British Ban Teaching Creationism As S...

British Ban Teaching Creationism As Science, Should The U.S. Do The Same?

There are 164 comments on the Outside the Beltway story from Jun 24, 2014, titled British Ban Teaching Creationism As Science, Should The U.S. Do The Same?. In it, Outside the Beltway reports that:

"The parties acknowledge that clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the Funding Agreement [which preclude the teaching of pseudoscience and require the teaching of evolution] apply to all academies.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Outside the Beltway.

TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#146 Jul 24, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
what do you think about these subboy?
newborn babies prefer to look at attractive faces, says a UK researcher, suggesting that face recognition is hardwired at birth, rather than learned.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6355-ba...
during pregnancy, if a mother suffers organ damage, the baby in the womb sends stem cells to repair the damaged organ.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21185-f...
a study suggests that females are genetically predisposed to develop fears for potentially dangerous animals. the study found that baby girls only 11 months old rapidly start to associate pictures of spiders with fear. Baby boys remain blithely indifferent to this connection.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17697-g...
Go back to the original reason for this subject, you are completely straying off.
In Six Days

UK

#147 Jul 24, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>So insanity manifested in you later in life. Interesting.
So insanity manifested in you later life. Interesting.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#148 Jul 24, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
15 to 18 month is in the second year of age as far as I know.
I didn't say 2 years I said 2nd year, quote myself: "Only in the second year he recognizes himself in a mirror".
Hence we are saying the same.
They start to talk in the 11th - 14th month. Well that's a bit on the edge of the SECOND year, and not when they are 2 years. I shall quote myself once again: "That's why most children only manage to produce their first words in their second year." I shall also add that only by the 18th month, the average child manages to produce 50 words.
I notice:
- it wasn't wrongAT ALL
- you, I assume deliberately, misread my words, hence producing a straw man
- and, what me annoys the most, it the complete nitpicking. It doesn't matter for the argumnt if children learn their first words in the 12th or th 14th month exactly. The discussion here was that children have to learn a lot, which obvious observation still not has permeated Six Days' muddled mind.
As a matte rof fact, this kind of mischief in debate annoys me to the extent that I am not willing any more to debate you on this topic.
Straw men and irrelevant nitpicking are a bit too much for me to comply to.
So, no mistakes
It is what wondering does best. I pointed out his mistake to him yesterday. First he called me an idiot, then he reread his post and barely acknowledged his error. He then tried to change the topic from his error to trying to say you were wrong about when some traits of the brain first appeared.

Level 1

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#149 Jul 24, 2014
The Tower of Babel, yea right..
harvinfr

Pittsburgh, PA

#150 Jul 26, 2014
wondering

Morris, OK

#151 Jul 28, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
It is what wondering does best. I pointed out his mistake to him yesterday. First he called me an idiot, then he reread his post and barely acknowledged his error. He then tried to change the topic from his error to trying to say you were wrong about when some traits of the brain first appeared.
yes i barely acknowledged my error. which is 100 times more than you do. i told you i will follow your example. when shown wrong you just keep going full steam ahead and keep being a jackass wagon.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#152 Jul 28, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
yes i barely acknowledged my error. which is 100 times more than you do. i told you i will follow your example. when shown wrong you just keep going full steam ahead and keep being a jackass wagon.
Wrong again moron. I admitted to making a small mistake with replaytime recently.

You on the other hand have shown yourself to be a jackass wagon time and time again. You just requested evidence for statements that were so obvious no evidence was really needed. The points were made time and time again here. My claims were supported by evidence. Therefore you are a jackass wagon.
wondering

Morris, OK

#153 Jul 28, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again moron. I admitted to making a small mistake with replaytime recently.
You on the other hand have shown yourself to be a jackass wagon time and time again. You just requested evidence for statements that were so obvious no evidence was really needed. The points were made time and time again here. My claims were supported by evidence. Therefore you are a jackass wagon.
amongst each other, pals seem to have no problem admitting they are wrong. the problem lies when it is not a pal they are debating with because then they will never admit it what-so-ever!
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#154 Jul 28, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
amongst each other, pals seem to have no problem admitting they are wrong. the problem lies when it is not a pal they are debating with because then they will never admit it what-so-ever!
Pertaining SubductionZone this is plainly wrong and thus lying.
SixDay was the most straight opponent of SubductionZone.
Not quite "pals among each other".
We haven't seen ONE time you admitting you were wrong.
You consider admitting wrong as "kissing ass".
You have the wrong personality to assess these things.
It's just not your trade.
wondering

