Missouri Reps submit anti-evolution b...

Missouri Reps submit anti-evolution bill again

There are 110 comments on the The Joplin Independent story from Jan 18, 2013, titled Missouri Reps submit anti-evolution bill again. In it, The Joplin Independent reports that:

House Bill 179, introduced in the Missouri House of Representatives on January 16, 2013, and not yet referred to a committee, is the latest anti-evolution bill in the Missouri state legislature.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Joplin Independent.

The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83 Jan 22, 2013
the real guest wrote:
I don't think school children should be taught that something is fact when there is no evidence to prove it.
Just to expound a little further on Gillette's post on ERV's:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1...

"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."

Apparently given a computer at his fingertips 'guest' has been unable to find a single piece of evidence. While the rest of us can find plenty. Perhaps the problem is his computer skills?

Guest, why is it you have now again been provided with exactly what you required but are ignoring this now also without directly addressing the evidence? Is this evidence that I'm a prophet?

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#84 Jan 22, 2013
the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry I wasted my time reading your post. Rest assured I'll ignore any you may post in the future.
I am sorry you are a waste of time to, but we only have your brother and sister to thank for that.

Oh my stars and garters, I am so insulted.
What

Ava, MO

#85 Jan 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Your problem is that your blind religious belief will not allow you to recognize evidence when it is presented to you.
Don't worry, many scientists have that problem too. To overcome the possible objection to evidence scientists have a special definition of what "scientific evidence" is.
When presented with evidence the odds are very high that some fucktard somewhere will deny that is is evidence. Just like you would probably deny the fact that the fossil record is scientific evidence that supports evolution and only evolution.
So what is "scientific evidence"? Scientific evidence is data or observations that support or counter a scientific hypothesis or theory. That's it.
So, does the fossil record support the theory of evolution? Yes, every fossil found to date fits the evolutionary paradigm
Why do I say that it supports only evolution?
Because the chickenshit creationists are too afraid to make even a testable scientific hypothesis of creation, must less a scientific theory. You need to remember a hypothesis does not have to explain everything about how the science of a topic works. Einstein's theory of gravity is extremely useful, without his theory GPS would not be nearly as accurate as it is. It explains the effect of gravity but it does not thoroughly explain how.
A scientific hypothesis of creation, and remember theories start as hypotheses, could explain how the fossils got where we see them. Why we see them in the order we do. Etc. We don't need to know how "God done did it". The problem is, and creation "scientists" know this, the fossils do not support any scientific theories or hypotheses besides those of geology and evolution.
There are countless other pieces of evidence that support evolution and not creationism. There is the observed nested hierarchy of life. DNA itself supports evolution in several ways. It too has the same nested hierarchy that life has. It also has mysterious, well not too, little add-ons called ERV's.
So what aspect of evolutionary evidence do you want to discuss. What evidence do you have that supports your beliefs?
Amazing how the ungodly will embrace as a "religion" the ramblings of Father goose darwin" but the One who came and hung on the cross for all,they reject and mock. Your very heart confirms creation and believe the lie of evolution all you want but you can never silence that voice put in you by the Living God. Evolution is one of Satan's biggest deceptions and lies and all it takes to know the truth is to come to the Cross, but men love their evil and dakness and ignoance more.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#86 Jan 22, 2013
What wrote:
<quoted text>
Amazing how the ungodly will embrace as a "religion" the ramblings of Father goose darwin" but the One who came and hung on the cross for all,they reject and mock. Your very heart confirms creation and believe the lie of evolution all you want but you can never silence that voice put in you by the Living God. Evolution is one of Satan's biggest deceptions and lies and all it takes to know the truth is to come to the Cross, but men love their evil and dakness and ignoance more.
Can you please provide rational coherent objective testable scientific evidence to support any of your so far baseless religious opinions? Thanks in advance.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#87 Jan 22, 2013
What wrote:
<quoted text>
Amazing how the ungodly will embrace as a "religion" the ramblings of Father goose darwin" but the One who came and hung on the cross for all,they reject and mock. Your very heart confirms creation and believe the lie of evolution all you want but you can never silence that voice put in you by the Living God. Evolution is one of Satan's biggest deceptions and lies and all it takes to know the truth is to come to the Cross, but men love their evil and dakness and ignoance more.
I am an agnostic. Meaning I am not convinced of -- but remain open to -- the existance of a Supreme Deity.

But if there is one, ALL the observed evidence shows He/She/It "created" utilizing the toolbox and timescales as described by science in order to do His bidding.

