Moderator: Community Team
2nd. Half your argument is based on something which you do not understand the meaning of.got tonkaed wrote:you would do yourself well to learn what the scientific community understands the word theory to be and see how it differs from how you understand the word theory.
RustyMonkey wrote:Now, I know I'm not one of the kewl kidz, with the fancy degree and the fancy office at the fancy university with the fancy lab coat. But I have something even more important than all of that: the ability to THINK for myself without going along with the crowd.
I'm talking about the so-called "theory of evolution" of course. (Note: Theory. We're going to come back to that in a bit or two.)
And I've noticed the little biologist clique has run into some absolutely *unacceptable* opposition from the churchgoin' folk that don't take too kindly to being told what they have to teach to thier children. Who don't want their children being told they're a bunch of monkeys without tails.
Up to now, your solution has been to ban, ban, ban. Don't like traditional values being taught in our public schools? Meh, just ban it. Keep it out. No debate, no discussion, just ban it. The Bible? Replace it with a fresh copy of Origin of Species.
No debate, no discussion.
Well, I reckon I've got a better way for you to handle this OH-SO-unpleasant criticism. Here's how: You ready?
Don't just talk about "theories". We don't want to hear about theories. We want to hear about *facts*. Cold, hard, facts, not speculative "theories". We want to see proof. Facts. Figures. Documentation. Pictures. Video. Research. Heck, even toss in a statistical analysis here and there.
Hey, we're all for bowing our heads down to the new Saint Darwin. But before we're going to get swept up into this fig ol' bad, we want to see the actually PROOF of the evolution.
Not theories. Oh no.
There's already a thread for this. While I'm here, though, let me point out that, if we were to go with your idea of equally debating, we'd have to throw in stories from all sorts of other religions as to how the earth was made in order for everyone to be satisfied. If this was done, it would simply take up too much time. Another method would be to just not teach any theories of creation in schools whatsoever. What is being done now is quite simply this: In Science class, the theory that is most accepted in the Scientific community is taught. Now, if there was a religion class, then the theories put forth by a religion would logically be discussed there, NOT in a Science class. I hope you're noting the distinction here. . .RustyMonkey wrote:Now, I know I'm not one of the kewl kidz, with the fancy degree and the fancy office at the fancy university with the fancy lab coat. But I have something even more important than all of that: the ability to THINK for myself without going along with the crowd.
I'm talking about the so-called "theory of evolution" of course. (Note: Theory. We're going to come back to that in a bit or two.)
And I've noticed the little biologist clique has run into some absolutely *unacceptable* opposition from the churchgoin' folk that don't take too kindly to being told what they have to teach to thier children. Who don't want their children being told they're a bunch of monkeys without tails.
Up to now, your solution has been to ban, ban, ban. Don't like traditional values being taught in our public schools? Meh, just ban it. Keep it out. No debate, no discussion, just ban it. The Bible? Replace it with a fresh copy of Origin of Species.
No debate, no discussion.
Well, I reckon I've got a better way for you to handle this OH-SO-unpleasant criticism. Here's how: You ready?
Don't just talk about "theories". We don't want to hear about theories. We want to hear about *facts*. Cold, hard, facts, not speculative "theories". We want to see proof. Facts. Figures. Documentation. Pictures. Video. Research. Heck, even toss in a statistical analysis here and there.
Hey, we're all for bowing our heads down to the new Saint Darwin. But before we're going to get swept up into this fig ol' bad, we want to see the actually PROOF of the evolution.
Not theories. Oh no.
sheepofdumb wrote:I'm not scum, just a threat to the town. There's a difference, thank you very much.
ga7 wrote: I'll keep my vote where it should be but just in case Vote Strike Wolf AND f*ck FLAMINGOS f*ck THEM HARD
A thread here and several in other forums.The Weird One wrote:There's already a thread for this.
Well, yes, but I pointed out the thread here because its name is blatantly obvious and you would think that someone making a thread about something related might notice it before making said thread. . .PLAYER57832 wrote:A thread here and several in other forums.The Weird One wrote:There's already a thread for this.
sheepofdumb wrote:I'm not scum, just a threat to the town. There's a difference, thank you very much.
ga7 wrote: I'll keep my vote where it should be but just in case Vote Strike Wolf AND f*ck FLAMINGOS f*ck THEM HARD
Indeed.InkL0sed wrote:Blatant troll is trolling.

Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
sheepofdumb wrote:I'm not scum, just a threat to the town. There's a difference, thank you very much.
ga7 wrote: I'll keep my vote where it should be but just in case Vote Strike Wolf AND f*ck FLAMINGOS f*ck THEM HARD
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
You're never gonna give this up...MeDeFe wrote:RustyMonkey does not want to be a monkey without a tail.
Interesting.
I present this video as my evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onrzgB_-0sM
"Inherit the Wind"?a.sub wrote:Whats the book about the scopes trial again? i read a few chapters from it a while back, but i forget the name so i could never go back and finish it up![]()
plz and thx

Do you mean Inherit the Wind. I believe it was a movie/play, but it could have been a book too?a.sub wrote:Whats the book about the scopes trial again? i read a few chapters from it a while back, but i forget the name so i could never go back and finish it up![]()
plz and thx
I see your point, but on the other hand: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6880054199MeDeFe wrote:RustyMonkey does not want to be a monkey without a tail.
Interesting.
I present this video as my evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onrzgB_-0sM
I think that has already been refuted, as can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lFmi4aS4oHaggis_McMutton wrote:I see your point, but on the other hand: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6880054199MeDeFe wrote:RustyMonkey does not want to be a monkey without a tail.
Interesting.
I present this video as my evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onrzgB_-0sM
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
You may be onto something there. But you've failed to take into account that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s0dRcdyizUMeDeFe wrote:I think that has already been refuted, as can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lFmi4aS4oHaggis_McMutton wrote:I see your point, but on the other hand: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6880054199MeDeFe wrote:RustyMonkey does not want to be a monkey without a tail.
Interesting.
I present this video as my evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onrzgB_-0sM
That wouldn't have happened if materials of higher quality had been used, as is described in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye6YHQ8AZzUHaggis_McMutton wrote:You may be onto something there. But you've failed to take into account that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s0dRcdyizUMeDeFe wrote:I think that has already been refuted, as can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lFmi4aS4oHaggis_McMutton wrote:I see your point, but on the other hand: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6880054199MeDeFe wrote:RustyMonkey does not want to be a monkey without a tail.
Interesting.
I present this video as my evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onrzgB_-0sM
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.