There is a school not teaching evolution!!!

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=sr&ID=SR01202

begin swearing and gnashing of the teeth. DOnt' want to be inconsistent now, do we?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Saudi Arabia doesnt have a seperation of church and state clause, do they?:cookie:

But yeah, I'd rather kids get a decent logical schooling than ZOMG IT WAS TEH ***X0RZ!

[COLOR="Yellow"]Luckily i live in a country where schools prefer to teach actual science over magic and wizardry. And the lord said let there be light, SHAZAAM!

Thank G[COLOR="Yellow"]o[/COLOR]d i'm an atheist.[/COLOR]

A) LoS- you are still obligated, as a part of being a whiney liberal, to complain, ****, and moan as much as possible about religion being in the government, schools, or anywhere near anyone in general. Oh wait, I forgot part B about being a whiney liberal. You're also obligated to ONLY do that if it's Christianity. nevermind, carry on. At least conservatives are *******s on a consistent basis.

B) Airdrisordals1835y- nobody cares what you have to say. Seriously.

I would rather believe in Intelligent design then a few giant rocks colliding, and yet somehow making life.

Not saying I can necessarily explain intelligent design down to a point but it makes more sense than an accident.

Macro evolution seems to have holes too. Micro evolution I totally agree with - because it happens all the time.

I searched and couldn't find anything in that page about evolution. Just some other head-spinning garbage. I wouldn't be surprised, but I would think since that Judaism and Islam have had historically different relationships with science than American Baptism they might not necessarily object to evolution?

Arwon, are you that naive or are you just kidding around? They're all faiths of the "old book", meaning they all share the old testament. Come on, man, quit playing devil's advocate for the sake of sticking up for minorities/non christians/jews. I understand you're on this whole anti-white westerners thing where you hug and kiss every minority and non-christian who's in the middle of any conflict anywhere ever, but don't be just plain stupid, man.

[quote=Lord of Spam]Correct me if I'm wrong, but Saudi Arabia doesnt have a seperation of church and state clause, do they?:cookie:

Understatement of the century.

No seriously BJ, I'm perfectly willing to accept that a bunch of middle eastern f*ckers both Jewish and Muslim don't believe in evolution or, like, in atoms and molecules if someone shows me a hardcore Jewish or Islamic discourse on the subject... I'd assume there's literal creationists in both faiths but I've honestly never seen any. I clicked the link, went CTRL F for "evolution" and "biology" and couldn't find anything.

I've searched for Jewish and Islamic attitudes to evolution before but most of what I've found has been to the effect of "okay, science says this and this, but really, regardless of science's explainations of mechanisms of science... G*d is the cause and the reason". Essentially they support theistic evolution or evolutionary creationism. It doesn't seem to be a big deal with these faiths the way it is with certain types of Christian, notably evangelical protestants.

My reasoning based on these searchings, and of my own experience of catholics and anglicans has always been that the zealous objections to evolution have been (in recent decades) somewhat specific to certain segments of the Protestant population. Certainly, the obsession with the subject seems specific to these groups.

Now, maybe it's their quirk alone to think evolution goes against G*d, or maybe it's wider than that and extends into other Abrahamic religions, but I guess the point is, many flavours of hardcore religious person seem perfectly accepting of evolution since it's so easy to say "ok yeah evolution, but G*d did it". You don't have to be creationist to ve hardcore religious and I think it's a very Christian thing to think that committed religiosity somehow implies disbelief in evolution.

Can't the Saudi education system be utterly f*cked without being creationist?

I don't think you two are even arguing here, just utterly misunderstanding eachother. Natural selection has nothing to do with chance, natural selection is just letting the weak die and the strong live, and it affects the entire community. Genetic mutation is random and affects only the individual at first. The two combined form evolution, a process that randomly generates new traits and handpicks only the very very best.

[COLOR="Yellow"]I'm still waiting for the quote from Wikipedia that says natural selection is based on chance, or better yet, look around for some actual tested evidence. Take your time, Wikipedia will always be there so you can copy & paste all you like and still come up short.

Of course natural selection selection works on each indivual organism, but the end result on the community as a whole is always going to be consistent. The group with the stronger genetic characteristics will always survive. Always. What part of that don't you understand?[/COLOR]

I vote for removing advanced science from high schools entirely. The way teachers try to cram it down students throats today, without giving ANY evidence of any kind to back it up, makes me wonder if physics is any less wishy-washy than creationist theories. If some sucker wants to learn evolution in college, he can spend his life that way, but please, don't go trying to tell us that string theory and it's ilk is anything else than a philosophy.

