Creationism in our Public Schools

[Aimhigh2000]

And Why?

You are the friggin idiot. Mitsubishi has a car called the Evo. (short for Evolution). I know that there are two states that will not sell it under that name and that the name had to change. At least I posted it as a question, because to the obvious reader, I am not sure what the states are. I believe I said "I thought it was". I was not like others trying to post something as fact, and, I went so far as to include, "I will try and find the story". Geezhush, I thought it was funny. Places so against the thought of evolution that they make a car maker change the name of something.

 

[aps45819]

You are the friggin idiot. Mitsubishi has a car called the Evo. (short for Evolution). I know that there are two states that will not sell it under that name and that the name had to change. At least I posted it as a question, because to the obvious reader, I am not sure what the states are. I believe I said "I thought it was". I was not like others trying to post something as fact, and, I went so far as to include, "I will try and find the story". Geezhush, I thought it was funny. Places so against the thought of evolution that they make a car maker change the name of something.

Only car name change I could find with a Google searche was this -
"Buick’s Regal replacement, the LaCrosse, was in the news a few months ago because the auto manufacturer was forced to rename it for the Canadian market, as in Quebec, “LaCrosse” is slang for oral sex."

 

[Tonio]

You are the friggin idiot. Mitsubishi has a car called the Evo. (short for Evolution). I know that there are two states that will not sell it under that name and that the name had to change. At least I posted it as a question, because to the obvious reader, I am not sure what the states are. I believe I said "I thought it was". I was not like others trying to post something as fact, and, I went so far as to include, "I will try and find the story". Geezhush, I thought it was funny. Places so against the thought of evolution that they make a car maker change the name of something.

AimHigh, that sounds too much like an urban legend. Can you give us the source? Mitsubish's North American web site lists the car as "Lancer Evolution." http://www.mitsubishicars.com/lancerevolution/index.html

 

[Tonio]

Only car name change I could find with a Google searche was this -
"Buick’s Regal replacement, the LaCrosse, was in the news a few months ago because the auto manufacturer was forced to rename it for the Canadian market, as in Quebec, “LaCrosse” is slang for oral sex."

And they don't have a problem with the name Hummer?

 

[Aimhigh2000]

Legend

It may be, I had heard it somewhere, I thought on Motor Trend one Saturday. I am digging around, if it is a legend, it's a good one.

 

[2ndAmendment]

The one thing that frustrates me is that so many people see everything in life as black and white. No middle ground at all. I don't see this discussion as Steve, myself and others trying to get you to drop your beliefs, nor do I see it as you trying to change ours.

Too bad you are frustrated. I cannot in good conscience compromise on my faith in God or belief of the Bible.

 

[Tonio]

I don't see this discussion as Steve, myself and others trying to get you to drop your beliefs, nor do I see it as you trying to change ours.

I agree. What bugs me is when people have obvious contempt for others' beliefs. UrbanPancake shows that kind of contempt. From the Christian side, there are at least two other Forumites who also show that kind of contempt. They haven't posted in this thread, BTW.

 

[SmallTown]

Too bad you are frustrated. I cannot in good conscience compromise on my faith in God or belief of the Bible.

That is why this is frustrating. Nobody is asking you to compromise anything at all. There is just no reason at all why religion and science can not exist and supported together. In fact, many people work hard to use science to prove the bible. Science is simply a human's "understanding" of what God has given us.

 

[2ndAmendment]

That is why this is frustrating. Nobody is asking you to compromise anything at all. There is just no reason at all why religion and science can not exist and supported together. In fact, many people work hard to use science to prove the bible. Science is simply a human's "understanding" of what God has given us.

I use science all the time. I work in computer science. I just don't believe Darwinism.

 

[SmallTown]

I use science all the time. I work in computer science. I just don't believe Darwinism.

Which parts of Darwinism? Or just simply, everything?

 

[2ndAmendment]

Which parts of Darwinism? Or just simply, everything?

Forums are so ... I keep having to repeat myself. I believe in micro evolution or survival of the fittest. I do not believe in macro evolution or the evolving of one species into another.

 

[Nickel]

Forums are so ... I keep having to repeat myself. I believe in micro evolution or survival of the fittest. I do not believe in macro evolution or the evolving of one species into another.

But if you think about it, don't they go hand in hand? Evolution sort of is survival of the fittest. And I don't say this to start an argument, I'm just trying to make a small point. Theoretically, we have evolved, as a species, b/c we acquire new skills, and adapt to our environment. Someone at work today said something that is a good example. She has mice, and some of them have learned how to eat the peanut butter off the mouse trap without actually getting trapped. But some haven't, and they get caught. So essentially, the mice that are the "fittest" are surviving, and reproducing, creating more "fit" mice with the same skills and patterns. Therefore, the mice in her home are evolving, adapting to their environment.

