Why do evolutionists have to turn to the law to push their agenda? Is evoulotion that flawed or what?
92214
And they think christians were bad for pushing our beliefs on others.\n\nI just can't recall the number of people that I put behind bars or sued because they didn't accept Jesus or don't believe in God\n\nI can't recall the number of abortion clinics or gay bars that I blew up or the number of sinners that I killed in the name of Jesus.\n\nI Must of done all of this during one of my blackouts.\n\nLOL!
399298
When your own position holds no water and is based on fairy tales, your only recourse is to pigeon hole other positions as being of equally poor footing.\n\nCreationists spend most of their time trying to discredit evolution, which is the same thing evolutionists do.  Creationists are acting as scientists by doing so, and have actually contributed to the strength of evolutionary theory in that way!\n\nWhere creationists fail is by not realizing that attempting to falsify their own theory is what they should be trying to do in order to count as science.  Instead, they spend their time coming up with clever apologetic answers to the blatant problems in their position.  \n\nEvolution ultimately rests on the extremely simple observation of what replicators do in nonlinear systems.  \n\nCreationism has reams and reams of answers to specific problems people have discovered in their position, because there are no general principles.  Creationism has no predictive value whatsoever, it's just a hodge podge of apologetics.
810380
Law is designed to bring order out of chaos. Society cannot survive without laws. Just imagine if there were no laws and everyone did what they want, when they want. It would be anarchy. In the end vigilantism would rule. Still a form of law I guess, but not necessarily a preferred one. Law does not just punish, it also protects, both the innocent and the guilty.
99766
If you're refering to a scientific law then the new theory will have to undergo a lot of review and if the consensus among scientists is that the new law is reliable then the old law is discarded.\n\nHowever, this is very rare in science.  Usually laws evolve into a better understanding of the originally stated law.  For instance, quantum physics was not entirely understood when it was presented and over time it has become widely accepted among physicst, chemists and biologists alike.
255424
Alright I will jump into this. Bombs Away! I know some hot heads will respond but I live in a country where free speech is a given right.\nSo here I go.\nEvolution in and of itself has never been proven. Do the research for yourself. The faith that it takes to believe all of the scattered pieces of science ( which by the way changes daily) fit into one theory is enormous. There are people who wholeheartedly believe that science makes everything factual. It doesn't. Science is like a river, constantly changing even with the basic elements in tact.\nSo for it to be taught as a fact is wrong,wrong,wrong. \nYes,evolution should be tought, but as a scientific theory, and not the final word for all mankind.
989708
The objective of the search for truth begins by answering questions, that lead to new questions, etc. Some would call this flawed, but in reality we are meant to search. In intelligent design (the new name for creationism), you begin with the thought that the answers are preordained, then you submit your findings to fit what is written. Sorry, but Creationism or ID has no place in a Science class. You can not measure advances in Creation. Religion or Philosophy classes perhaps, but not Science.
1081959
whats sad to me is the standard sheeple line of there is no proof of evolution,\n\ni could accept there is not enough evidence to support this in my mind,\n\nthe sheeple mentality is most apparent in the discussion regarding evolution, it shakes out the sheeple,\n\nit clearly separates the men from the sheeple
179228
Trying to change the laws of physics is harder than trying to eat just one potato chip, but it sounds as if you are asking about determinism, which is the belief that we do not in fact have free will and that our actions are not of our own choosing.\n\nOne way to look at it is that in our bodies, all the forces are balanced. This means that the force of gravity and the force of electromagnetism counterbalance each other. Neither one of them wholly dominate our minds or bodies. Sure, we are on the ground, but we can stand up, climb trees, walk up hills, etc., partially or temporarily defying gravity. \n\nThe strong nuclear interactive force and the weak nuclear interactive force are not the major thing in our lives, either. We are too big to be totally contollled by the nuclear interactive forces, and too small to be controlled entirely by gravity or electromagnetism. There is a YOU that is not determined (controlled) by those things. And YOU are able to pull the strings of your body, so that it obeys you, so that you consciously (not conscientiously) do things. \n\nOtherwise, there would be no such thing as good or evil. A vicious murderer, arsonist, terrorist, rapist, could say, "Your Honor, it's not my fault. I had no choice but to act that way, according to the laws of physics." If he could give convincing proof of this, the judge would have no choice but to let him off. \n\n(We can't have laws determined by voting, either, because man-made laws are just that-- man-made, finite, limited, and not necessarily fair. What if the bad guys got the majority of the vote? Would that make their laws right? No, of course not.)\n\nNo responsible judge would allow a criminal to escape justic based on an argument like this. The very existence of a justice system indicates that-- regardless of what we might say-- we believe in free will, we believe in the existence of right and wrong. Even the most materialistic person, when ill-treated, will protest the injustice. They may like to reason that we do not have free will (especially when it helps them get out from some responsibility) but when they are the one getting hurt, they suddenly remember that it isn't fair. \n\nWe can't have it both ways. If there is no free will, justice is an illusion and might makes right after all.\n\nSo, which one do you believe in?