Morris, OK

#155 Jul 29, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Pertaining SubductionZone this is plainly wrong and thus lying.
SixDay was the most straight opponent of SubductionZone.
Not quite "pals among each other".
We haven't seen ONE time you admitting you were wrong.
You consider admitting wrong as "kissing ass".
You have the wrong personality to assess these things.
It's just not your trade.
i do believe that is between subduction zone and sixdays. so what does that have to do with me?
oh i "barely acknowledged" it once. subduction zone knows because he whined about i only barley acknowledged it. end of story. go get some cheese to go with your whine. puff, fart, stink!!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#156 Jul 29, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
amongst each other, pals seem to have no problem admitting they are wrong. the problem lies when it is not a pal they are debating with because then they will never admit it what-so-ever!
replaytime is hardly my friend.

You and he are quite quite similar. So much so that one would think that one could be a sock puppet of the other.

And as usual you are still the proven idiot of this thread.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#157 Jul 30, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
i do believe that is between subduction zone and sixdays. so what does that have to do with me?
oh i "barely acknowledged" it once. subduction zone knows because he whined about i only barley acknowledged it. end of story. go get some cheese to go with your whine. puff, fart, stink!!
Don't waste your childish school yard like rantings on me please.
wondering

Morris, OK

#158 Jul 30, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't waste your childish school yard like rantings on me please.
lol. please go get some cheese to go with your whine or go take your blue pill. you will feel much better.
Swedenforever

Silver Spring, MD

#159 Mar 18, 2015
Thank Buddha

Since: Apr 14

Cabo Rojo, Puerto Rico

#163 Mar 19, 2015
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
Hasn't science been trying to CREATE primordial soup and resultant life for at least the last half century? What are they going to teach if they ever have any success, evolution, or creationism?
Marxist creeps do like to think of themselves as gods, sucking the brains out of little babies in the womb for their own convenience, irresponsibility and lust. Apparently, one needs to firmly believe they are nothing but animal to do that.
Obviously you do not understand a shit of what science is about. Why don't you educate yourself about something in order to discus it in an intelligent way! Otherwise, you are only parading your ignorance.

Since: Feb 15

Location hidden

#168 Mar 22, 2015
Fern
Period: Carboniferous
Age: 354 - 290 million years
Region: Suszec, Poland

Very ancient fern fossils are frequently discovered. Looking at the Carboniferous Period fossil fern in the picture, it can be clearly seen that ferns have come down unchanged for hundreds of millions of years to the present day. Evolutionists have been routed in the face of these facts. Neither ferns, nor any other life form for that matter, have changed throughout the course of history.

“Observing prevails revelation”

Since: Feb 15

Somewhere....

#169 Mar 22, 2015
emrenil wrote:
Fern
Period: Carboniferous
Age: 354 - 290 million years
Region: Suszec, Poland
Very ancient fern fossils are frequently discovered. Looking at the Carboniferous Period fossil fern in the picture, it can be clearly seen that ferns have come down unchanged for hundreds of millions of years to the present day. Evolutionists have been routed in the face of these facts. Neither ferns, nor any other life form for that matter, have changed throughout the course of history.
Harun Yaddayadda's FRAUD.

Let's have a look at Harun's fraud and forgeries.
Read this website: http://purplekoolaid.typepad.com/my_weblog/th ...