There is a flower on the yucca plant, aptly called the "Yucca Flower". Not too long ago, I believe in the mid 1800's, an entomologist by the name of C.V. Riley noted the change in the appearence of the Yucca moth. This moth was unique because it polinated the yucca flower. Initially, the moth was dark in color. Eventually, a moth was born with a genetic deformity that caused it to be lighter in color. When it had offspring, you're left with a few different moths, ones that are dark in color, and lighter ones. The flowers that these moths notoriously pollinate are white, and the lighter moths blended in really well, hiding them from predators, while the darker colored moths were eaten/killed.

Eventually, this trend continued until today, where the yucca moth is completely white and looks almost exactly like stamen from the flower when it is perched on the flower, making it almost invisible to predators.

That's evolution, folks. The characteristics of this creature have changed over time and it has been documented. You'd be a fool to think that the Yucca Moth is an isolated incident. Obviously, any species can and will mutate, and if the mutation is to the surviving advantage of the species, that "mutation" will eventually become the norm, as the older ones die off.

Look at the Bubonic Plague. You think it just "went away"? Of course. Some people were born with some freakish resistance to the disease, and they weren't killed by it, and neither were their offspring with the same freakish resistance. Eventually, the only people left were those with that resistance.

That's probably also why HIV is harmless in most primates, but awfully deadly in humans. It probably killed all the primates it could kill and only those left were the one with some weird resistance to it.

The same will probably happen with humans over the next few hundred/thousand years. And we will look back on HIV the same way we look on the Bubonic Plague.

So there you have it. Evolution at work, folks. Natural selection, survival of the fittest, whatever you'd like to call it. It's there, and if you deny it, you're denying fact.

As to the topic of this thread, yes, there's a school somewhere that doesn't teach evolution.

BJ, I don't think anyone is saying that schools need to teach evolution. I think what we were getting at, or at least, in my case, the idea that we should teach a religious concept and call it science. If they don't want to teach evolution, that's fine, but I'll bet that in Saudi Arabia, they don't call their creation theory a science. They hold it up with religious precepts and ideas, instead of calling it a scientifically researched and proven idea.

And here I was trying to stir up some serious debate... :( Anyways, Fei-on, remember that story about the white moths in England that started dissapearing when all the trees were covered in soot, and black ones started appearing in their place? Then, when they cleaned up the pollution, and the white moths started appearing again... everyone knows that story, but it sounds suspiciously similar to your tale.

I have no physical evidence that computers exist. All I can say is that Mr. Computer Builder says he built one. He must be some type of creationist or something.

[quote=Fei-on Castor]A big difference between our two stories is that I provided the name of the entomologist, the time he lived, the creatures he studied and a few other details.

I get your hint. :(

Alright, you can find this in "Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life", 7'th edition, made in, er, 1995. And someone named Ralph Taggart is the biologist.

[QUOTE=Aioros][COLOR="Yellow"]You still don't get it, let me rephrase. I'm still waiting for the quote that says the end result of natural selection on a community is chance, take your time. In the case of natural selection, a lot of likelys do have a definite result. You learn something new every day. Yay.
First point: The end result of natural selection can't be 'chance' because that doesn't make proper grammatical sense. learn english.

Second. Mathematically, many likely's makes a very likely. Not a definite. Maths > you.

Third. What you're doing is generally called a '[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man"]Strawman[/URL]' [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy"]logical fallacy[/URL]. Since you're retarded and have limited cognitive development, it's not surprising coming from you.

Obviously, 'Evolution is entirely based on random events, such as the [random] mutation of DNA' Does not mean anything like you're implying. And that's the sort of thing I've been saying for the entire thread.

If you were capable of reading correctly, you'd know my points were:
Evolution relies a random event, namely the mutation of DNA, therefore it is based on chance (However, this does not mean that it is completely chance).
A very small population is affected by chance events far more than a large population. A large population does not come from nowhere, it originates from a small one. Therefore, the small population must survive random events long enough to become a large one.