1028878
We all know laws are written vaugely & that they are so long & complex that reading one in full would probably kill more brain cells than main lining tequila. Sometimes they're vauge on purpose... meaning they can be interpreted situation to situation as appropriate, but still I know what you mean. If you have some proposal for more common sense in government I'd be happy to hear it.
1057563
Evolutionism isn't like that.  You don't have to try to get people to subscribe to it. Evolution doesn't require worship like "God" does.  Evolution will continue to exist even if noone belived in it, "God" would not.
1022720
I agree.  Evolution is the basis of life as we know it?  Where is the evidence?  Even if I wanted to believe that evolution was the method that God used to create our world, where is the evidence of that?  \n\nThe evolutionist isn't looking for a "missing link"...they are looking for countless missing links between EVERY species, and have nothing to show for it.  The fossil record would be rife with evidence if the theory had one ounce of merit.  Rather, it shows the complete opposite.\n\nLikewise, mutations are an extremely implausible vehicle through which upward change can occur.  They put their "faith" in mutated DNA somehow producing new species, I put my faith in a Creator.\n\nWhy do they still believe evolution is plausible?  Because they want to reject God, and evolutionary theory is the best they've got...
488517
First you would have to find an evolutionist, whatever that is. And second you need to prove the existance of some alleged temporal hell.
663844
Jumping into the Evolution vs. Creationism is a messy fight.  What Baumgardner proposes is a very rapid movement of the plates to get them into the current position and also creating the massive flood referred to in the Christian Bible.  Geologic evidence refutes the theory at every turn.  The structure of the earth as we know it will not allow this.  The aesthenosphere is the plastic-y layer over which the solid plates move.  Geophysical and surface observed evidence tell us that this is a very slow process, inches a year at a maximum.  The type of catastrophic event describes in this theory would not be physically possible by the natural laws we have observerd.  Also, radio carbon dating shows the varying ages of rock throughout the Earth, ages that far exceed the several thousand years he posits.  His response is that the radio isotopes decayed at a diferent rate.  Basically, he wants the laws of science, the laws that have never been seen to change, to be broken to support his creationism theory.  I suppose if you believe in an omnipotent being that created the world, that being can change the laws as it sees fit; however, that isn't science, that is belief.\n\nMy opinion is that Baumgardner's theory is a feeble attemptto put a scientific face on religious thought.  The website I reference is a Evolution vs. creation discussion group.  Many people spent far more thought on the subject and you can find some very good points in the discussion thread.
298194
Because they have blind faith in creationism.  Nothing you say or do will ever change that.  You could show  mathmatical proof or facts to back up evolution (which I believe exist).\nThey have faith is something they cannot prove.  End of story.
129404
NO!!!  The first ammendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."  Providing funds requires the passing of a law appropriating those funds to a religious establishment, which clearly violates the first ammendment.\n\nAlso, in the two examples you mentioned, there are the minor problems that abstience only education doesn't work and creationism is false.\n\n_______\n>>>the first amendment is to protect religion from government\n\nIf you're going to make the argument that science is a religion, it has just as much right to be protected from the government as Christianity does.  That means that the government can't fund programs that teach creationism, which states the evolution is false.\n\nEven if we reject the argument that science is a religion, the funding of one religous organization will, essentially without exception, hurt religious that have different beliefs.  Funding one religion demonstrates government support of that religion and therefor deligitimizes other religions.  You should think things through a bit more before making such wide-reaching claims.\n\nYou might also note that the archaic term, "respecting," simply means "with regard to," or "with reference to."  Under the First Ammendment, the government is not allowed to make any law having to do with religion.  It neither states nor implies protection one entity from the other.\n\n>>> A religious organization that participates in non \n>>>religious activities \n\nRead the question! It asks about funding religious activities.  These are, by definition, not non-religious.  I see no problem with government funding of truely non-religious programs that are run by religious organizations.  However, these are fairly uncommon.\n\n>>>evolution, an unsubstantiated theory\n\nI've already addressed this issue.  See http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Atp.CHfigmi9FyUQWAxBvTLsy6IX?qid=1006022407766 .  If you'd like me to expand on any of those arguments, just ask, and I'd be happy to do so.  Evolution is far from unsubstanciated.\n\n__________\n>>>If tax dollar is poured into the activities like research, \n>>>scince & technology, human resource development, \n>>>disaster management, energy exploration, environment, \n>>>health etc., why not the same cannot go to fund \n>>>religious activists\n\nWhy not?  Because the contitution expressedly forbids it, that's why not!  Last I checked, the constitution doesn't prohibit funding of disaster management or healthcare.  Besides which religion is far to controvercial for the government to start taking sides, which is what funding religious organizations would essentially amount to.
683440
There isn't a purpose to evolution.  It's simply what happens when you get imperfect replicators competing for limited resources.  It's like asking to purpose of current traveling through the path of least resistance.  There's no purpose there, it's just what the laws of nature dictate must happen in that circumstance.
940419
They grab onto anything they can that seems like it could discredit evolution, because ID is a non-argument. They don't want to understand what a theory is, they just want to point out that it is different from a fact. Of course, there is an even larger qualitative difference between ID and fact ... hehe.