No, we reject and mock those such as yourself who are blind to the observed evidence of God's handiwork, favoring instead the LITERAL ramblings of bronze-age shepards.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#88 Jan 22, 2013
the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't called anyone a fucktard.
I didn't call anyone that either, I implied rather strongly that you are one and it seems to be true. Why else would my post disappear? Someone had to report and complain about it. If you noticed that post also explained the nature of evidence to you and how we what the evidence for evolution is. Of course you probably ignored that, proving that my implication was correct after all. Thank you.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#89 Jan 22, 2013
What wrote:
<quoted text>
Amazing how the ungodly will embrace as a "religion" the ramblings of Father goose darwin" but the One who came and hung on the cross for all,they reject and mock. Your very heart confirms creation and believe the lie of evolution all you want but you can never silence that voice put in you by the Living God. Evolution is one of Satan's biggest deceptions and lies and all it takes to know the truth is to come to the Cross, but men love their evil and dakness and ignoance more.
If you had any realistic evidence for your claims perhaps people would believe you. Sadly you don't. Evidence is on our side. I see that you did not address the key part of my post which was on the nature of scientific evidence.

This shows that not only are you a liar, but you are a hypocrite too. Once again, all scientific evidence supports evolution. The history of the world supports evolution. It is literally written in the stones for those who know how to read it.

Are you claiming that your god is a liar and created all sorts of false evidence along with the Earth? Or are you saying that Satan has the power of creation too? Those are the only two answers that I can see for your ignorant claims.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#90 Jan 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't call anyone that either, I implied rather strongly that you are one and it seems to be true. Why else would my post disappear?
Any potential cuss-words are automatically screened. It doesn't always work, but a Mod is not always necessary to remove posts.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#91 Jan 22, 2013
What wrote:
<quoted text>
Amazing how the ungodly will embrace as a "religion" the ramblings of Father goose darwin" but the One who came and hung on the cross for all,they reject and mock. Your very heart confirms creation and believe the lie of evolution all you want but you can never silence that voice put in you by the Living God. Evolution is one of Satan's biggest deceptions and lies and all it takes to know the truth is to come to the Cross, but men love their evil and dakness and ignoance more.
Thank you for this. Now take your meds and let them strap you back in your chair.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#92 Jan 22, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Any potential cuss-words are automatically screened. It doesn't always work, but a Mod is not always necessary to remove posts.
You usually get a warning when that happens. When a FAQ is quoted from Talk Origins it always gives me a warning. Adding tard to the F word seemed to avoid the automatic warning. I still think somebody reported it. Though my post does show up in its entirety in a quote that was made before it was reported and you can see that I did not call anyone a F-tard. I guess the appropriate people realized that it applied to them all on their own.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#93 Jan 23, 2013
What wrote:
Evolution is one of Satan's biggest deceptions and lies
So Satan scurried about burying fossils and adding markers to the genome and so on? And God stood there and let him do it? Then blames us if we accept the evidence before us?

Did Satan also plant all the light in the sky from those distant galaxies that we would not possibly see if the universe was only a few thousand years old? Did Satan mess with radioactive isotope ratios in the rocks to fool us into dating them as very old too? Did he fake the ratios of hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium in the stars to support a Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago? Of the cosmic microwave background radiation? Did Satan obliterate all evidence of the Flood too?

Believe what you like.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#94 Jan 23, 2013
the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>
I did review them Kong, but they aren't even on the topic at hand, nor are they from reputable sources.
Yet again you're putting up a smoke screen trying to hide the fact that you have yet to offer any evidence to prove that transmutation of species occurs.
<quoted text>
What evidence would that be Kong? I've pleaded with you for two days now to offer some evidence to prove that transmutation of species occurs. You haven't offered jack shit. All you've done is run away from the challenge while trying to divert attention to something else.
<quoted text>

My stated position is that you cannot provide any evidence to prove that transmutation of species occurs. To date, you have utterly failed to provide any.
1. Divergence of different creatures in the fossil from today's types, while at the same time convergence of those creatures with each other so that at the "root" of each branch, its hard to tell whether they are one thing or the other.

2. Ring species, today, show the pattern of gradual differentiation that is predicted by evolution.

3. Genome markers showing common ancestry in a strict nested hierarchy that is consistent with the fossil record.

4. The presence of vestigial structures with far higher complexity than is required for current function. e.g. the wings of an ostrich, the eyes of cave rats (in some cases permanently shut with skin growing right over them.

5. The last is also a good example of another phenomenon. There are a number of specis of cave rat, and in each case they are mostly closely related to the type of rat found above ground in a particular region, not to each other. Signalling separate migration to caves and transmutation in each case.

Hows all that for starters?
the real guest

Ridgedale, MO

#95 Jan 23, 2013
Nice speculation and conjecture, but no smoking gun. Keep trying.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#96 Jan 23, 2013
the real guest wrote:
Nice speculation and conjecture, but no smoking gun. Keep trying.
How 'bout it, Guest?

You obviously do not see the Theory of Evolution as a viable explanation for the diversity of life on earth, so you MUST have a better narrative yourself.

Please share.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#97 Jan 23, 2013
the real guest wrote:
Nice speculation and conjecture, but no smoking gun. Keep trying.
No, everything he listed has copious fossil and/or DNA evidence to back it up.

