| Author | Post |
|---|
cactusJack
Member
|
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/08/01/national/w200833D87.DTL
I love it when people have no idea what the definition of a "theory" is.
A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Thus, intelligent design can never be a theory. the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection has observable and repeatable facts to support it such as the process of mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, adaptation and speciation through natural selection, the "Intelligent Designer" in intelligent design is neither observable nor repeatable. This violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability. Calling it a theory is wrong and shows just how ignorant and misguided the right-wing extremists are on this.
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
We've gone over this sooooo mannnny tiiiiimes.
|
cactusJack
Member
|
Threepac wrote:
We've gone over this sooooo mannnny tiiiiimes.
I've been on one of my liberal college professor elitist sabbaticals, so I haven't put in my 2 cents.
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Where do you teach?
|
cactusJack
Member
|
I no longer do, at least not in this state. By university standards, I'm what they call an academic professional. I get professional leave every year. Things are not all that cheery though, still paying off over $60,000 in student loans. I keep telling myself that it was all worth it though. Last edited on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 05:23 pm by cactusJack |
hunter
Member
|
President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.
Get your panties out of a wad. He said DISCUSS ALONGSIDE EVOLUTION. There's a big difference in discussing along with and teaching one belief only.
The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.
The article you posted calls it a "theory". Do a search and see how many sites you can find that call it a theory. Seems to me that a lot of people consider both of them to be "theories". So which one is correct?
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
We've gone over this so many times. When you produce evidence for ID, the schools will teach it. There can be no further argument.
|
cactusJack
Member
|
hunter wrote:
President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.
Get your panties out of a wad. He said DISCUSS ALONGSIDE EVOLUTION. There's a big difference in discussing along with and teaching one belief only.
The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.
The article you posted calls it a "theory". Do a search and see how many sites you can find that call it a theory. Seems to me that a lot of people consider both of them to be "theories". So which one is correct?
A theory has to have observable and repeatable facts to support it. Intelligent Design/Creationism is a pseudoscience. A pseudoscience is an idea which masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms.
|
LoVe AnD dEaTh
Member
|
Oh my bloody god! Is it always this boring? Why are you all so bloody stuck up! It is all about bloody politics on this website. Were teenagers for a little bit longer so make the most of it, don't go acting like your older than you actually are! Freaks!
|
hunter
Member
|
cactusJack wrote: hunter wrote:
President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.
Get your panties out of a wad. He said DISCUSS ALONGSIDE EVOLUTION. There's a big difference in discussing along with and teaching one belief only.
The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.
The article you posted calls it a "theory". Do a search and see how many sites you can find that call it a theory. Seems to me that a lot of people consider both of them to be "theories". So which one is correct?
A theory has to have observable and repeatable facts to support it. Intelligent Design/Creationism is a pseudoscience. A pseudoscience is an idea which masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms.
Whatever. I'm simply stating that they are both called theories. And why can't it be both? Why couldn't man and evolution both be created by God? There are scientists who support intelligent design.
Too many people are making too big a deal out of this. What really matters more than where we came from, is where are we going. I don't care so much about how it all got started, and unless the mentality of kids has changed over the years, neither do they, unless they are going to make science their field of choice. It's hard enough to teach them to read and write these days. They're not paying that much attention to it. It's the adults that are all in a frenzy about it. I was taught evolution in school and when we finished that part of science, it was honestly the last time I ever thought about it.
|
Morfos
Member
|
Right-wingers hate science and logic. They are too stupid to understand it.
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
hunter wrote: cactusJack wrote: hunter wrote:
President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.
Get your panties out of a wad. He said DISCUSS ALONGSIDE EVOLUTION. There's a big difference in discussing along with and teaching one belief only.
The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.
The article you posted calls it a "theory". Do a search and see how many sites you can find that call it a theory. Seems to me that a lot of people consider both of them to be "theories". So which one is correct?
A theory has to have observable and repeatable facts to support it. Intelligent Design/Creationism is a pseudoscience. A pseudoscience is an idea which masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms.
Whatever. I'm simply stating that they are both called theories. And why can't it be both? Why couldn't man and evolution both be created by God? There are scientists who support intelligent design.
Too many people are making too big a deal out of this. What really matters more than where we came from, is where are we going. I don't care so much about how it all got started, and unless the mentality of kids has changed over the years, neither do they, unless they are going to make science their field of choice. It's hard enough to teach them to read and write these days. They're not paying that much attention to it. It's the adults that are all in a frenzy about it. I was taught evolution in school and when we finished that part of science, it was honestly the last time I ever thought about it.
45% of biologists follow that idea. And it's perfectly acceptable to me as well (even though I don't believe in it). However there is no proof for it, so it should NOT be taught.
|
cactusJack
Member
|
hunter wrote:
cactusJack wrote: hunter wrote:
President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.
Get your panties out of a wad. He said DISCUSS ALONGSIDE EVOLUTION. There's a big difference in discussing along with and teaching one belief only.
The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.
The article you posted calls it a "theory". Do a search and see how many sites you can find that call it a theory. Seems to me that a lot of people consider both of them to be "theories". So which one is correct?
