Conquer Club

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.

You are so right. Amen.

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.

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.

2nd. Half your argument is based on something which you do not understand the meaning of.

Again, we've done this before.

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.

Happy to debate this any time.


That something is not 100% proven does not mean that every other idea is possible or that it completely lacks evidence.

The problem with Creationism is that it HAS been disproven. The only way the Earth could be 10,000 years old, with no species evolution, is if God made it to appear as if it were millions of years old. Possible, but well outside the realm of science.

P.S. Your "history" is off by quite a bit.

What really happened. Scientists began to find evidence that the world might be very old, that species come from other species. At first, they put forward ideas. The most famous were put forward by this guy called Darwin. Being trained as a clergy, he was cautious. However, the facts spoke for themselves. He put out the facts, then his ideas about what might be happening. It made sense to a lot of people, even church-going Christians and learned Christian scholars.

More evidence and more evidence and more evidence was discovered. Scientists, being exact in their speech, knew that even all that evidence was still not the same as us being able to go back in time and observe. So, they insist on calling this a theory, even as more and more and more and more evidence piles up.

Some things were definitly wrong in the first stabs of ideas. That's science. We know it is how things work. You get a nice idea, then find you were off, just a bit ...and change it.

Strangely, Creationists have done this too. See, go back 50 years and this whole idea of dinosaurs was considered "silly"., fossils put there by Satan to "confuse" people. Thirty years ago and it was no longer Satan, but these fossils were just normal animals that looked like they were differant animals (but weren't). Now they have this nice museum in Cincinati that even had dinosaurs in it (they disappeared in the flood now).

Of course, if you want all the details, the "rest of the story" ... see me in the Real U. Repeats are tiresome.

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. . .

The Weird One wrote:There's already a thread for this.

A thread here and several in other forums.

I'll even give you the link:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29535
(but I warn you, its 150 pages long and most of the serious debate is back a few pages) Widowmakers is now debating in R.U.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

The Weird One wrote:There's already a thread for this.

A thread here and several in other forums.

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. . .

Blatant troll is trolling.

InkL0sed wrote:Blatant troll is trolling.

Indeed.

*sits back and munches on popcorn*

chuckle chuckle

*steals some of hecter's popcorn*

Seriously people, we know this guy by now, although he's moving form funny outrageous stories to old, done over religious arguments

I was wondering if I should take this seriously then I saw who wrote it.

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

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

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

You're never gonna give this up...

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

"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?

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

I see your point, but on the other hand: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5096040616880054199

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

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

I see your point, but on the other hand: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5096040616880054199

I think that has already been refuted, as can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lFmi4aS4o

MeDeFe wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

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

I see your point, but on the other hand: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5096040616880054199

I think that has already been refuted, as can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lFmi4aS4o

You may be onto something there. But you've failed to take into account that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s0dRcdyizU

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

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

I see your point, but on the other hand: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5096040616880054199

I think that has already been refuted, as can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lFmi4aS4o

You may be onto something there. But you've failed to take into account that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s0dRcdyizU

That wouldn't have happened if materials of higher quality had been used, as is described in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye6YHQ8AZzU