Look, we KNOW you are a Jesus Freak who NEEDS for evolution to be wrong in order for you to keep propping up your Fall/Redemption theology, but that's YOUR problem.

In SCIENCE, there is no controversy over whether evolution happened, and continuing discussion on some of the finer points of HOW it happens.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#98 Jan 23, 2013
the real guest wrote:
Nice speculation and conjecture, but no smoking gun. Keep trying.
Guest, what specifically about ERV markers at orthologous loci amongst the great apes demonstrating common ancestry do you take issue with?

I think it is only fair by now for you to actually discuss the matter rather than respond to us with yet another vacuous dismissal without explanation, that is if you wish to retain some semblance of intellectual integrity, yes?

You've been provided with precisely what you asked for, you've been given scientific sources. You have claimed that evolution should be put under critical scrutiny and now you have that chance. Why are you backing out now? Isn't this exactly what you have been demanding all along?

Do you understand why orthologous ERV's are considered such strong evidence of common ancestry? If you do not then you are unable to claim it is insufficient. If you do, you have no reason to avoid discussing the subject with me, which I am more than willing, and capable of doing. So for the benefit of everyone here, given your VAST biological and general scientific knowledge, please inform us where Dr's Johnson and Coffin went wrong in regards to the observed retroviral DNA sequences and why?

I thank you in advance and appreciate your informed thoughts on this matter.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#99 Jan 23, 2013
the real guest wrote:
Nice speculation and conjecture, but no smoking gun. Keep trying.
I know your Bible tells you that you are supposed to strain at gnats and swallow camels, but I don't think it is meant to apply to a topic like this.

Yes, you can keep your eyes closed and claim you cannot see the truth, but you won't win any converts by doing so.

Did you skip right past my description of the nature of scientific evidence? Do you know what creationists have no evidence that backs up their claims and we have mountains of evidence that back up ours?
the real guest

Ridgedale, MO

#100 Jan 24, 2013
Gillette wrote:
No, everything he listed has copious fossil and/or DNA evidence to back it up.
And that same evidence is open to other interpretations. If one doesn't begin with the premise that transumtation of species is true, he can very easily arrive at other conclusions.

Proof is not based on speculation and conjecture.
Look, we KNOW you are a Jesus Freak who NEEDS for evolution to be wrong in order for you to keep propping up your Fall/Redemption theology, but that's YOUR problem.
I haven't stated whether or not I hold religious beliefs. You're just speculating even more.

Don't be pissed because no one is able to prove that transumtation of species occurs. I find it quite funny that you so quickly denigrate those who hold religious beliefs, yet your blind faith in Darwinism is stronger than the faith of most Christians I know. LOL!
In SCIENCE, there is no controversy over whether evolution happened...
Perhaps not, at least regarding adaption within a species. However, there is controversy, both scientific and otherwise, over whether one species evolves into another.
the real guest

Ridgedale, MO

#101 Jan 24, 2013
This thread is very near the 100 post mark which is my limit for responding. If the issue can't be resolved within 100 posts, it's not going to be.

I'll leave where I entered and say that I think all the opposition against the proposed bill is ridiculous.

Merely teaching students critical thinking skills and encouraging them to apply it to Darwinism, or any other topic they may encounter in life, is precisely the ultimate goal of education. We don't need kids mindlessly regurgitating what someone else has stored in their brains. We need them to think on their own.

If Darwinism is as nearly proven fact as you all claim it to be, you wouldn't be so fearful of opposing discussion.

Ciao.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#102 Jan 24, 2013
the real guest wrote:
This thread is very near the 100 post mark which is my limit for responding. If the issue can't be resolved within 100 posts, it's not going to be.
I'll leave where I entered and say that I think all the opposition against the proposed bill is ridiculous.
Merely teaching students critical thinking skills and encouraging them to apply it to Darwinism, or any other topic they may encounter in life, is precisely the ultimate goal of education. We don't need kids mindlessly regurgitating what someone else has stored in their brains. We need them to think on their own.
If Darwinism is as nearly proven fact as you all claim it to be, you wouldn't be so fearful of opposing discussion.
Ciao.
If what you said was true, you would be against christians brainwashing their children. But it appears you have no problem with that yet have a problem with them being taught science.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Family Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Fireman Sam's shocking scene 3 hr naman 4
News Excited by Trump, gay Republicans struggle with... 7 hr kuda 199
News Body in creek ID'd as familiar transient (Jun '09) 9 hr pine lane perv 40
News Gray Matters: Be healthy, avoid geezer jokes (Feb '09) 12 hr Wife Dealers 44
News Employee of Alabama nursing home attempted to s... 13 hr Taffy 1
News Nightclub shooting latest for city seeing rise ... 15 hr bozo 1
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 21 hr GUILTY 31,933
More from around the web