A theory has to have observable and repeatable facts to support it. Intelligent Design/Creationism is a pseudoscience. A pseudoscience is an idea which masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms.
Whatever. I'm simply stating that they are both called theories. And why can't it be both? Why couldn't man and evolution both be created by God? There are scientists who support intelligent design.
Too many people are making too big a deal out of this. What really matters more than where we came from, is where are we going. I don't care so much about how it all got started, and unless the mentality of kids has changed over the years, neither do they, unless they are going to make science their field of choice. It's hard enough to teach them to read and write these days. They're not paying that much attention to it. It's the adults that are all in a frenzy about it. I was taught evolution in school and when we finished that part of science, it was honestly the last time I ever thought about it.
They are both called theories wrongly. This is another way they (right-wing extremists) are trying to get their crackpot ideas heard. By changing the language, they've suddenly got "credibility". I've actually heard people say "well, evolution is just a theory!" like it's just a guess. Has anyone ever had a goddamned science class?
|
hunter
Member
|
Threepac wrote: hunter wrote: cactusJack wrote: hunter wrote:
President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.
Get your panties out of a wad. He said DISCUSS ALONGSIDE EVOLUTION. There's a big difference in discussing along with and teaching one belief only.
The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.
The article you posted calls it a "theory". Do a search and see how many sites you can find that call it a theory. Seems to me that a lot of people consider both of them to be "theories". So which one is correct?
A theory has to have observable and repeatable facts to support it. Intelligent Design/Creationism is a pseudoscience. A pseudoscience is an idea which masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms.
Whatever. I'm simply stating that they are both called theories. And why can't it be both? Why couldn't man and evolution both be created by God? There are scientists who support intelligent design.
Too many people are making too big a deal out of this. What really matters more than where we came from, is where are we going. I don't care so much about how it all got started, and unless the mentality of kids has changed over the years, neither do they, unless they are going to make science their field of choice. It's hard enough to teach them to read and write these days. They're not paying that much attention to it. It's the adults that are all in a frenzy about it. I was taught evolution in school and when we finished that part of science, it was honestly the last time I ever thought about it.
45% of biologists follow that idea. And it's perfectly acceptable to me as well (even though I don't believe in it). However there is no proof for it, so it should NOT be taught.
Guess what? If someone is curious enough to want to know, they will research and find it out anyway. There's nothing wrong with presenting both sides to the kids, it might just make them think for a change. Last edited on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 05:58 pm by hunter |
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
There are more that two sides. Maybe I believe in unintelligent design, where a drooling retard created the universe. However there is only one substantiated side, that of evolution. There really can be no further argument.
|
cactusJack
Member
|
hunter wrote:
Threepac wrote: hunter wrote: cactusJack wrote: hunter wrote:
President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.
Get your panties out of a wad. He said DISCUSS ALONGSIDE EVOLUTION. There's a big difference in discussing along with and teaching one belief only.
The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.
The article you posted calls it a "theory". Do a search and see how many sites you can find that call it a theory. Seems to me that a lot of people consider both of them to be "theories". So which one is correct?
A theory has to have observable and repeatable facts to support it. Intelligent Design/Creationism is a pseudoscience. A pseudoscience is an idea which masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms.
Whatever. I'm simply stating that they are both called theories. And why can't it be both? Why couldn't man and evolution both be created by God? There are scientists who support intelligent design.
Too many people are making too big a deal out of this. What really matters more than where we came from, is where are we going. I don't care so much about how it all got started, and unless the mentality of kids has changed over the years, neither do they, unless they are going to make science their field of choice. It's hard enough to teach them to read and write these days. They're not paying that much attention to it. It's the adults that are all in a frenzy about it. I was taught evolution in school and when we finished that part of science, it was honestly the last time I ever thought about it.
45% of biologists follow that idea. And it's perfectly acceptable to me as well (even though I don't believe in it). However there is no proof for it, so it should NOT be taught.
Guess what? If someone is curious enough to want to know, they will research and find it out anyway. There's nothing wrong with presenting both sides to the kids, it might just make them think for a change.
I believe that a giant floating clown farted out the earth and that's how it all began. It's all too complex to really fully understand. Let's make a textbook.Last edited on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 06:01 pm by cactusJack |
hunter
Member
|
cactusJack wrote: hunter wrote:
cactusJack wrote: hunter wrote:
President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.
Get your panties out of a wad. He said DISCUSS ALONGSIDE EVOLUTION. There's a big difference in discussing along with and teaching one belief only.
The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.
The article you posted calls it a "theory". Do a search and see how many sites you can find that call it a theory. Seems to me that a lot of people consider both of them to be "theories". So which one is correct?
A theory has to have observable and repeatable facts to support it. Intelligent Design/Creationism is a pseudoscience. A pseudoscience is an idea which masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms.
Whatever. I'm simply stating that they are both called theories. And why can't it be both? Why couldn't man and evolution both be created by God? There are scientists who support intelligent design.
