From the conclusion of the Dover (Pa) court case:

Quote:H. Conclusion
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts
of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the
Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the
seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and
moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious,
antecedents.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock
assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory
is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in
general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the
theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the
scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the
existence of a divine creator.

To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact
that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not
be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in
religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific
propositions.

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the
Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals,
who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would
time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID
Policy.

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID
have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor
do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As
stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an
alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an
activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court.
Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction
on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a
constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an
imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the
Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which
has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers
of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal
maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,
and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order
permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school
within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or
disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to
a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory
judgment that Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants’ actions.
Defendants’ actions in violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights as guaranteed to them by
the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to
liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal
damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ services and costs
incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

Ruling by US District Court Judge, J. Jones after reviewing the evidence....something you should try.

(August 24, 2010 at 11:30 am)Minimalist Wrote: Ruling by US District Court Judge, J. Jones ...

For added irony: this, coming from a GW Bush appointee!

(August 24, 2010 at 11:37 am)Entropist Wrote:

(August 24, 2010 at 11:30 am)Minimalist Wrote: Ruling by US District Court Judge, J. Jones ...

For added irony: this, coming from a GW Bush appointee!

Yeah....creationism and its weak-sister "intelligent" design is so stupid and obviously religious that not even a Republican can overlook it!

That was an epic ruling

I love how NoGodaloud hasn't responded

Quote:"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

--Abraham Lincoln

(August 24, 2010 at 1:22 am)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote: MIT: No Easy Answers for the Evolution of Human Speech

ok. lets start with this paper. Please quote the part of the paper, which convinced you and gave you unquestionable proof, human speech was due and arose through gradual evolution.

and remember : any answer with explanations like " might be ", " probably ", " guess ", " its supposed " do not consist in proofs, but in guesswork.

And right here we see the basis for your ( and all creationist lunatics) problems:

Quote:No Easy Answers for the Evolution of Human Speech

You want "easy answers." As H. L. Mencken said: “For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong.”

In your case the wrong answer is the childish assertion: goddidit.

Evolution is not simple. It requires a depth of understanding which you lack. Talking about it with someone like you is akin to trying to explain radar to a dog.

(August 23, 2010 at 11:24 pm)NoGodaloud ? Wrote: Evolution Theory - please show the proofs.

Please show absolute and conclusive proof , that the Theory of Evolution is true.

It always cracks me up when people like you demand "absolute and conclusive proof" that a scientific principle, method or theory is true. But then you turn around and embrace crap that has no supporting evidence whatsoever. Can you show me any "absolute and conclusive proof" that the resurrection is true? A virgin birth? That "Jesus" walked on water? That the Garden of Eden was a real place and Adam and Eve were real people? That the flood of Noah actually happened? I could go on and on...

Quote:Excluded is Micro-evolution, and speciation. On these is common agreement.

So you admit there has been "micro-evolution" and "speciation"? Well, then you accept Evolutionary Theory as being true, whether you admit it or not.

Quote:Please show that mutations can cause one species to turn into another.

You've never read Darwin's books, have you?

Quote:Please show the direct ancestors of all the major kind of animals: primates, carnivores, and so forth.

Please show a fossil evidence for a "granddaddy" of the monkey.

Why don't you take a college level biology course? It could probably answer most of your questions.

Quote:How do you explain that the eye, a complex visual system, was fully formed and functional extremely early in the fossil record.

Oh, boy! I was waiting for this! Irreducible complexity! Don't you realize that this was completely discredited at the Dover trial?

Quote:This will be, just to begin with. After you present conclusive proof that Evolution explains all this without any doubt left, we continue with some more questions.

Let me guess... you'll ask about the second law of thermodynamics, ask how we could have evolved "by chance", and you'll want to know why there are still monkeys if we came from monkeys. You guys need to get a new playbook.

Quote:Answers like " might be ", " probably ", " guess ", " its supposed ", and so forth are not valid.