 

[SmallTown]

Forums are so ... I keep having to repeat myself. I believe in micro evolution or survival of the fittest. I do not believe in macro evolution or the evolving of one species into another.

Part of darwinism is the notion of survival of the fittest. So you can't really say you're against darwinism if you believe in this notion.

However, darwinism is considered by many to be the "root" of the evolutionary theory, it has been expanded on since his time. With some notions being further explained by science, while others have been dismissed by science.

 

[2ndAmendment]

But if you think about it, don't they go hand in hand? Evolution sort of is survival of the fittest. And I don't say this to start an argument, I'm just trying to make a small point. Theoretically, we have evolved, as a species, b/c we acquire new skills, and adapt to our environment. Someone at work today said something that is a good example. She has mice, and some of them have learned how to eat the peanut butter off the mouse trap without actually getting trapped. But some haven't, and they get caught. So essentially, the mice that are the "fittest" are surviving, and reproducing, creating more "fit" mice with the same skills and patterns. Therefore, the mice in her home are evolving, adapting to their environment.

No, they do not go hand in hand. Survival of the fittest is micro evolution; like the mice you cite. New species being formed from current species evolving is macro evolution and depends on "transitional" species called missing links in the vernacular. There have never been any missing links found; hence, they are called missing.

Many younger people such as yourself have never been taught anything other that Darwinism in school. When I was in school, we were taught both Darwinism and Biblical creation. Neither was taught as the correct one. We were allowed to make up our own minds. It is being allowed to think instead of being programmed.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Part of darwinism is the notion of survival of the fittest. So you can't really say you're against darwinism if you believe in this notion.

However, darwinism is considered by many to be the "root" of the evolutionary theory, it has been expanded on since his time. With some notions being further explained by science, while others have been dismissed by science.

While others are just plain inexplicable. Why an eye? Why sexual reproduction? Why eggs? Darwin thought these as rather imponderable and expressed his own misgivings in the "Origin of the Species".

Like I said, you go your way; I'll go mine. It is not my job to try to convince you of anything and I am really getting tired of giving answers to the same questions. If you don't like my answers, asking the same question couched in different words will not get a different answer.

 

[Nickel]

I actually was never taught evolution or Darwinism. My biology teacher had a pet snake, and he was scatterbrained, so we never got past "the cell", because he was always feeding the snake, and teaching us about the snake, etc. If anything, I've been raised on the church's teachings. My mother is very active in our church, and is the only person I know who can not only quote the bible, but explain it so that anyone can understand it. I actually agree with Steve on this one. I think there is a perfect balance to be found between "evolution" and "creationism", and that is the answer.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I actually was never taught evolution or Darwinism. My biology teacher had a pet snake, and he was scatterbrained, so we never got past "the cell", because he was always feeding the snake, and teaching us about the snake, etc. If anything, I've been raised on the church's teachings. My mother is very active in our church, and is the only person I know who can not only quote the bible, but explain it so that anyone can understand it. I actually agree with Steve on this one. I think there is a perfect balance to be found between "evolution" and "creationism", and that is the answer.

I believe you and your mother probably disagree on this.

 

[Nickel]

I believe you and your mother probably disagree on this.

That is the esssence of a mother-daughter relationship

 

[SmallTown]

If you don't like my answers, asking the same question couched in different words will not get a different answer.

Sure it will. You said you didn't believe in darwinism. Then you were presented with the fact that one portion of darwinism you do support, thus negating your original claim.

But I agree with you. The ones who follow the original darwin research strictly are missing some things. They refuse to accept that some of darwin's ideas were infact, wrong. While others refuse to accept (or admit) that some of darwin's ideas were correct, or at the very least could not be proven wrong.

Like I said, Darwin's research touched on many different notions concerning evolution. Some were wrong, some were right. People wanting a greater understanding of evolution will need to broaden their sights beyond just darwin and look at some of the more modern research. But of course, that is only an option, not a requirement

 

[2ndAmendment]

That is the esssence of a mother-daughter relationship

So she explained it and you understood it and made an informed decision? You made a choice to believe in something that has never been proven; macro evolution.

I made an informed decision to believe God's word.

We differ. I think I made the correct decision. You think you made the correct decision. We will both find out, if, as I believe, there is eternal life. The difference is where we may spend eternity.