Only a ****ing retard would be able to somehow get 'the end result of natural selection on a community is chance' from what I've been saying, but again, since you're retarded, it's not surprising.
You lose again.

it's not fair to pull up the credentials of intellectuals and then defunk my previous thoughts on creationalists not being complete morons when I didn't pull that card on you :(

[QUOTE=Aioros][COLOR="Yellow"]higbvuyb, you're peeing on your own feet. You're not just arguing with what i think. You're arguing with what has been factually, and scientifically agreed upon worlwide. If you actually believe in your mind that some of the most brilliant scientists in the world are ****ing retarded for coming to that conclusion and that in turn what you think is better than what they've discovered, then there's no point in arguing with you anymore....
Why are you so ****ing retarded? It's obvious that it's virtually definite that a large population with a positive trait will survive over another. Just like 1 - 0.4^1000000 is virtually one. You can say that it's definite, because it will only produce a contrary result every 10^400 years, which means that it won't happen. But just like a better soccer team may still lose against one that is vastly worse, it's not mathematically definite because there is a very small chance that it will not happen.

If you don't understand that that's what he really means, then you should jsut sit in a corner and slit your wrists.

And are you that ****ing retarded? I never said that 'evolution/natural selection is chance'. The fact that it isn't chance doesn't mean that it doesn't rely on chance in some way. It's jsut that in large population vs large population, that chance is so small that it doesn't need to be considered.

If you can't actually understand english and you cna't understand what I'm actually saying, (it's simple english, it's not that hard), then you shouldn't be on a forum where the dominant language is english. You should be in a corner, slitting your wrists.

I can do a Strawman to you, I can say "Only a retard would say that chance has absolutely nothing to do with natural selection at all, it's not like when a single organism has 'better' genes, it's got a energy shield so it will always win", but it's jsut retarded, and logically false, so unlike you, I don't do that.

***, that Richard guy even wore a shirt saying "Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.". See? "Randomly varying". Random =~ chance. You lose. You see, there is a element of randomness in it, it just doesn't affect the result.

And do you know why he used the word 'random' rather than the word 'chance'? because the Oxford Dictionary (Written by people with better qualifications than you) defines 'random' as 'all possibilies having equal probabilty'. Which means that it can be affected by some chance, but not competely by chance.

[COLOR="Yellow"]Look, the fact is natural selection isn't chance because it deals with the end result on a community, you keep talking about genetic mutation which does rely on chance because it deals with single individuals. Those are the facts and they will remain to be so even if you don't agree with it, i'm not going to try to prove it to you because you can't prove something to someone who doesn't want to be proven wrong (even when they painfully are). I was going to keep the "debate" going by showing wave after wave of experiments and test results that debunk your crackpot theories, but i remembered how you admitted in another thread that you make s[COLOR="Yellow"]h[/COLOR]it up in arguments.

So, you can believe that natural selection is based on randomness and that pigs fly all you like. But like i said before in another thread, despite what Finding Neverland taught you, believing in something really hard doesn't make it true.

Sad part is, you never showed that proof i asked for[/COLOR]

*dumb look*

Well, not to get involved, but I can see what Queenie is talking about. I just would've said in a more tactful way. But let's be honest, tact is not really NES Queen's cup o' tea.

Think about it this way, Aioros. With each of Hig's posts that you read, are you any more convinced that Hig is right? Probably not, and it's likely that he feels the same way. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong because the other party has their mind made up and won't be swaying. You've stated your point, and Hig has stated his. You won't get anywhere reiterating them any further.

people who are passionate about goofy things scare me. what, did charles darwin save you from drowning in a kiddy pool or something?

[quote=Aioros][COLOR="Yellow"]He says something in one post and then in another he contradicts himself. I'm paying attention to what he's saying, the problem is he changes his own arguments so much that it becomes confusing. That's why i finally decided to stop because i figured out what was going on.[/COLOR]
I don't think he's realised yet that neither 'evolution is entirely based on chance' nor 'chance is still involved in evolution' [/B] (and, quote, 'I said that the part attributable to chance in a large population is too small to detect') [b]actually mean 'evolution is chance'.
My argument has always been the same, it's just been added to.

When did someone teach him that 'entirely based' means 'is'?

I've said it many times, yet he still doesn't realise it after about ten posts. I'm still trying to hammer it into his hard skull, and he's still digging himself into a hole. He's trying to argue against something I never meant.

And he finally leaves the thread when he realises how stupid he was.

aaaaa