no proof other than that of your personal opinion of what is(can be seen, touched and so on)." ...
>.> Okay. my opinion and what I can see/touch/etc are related, but I have not touched on my opinions on religious xD I have merely stated that Natural Selection has strong evidence whereas 'Intelligent Design' has nothing of note, thus making it not knowledgable and not something to be put in schools :p

My belief in macroevolution is always afloat! :eek: As is my thoughts on everything! That is the thing about science, we must always keep an open mind for when new evidence arises. You and your religious community however do not keep your minds opened. They are closed like the eyes at which they try to see the world. You will not open your eyes to evidence which shows that your religious falsehoods were merely a lie, a tool used to control the masses.

The Guardian wrote:

hahaha, just as full of it, as you, my friend!

As you have yet to place forth concrete evidence for, other than that of your opinion. Which you also use to blatantly attack others opinion's such as mine. Yes, we, both, are annoyed as you cannot see that you have your opinion and I have mine, nothing more, nothing less. Opinions.

Prove the Natural Selection. as for one, I cannot and will not agree with the Darwinian selective nature of his high and mighty, haughtiness. As for one, I can see many peoples, that based off the simplest from of this, survived, reproducing having great grand children. The strongest, at times fall victim to the weak. Take for example, the strongest of all metals, Titanium, you cannot bend it, nor break it with your hands. Now take aluminum, you can easily bend this, however, in a group they become just as strong, this is the human race.

Just as evolution, tieko.

No, you missed the point, for having a religious bias, in school, a teacher, not the student, can be throw in jail. (Religious discrimination against the student or faculty)

I'm sure it does. Considering that more than the minority in America believe in Religion, is this not what this country is? Freedom? Yet, you yourself, are now trying to restrict the belief in a higher power? Why?

I see the flaws, as a result of our actions. However the Body, is not a flaw tell me, are you so brilliant you can create life, so well? If you even dare answer this question your prove yourself arrogant, and foolish.

However, if you refer you me, personally... No, I am not the best, though at times we all wish we were. This is one of the reasons to try the best you can. No, I am not perfect, neither are you. If in the example of those in the white robes, I of all the people, would be trying to hide. As my robes would not be white, but gray, bordering on black, covered in blood of the innocent, of those I could have helped.

Beauty, this that which the individual beholds to be, meaning it varies, person or in this case couple to couple.

Your opinion of me, does not in anyway matter.

Yet, you try and take away the human right to believe in(your opinion bullshit) God? My family, has been in every war, since this country was born. only when people, like you, can finally get along with those of different opinions, then perhaps there maybe a global government, and maybe peace.

True, an d right now, your keeping a rather closed one. If you really had nothing against it you're response would have been. "Hell, let it in, it just make a more of a fool out of them" Yet, seemingly, somewhere your scared you might be wrong.

A tool? would be the things the plow the land, not a belief, as each is unique. Your bias against that of religion shows here. If their is not something greater than myself, there is no reason to continue living. If such thinking occurred I fear for the hundreds of lives I would end.

For we are nothing more than an ape, with naught but our mind to guide us. Doing what is right in our own minds, in this way I would see that the human race is not fit, or deserving, of life, therefore, ending it.

Tieko wrote:

Concrete evidence.
A) I've already explained how microevolution is used to model macroevolution. That is the best (as far as I know) that we can do given the fact WE ONLY LIVE A 100 YEARS MAX. You need millions of years to see significant change enough to cause new species to emerge.
B) These are not only my opinions, they are accepted postulates in the scientific community and as such will not be slashed aside simply because you don't agree with them.
C) No. Opinions would be your community saying "We believe in God, and you're all going to hell". What your community does is atop that, they attempt to push their beliefs into society to prevent advancement that they claim to be unethical.

Haha! Omg did you just compare evolution to base metals? What are they teaching you people down there? O ya, apparently creationism
The strong due succumb to the weak - that was one of Darwin's flaws, the idea of "survival of the fittest". I have never said that it is a perfect postulate, I said it is the most suiting model and that we have made changes for it to be more representative of what has occurred. The saying itself has been changed to be more accurate 'Survival of the most adaptive' - those that can adapt to new circumstances (whether that be morphologically or behaviourally) will survive.

O really? Hmmm that is a bit better, a bit excessive though. Why through them in jail, if they're religious either go teach at a religious school or teach the publically accepted scientific model --shrugs--.

xD Yes there is a large amount of religious individuals, but do they all agree? No. Many religious individuals are still stubbornly (almost admirably) sticking by the core beliefs, not adapting 'intelligent design'. And you want to talk about freedom? You ignorant bastard. Have I not already told you that your religion is pressing its beliefs on society to limit the freedom of others? Abortion, stem cell research, to name the most highly publicized.

"I see the flaws, as a result of our actions. However the Body, is not a flaw tell me, are you so brilliant you can create life, so well? If you even dare answer this question your prove yourself arrogant, and foolish." I'm sorry, I just had to quote that again :p First off, I am not brilliant enough to create life nor have I ever claimed to be. In fact, to assemble complex life is not something we will ever achieve in my opinion, it would simply take too much time to master that technique. We are however very close to assembling our own microorganisms. So am I arrogant and foolish to say that? No, I am simply stating what I would say every evolutionist I know believes And as for the flaws of the body being because of our actions, tell that to SIDS corpse.