A short summary:
1. skulls are fixed and mounted with clear tool marks of carving
2. many of his skulls are traceable to Chinese fossil forgeries. There are some Chinese guys tampering fossils because they fetch good money from the gullible fossil hunters. They do it by taking some skull of an extant animal and mould and carve it into the desired specimen of a "fossil". Or they take fossils from the known locations in China which do indeed contain rich deposits of fossils (but of recent animals) and mould them into the desired shapes.
3. for instance, many of Harun's fossils there even were moulding and plastering marks visible. Just the work of the Chinese industrious handi-craftsmen...
4. I know why I myself found the skulls to be of exactly the same off-white colour. Which is impossible in different specimen from different ages thus from different discovery sites. Fossils almost NEVER are off-white and they take the colour of the site where they were laying for millions of years. Now I know why. They all are skulls of extant animals who died.
5. the matrix (included rock and soil remnants) are all of the same light-brown colour. That is sheer impossible if they were from different time-frames and sites.
6. Other examples appear to be real skulls and/or fossils, but are too often misidentified by Yahya as modern animals (or the wrong species, if an apparently modern skull was used). The sheer amount of errors and misidentifications suggest that Yahya is either making them up, or getting his information from a seller who is making them up due to ignorance or deliberate deception (so they can sell the fossil at a higher price).

BTW happen to have the palaeontological source for this fern?

And when do we get your 10,000 list of scientists refuting evolution????

Or that list of scientific findings refuting evolution.

We are already waiting for WEEEEKKKKSSSSSS.

BTW, here we have four CLASSES of "ferns":
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilotopsida , 92 species
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equisetopsida , 15 species
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marattiaceae , 150 species
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leptosporangiate... , 9000 species.

Now, could you please point us out to the fossils of the first 3 classes?
Would you please also compare the extant species of those 3 classes to the Harun website "fern" please.

OF COURSE you will not.

Because you are a COWARD and DECEIVER.

“CAMBRIAN BUNNY”

Since: Jan 15

Location hidden

#170 Mar 22, 2015
emrenil wrote:
Fern
Period: Carboniferous
Age: 354 - 290 million years
Region: Suszec, Poland
Very ancient fern fossils are frequently discovered. Looking at the Carboniferous Period fossil fern in the picture, it can be clearly seen that ferns have come down unchanged for hundreds of millions of years to the present day. Evolutionists have been routed in the face of these facts. Neither ferns, nor any other life form for that matter, have changed throughout the course of history.
you don't seem to realise that just posting is not enough. you need to supply your source so that your claims can be checked. your sources to date haven't been credible neither is your assertion about organisms being created perfect and remaining unchanged. You are not trying to prove to evolutionists that they are wrong you are trying to convince yourself that you are right so you can cling on to the fantasy you believe, You reject every fact that disproves your beliefs despite the overwhelming evidence that science provides. Everyone is wrong except your blinkered friends who think supernatural explanations are proof, they are not. Ferns were originally giant structures bigger than modern trees which used wind dispersed spores to reproduce, very primitive organisms. The earths atmosphere was oxygen-rich fuelling giant structures and as the oxygen ratio has decreased to todays levels ferns and other organisms evolved and reduced in size and variation. This information is widely available online so you are simply being selective and unscientific with these ridiculous claims of perfect unchanging creation, everything evolves or it dies out.
Religion isn't a scientific methodology and can't compete against true science.
Swedenforever

Philadelphia, PA

#173 May 23, 2015
Carson and Fiorina on the.back of the Flea bag short bus..So much for outsiders
hpcaban

Cabo Rojo, Puerto Rico

#178 May 28, 2015
emrenil wrote:
Fern
Period: Carboniferous
Age: 354 - 290 million years
Region: Suszec, Poland
Very ancient fern fossils are frequently discovered. Looking at the Carboniferous Period fossil fern in the picture, it can be clearly seen that ferns have come down unchanged for hundreds of millions of years to the present day. Evolutionists have been routed in the face of these facts. Neither ferns, nor any other life form for that matter, have changed throughout the course of history.
Obviously, you are not conversant with the Theory of Evolution. Some forms of life have not evolved for the simple fact that they have not NEEDED to! Sharks are a classical example. They are perfectly adapted to their environment, so they have no need to change. Please, educate yourself before posting!

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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... 1 hr In Six Days 625
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr SoE 48,383
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 5 hr Porkncheese 179,706
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 5 hr Porkncheese 6
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 hr Dogen 216,597
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 10 hr scientia potentia... 154,610
Science News (Sep '13) 19 hr _Susan_ 3,980
More from around the web