How about this? Evolutionary Theory is supported by all available evidence and contradicted by none. That's not good enough for you?

(August 24, 2010 at 6:44 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(August 23, 2010 at 11:24 pm)NoGodaloud ? Wrote: This will be, just to begin with. After you present conclusive proof that Evolution explains all this without any doubt left, we continue with some more questions.

And if we can't be bothered? what are you planning on doing then?

I was tempted to tell you take your imperious attitude and fuck off but that would be impolite.

So instead I give you whale evolution, the most complete fossil record we currently have.

http://www.squidoo.com/whale-evolution

And politely suggest that you go and fucking read some real books on the subject.

Instead of the puerile mindless propaganda that Answersingenesis etc constantly churn out like turds from a backed up toilet.

F. Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (Ticknor & Fields, New Haven & New York, 1982), p. 90.

The problem for Darwinians is in trying to find an explanation for the immense number of adaptations and mutations needed to change a small and primitive earthbound mammal, living alongside and dominated by dinosaurs, into a huge animal with a body uniquely shaped so as to be able to swim deep in the oceans, a vast environment previously unknown to mammals . . . all this had to evolve in at most five to ten million years—about the same time as the relatively trivial evolution of the first upright walking apes into ourselves.



Evolutionist M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler & Adler, 1985), p. 174.

". . . we must suppose the existence of innumerable collateral branches leading to many unknown types . . . one is inclined to think in terms of possibly hundreds, even thousands of transitional species on the most direct path between a hypothetical land ancestor and the common ancestor of modern whales . . . we are forced to admit with Darwin that in terms of gradual evolution, considering all the collateral branches that must have existed in the crossing of such gaps, the number of transitional species must have been inconceivably great.



Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia (1996)

"Presumably, various physiological mechanisms for handling oxygen debt and lactic acid buildup, as well as the development of blubber for fat storage and for temperature regulation, evolved early, though evidence of the evolutionary history is unavailable."

---

(August 24, 2010 at 10:34 am)Tiberius Wrote: When will you realize, there isn't anything even close to "proof" in science! Scientific proof doesn't exist; what does exist is scientific evidence. The ideas and theories (yes, the two are different) that look at the facts of science and try to explain them. If you want to look at the evidence behind the theory of evolution, then all you have to do is click any of the numerous links that my fellow forum-goers have kindly provided for you.

i perfectly agree with you. But i have brought this up as answer and challenge to TheDarkestOfAngels , which asserts, the theory of evolution, aka the assertion of common ancestry, is a proven fact. So he has here the platform to present the proofs, he asserts he has.

---

(August 24, 2010 at 12:35 pm)Minimalist Wrote: And right here we see the basis for your ( and all creationist lunatics) problems:

Quote:No Easy Answers for the Evolution of Human Speech

You want "easy answers." As H. L. Mencken said: “For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong.”

In your case the wrong answer is the childish assertion: goddidit.

Evolution is not simple. It requires a depth of understanding which you lack. Talking about it with someone like you is akin to trying to explain radar to a dog.

stop attacking me, and present some facts, that contribute in a significant manner to the debate, if you have something.

---

(August 24, 2010 at 12:36 pm)Thor Wrote:

(August 23, 2010 at 11:24 pm)NoGodaloud ? Wrote: Evolution Theory - please show the proofs.

Please show absolute and conclusive proof , that the Theory of Evolution is true.

It always cracks me up when people like you demand "absolute and conclusive proof" that a scientific principle, method or theory is true. But then you turn around and embrace crap that has no supporting evidence whatsoever. Can you show me any "absolute and conclusive proof" that the resurrection is true? A virgin birth? That "Jesus" walked on water? That the Garden of Eden was a real place and Adam and Eve were real people? That the flood of Noah actually happened? I could go on and on...

i opened this thread as a answer to Thedarkestofangels, which stated :

http://atheistforums.org/thread-4459-page-5.html

Quote:
Evidence. Proof. Science has it. Creationism and theism do not.

and give him oportunity to show, his assertion is true.