As for the white robe comment there S: I honestly have no idea what the hell you were referencing in what I said xD I agree with you thought that no one is perfect

Your definition of beauty only strengthens my point So maybe you would only first the genitalia in the crotch to be appealing, I think many people who given the moment to rationally contemplate being raised in a community where a different location is the norm, would find other location more functional and appealing

O dear. As I have said again and again, what bugs me is that your religion forces it's beliefs into society and prevents advancement. As I also said, my family is religious. Do I hate them? No, but that is because they keep their religion to themselves, which I believe is what Luther taught in terms of a personal religion :wink: at least for the Protestant. O, and btw I am very diverse in terms of my friends, I have Muslim, Christian, Atheist, Agnostic, Animist and... >.> that might be it actually. But I have many friends of different faiths I am able to be their friends because they too keep their beliefs to themselves.

"Hell, let it in, it just make a more of a fool out of them" - in all actuallity that would be the best scenario. I think I would probably enjoy being taught in school, and then making a very strong comparison between the two theories. However, unless you haven't caught on yet, the school curriculum is so overwhelmed at this level already that there is simply not enough time. In my course we have only 1 week for evolution, if there was creationism in there there would not be enough time to learn anything of merit.
As for being scared that I am wrong? Do you think I would be sitting here stating my belief against your 'lord' if I was scared he would leave me to eternal hellfire :p?

Have you ever studied history? Go ahead and pick up and book and come back to me to say that religion is not a tool I believe you might find Machiavelli a good place to start.

'If their is not something greater than myself, there is no reason to continue living. If such thinking occurred I fear for the hundreds of lives I would end. "
Did you honestly just say that? :eek:
First of all, there are greater people than you, and greater than me They have made their impression on the world and changed the way society roles. If you need to look up to a better being, look to them. However, why is there necessity for their to be a superior? Can't you be content to be equal among others? As for not believing there is a reason to live without a God, I feel sorry for you. I thought religion taught that the purpose of living was to make life better for others? I certainly believe that moral, though I also believe in a certain pointlessness to existence - to get past that bit of a let down we should make life for what we want it to be keeping in mind to respect the lives of others >.>... As for the last part about ending lives... I really hope you just phrased that poorly because it sounded homicidal...

Your last statement of course is again absurd. You should talk to your parents, I think they would agree that even if there was no God you should still continue living in order to enjoy what there is and make life better for others
(Though on a side note I do agree on some level that many of us at times are not deserving of the life we have due to the travesties we reap on this earth that affect the lives of many other organisms)

Tieko wrote:

O, and PS
YOU HAVE STILL NOT GIVEN ME ANY PROOF/EVIDENCE/ANYTHING TO MAKE A CASE FOR 'INTELLIGENT DESIGN'.
If you do not provide any reasoning I will simply not waste my time arguing against you any longer. This is your last warning. State something supportive or I simply walk away from this pointless endeavor.

The Guardian wrote:

Shigechiyo Izumi, Age; 120 years. Impossible? No, only improbable in today's day and age. One, such as this person, their life is restricted(timed, per se) by the conditions that one lives under.


Yes, you have example that, in your opinion, micro-evolution is an example of macro-evolution(The un-observed). I am not making the case that intelligent design is all true in general, like you seem to think, but rather like the theory of evolution, bits parts, and pieces.

What is postulates, and accepted by the whole scientific community, is the proven. Of which Both, evolution and creationism is far from. I could make cases against their dating methods, ones that are widely considered. Thses are commonly known as laws, and facts. Both seemingly have them, however it is the opinion of the individual that swings them either way.

These facts, neither defy, nor deny either theory. THat is until the personal opinion of the individual puts his spin on it.


C.) We push our beliefs onto you? That is an ignorant claim, and arrogant one, as the board of education has pushed the belief that we all came from nothing, and nothing suddenly went boom. Brillance. (This is not the subject therefore, let us not continue that rabbit trail)


By the following statement, I can assume you are from the North? Just another example of a spike riving America apart, sad. As you know where I'm from you also should have known that this is the most conservative state. (Again, not the subject)

If not perfect, it is not reality. It is a preception of the belief. Oh, it has, than it changes the whole prepective on evolution, has you do not need to evolve to adapt. (Geneticly)

Abortion, you might as well go read the thread about it, Religion of all things has merely nothing to do with it. I'm all for stem cell research, however from a grown human being. (As I said, before; Lets stop the name calling alright?[ One last one; I know like feeling like a little kid, but still]) :p

We are many years from that, modifying them however is another story. Creating them, I doubt it. That, Sir, is a genetic defect in which case sadly caused death. Mostly defects are not noticed, like your's or mine.

I am refering to the Bible's mentioning of white robes. That, in this case, and normally everytime, white represents purity. Black represents? Of all the people, I would be wearing black, covered in blood.

Also, among this, you found common ground( a belief, none the less)


That, means what? Ah, yes, it strengens mine to. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder/subjective.


And those who believe in Evolution, do not force their beliefs on others? After all, it is the only one, taught in schools. (almost, to bad homeschooling is becoming too wide spread) Yes, there are those who do force there beliefs on others and other who do not, one reason I have not made a case for intelligent design, rather the teaching of it. As such, you have gone off, on the subject trying to prove that Evolution is true.

I have friends, like that as well, across the world. (however this does not matter does it?)


I would guess, that you do not pay much attention to the news. Ah, well, There is more than a rumor going around that congress may increase the time for school, perhaps even through summer. Why, cover evolution for one week? Why not cover the theories in general? This would prove to be the most appealing to you, and the best for those to choose.