Too many people are making too big a deal out of this. What really matters more than where we came from, is where are we going. I don't care so much about how it all got started, and unless the mentality of kids has changed over the years, neither do they, unless they are going to make science their field of choice. It's hard enough to teach them to read and write these days. They're not paying that much attention to it. It's the adults that are all in a frenzy about it. I was taught evolution in school and when we finished that part of science, it was honestly the last time I ever thought about it.
They are both called theories wrongly. This is another way they (right-wing extremists) are trying to get their crackpot ideas heard. By changing the language, they've suddenly got "credibility". I've actually heard people say "well, evolution is just a theory!" like it's just a guess. Has anyone ever had a goddamned science class? That's just it. The general public are not science majors and do not have jobs that require us to have a broad knowledge of science, so we use the word theory in general terms, ie, a guess, instead of in the scientific definition of the word.
|
Danokan
Member
|
I have proposed this on numerous occasions.. and will do so one more time.
One can easily teach 'ID' without teaching it.
All you have to do is teach all of the impossibilities and absurd notions concerning "atheistic evolution" and you have already done the job.
|
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
If a teacher were to come into a classroom and teach strict creationism, that would clearly be wrong. But it is critical that our children have a well rounded education. To teach about evolution without teaching intelligent design is doing a disservice to our children.
In a country founded on judeo / Christian principals, where 50% of the citizens attend an organized religious event every week, it is ireesponsible to not at least discuss both sides of the issue. Or more importantly to teach the stance that most Americans embrace - - that of course evolution is based in scientific evidence, but may scientist also believe that there was a higher power involved in creating the system.
The liberal agenda of excluding any idea that involves God is immature and ultimately irresponsible.
Last edited on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 06:05 pm by |
thwlruss
Member
|
so we finally agree that we came about through evoultion- it took yall long enough.
so the new question is weather the mutations were random or guided, is that correct?
i think these are fair discussions to have in school- just dont go talkin about adam, eve, and some crazy garden.
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Tarheel wrote: If a teacher were to come into a classroom and teach strict creationism, that would clearly be wrong. But it is critical that our children have a well rounded education. To teach about evolution without teaching intelligent design is doing a disservice to our children. <-Wrong, and not explained
In a country founded on judeo / Christian principals <-Wrong, I've explained this many times, where 50% of the citizens attend an organized religious event every week, it is ireesponsible to not at least discuss both sides of the issue <-By this logic history teachers should explain that the Holocaust was a good thing, because it is the other side of the issue. Or more importantly to teach the stance that most Americans embrace - - that of course evolution is based in scientific evidence, but may scientist also believe that there was a higher power involved in creating the system. <-Many believe that creationism was involved, none advocate teaching it.
The liberal agenda of excluding any idea that involves God is immature and ultimately irresponsible. <-Wrong, your logic is incorrect. By saying that we should teach ID because the majority of Americans believe it, you are implying that we should teach christian ID. After all, that is what most Americans believe.
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Danokan wrote: I have proposed this on numerous occasions.. and will do so one more time.
One can easily teach 'ID' without teaching it.
All you have to do is teach all of the impossibilities and absurd notions concerning "atheistic evolution" and you have already done the job.
OK, I'm intrigued, let's hear some of them.
|
Danokan
Member
|
Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: I have proposed this on numerous occasions.. and will do so one more time.
One can easily teach 'ID' without teaching it.
All you have to do is teach all of the impossibilities and absurd notions concerning "atheistic evolution" and you have already done the job.
OK, I'm intrigued, let's hear some of them.
Ok.
The creation of the universe and abiogenesis isn't in the "realm" of "evolution" but that is where I would start.
But moving on from there:
Random isn't really random?
Recapitulation theory.
Symbiotic relationships.
|
Aussiedawgs
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8872 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
hunter wrote:
President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.
Get your panties out of a wad. He said DISCUSS ALONGSIDE EVOLUTION. There's a big difference in discussing along with and teaching one belief only.
The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.
The article you posted calls it a "theory". Do a search and see how many sites you can find that call it a theory. Seems to me that a lot of people consider both of them to be "theories". So which one is correct?
Why stop at ID then...I think EVERY theory that is as equally valid as ID should be discussed, including the possibility that aliens planted us on earth as an agricultural project.
|
cactusJack
Member
|
Aussiedawgs wrote:
hunter wrote:
President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.
Get your panties out of a wad. He said DISCUSS ALONGSIDE EVOLUTION. There's a big difference in discussing along with and teaching one belief only.
The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.
The article you posted calls it a "theory". Do a search and see how many sites you can find that call it a theory. Seems to me that a lot of people consider both of them to be "theories". So which one is correct?
Why stop at ID then...I think EVERY theory that is as equally valid as ID should be discussed, including the possibility that aliens planted us on earth as an agricultural project.
My "theory" of the giant floating farting clown is the best. Imagine the wonderful graphics to dazzle the kiddies with. In efforts to indoctrinate them, we could let actual farting clowns come to their schools. Kids love clowns. Maybe Ronald McDonald is looking for a side gig.
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Danokan wrote: Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: I have proposed this on numerous occasions.. and will do so one more time.
One can easily teach 'ID' without teaching it.
All you have to do is teach all of the impossibilities and absurd notions concerning "atheistic evolution" and you have already done the job.
OK, I'm intrigued, let's hear some of them.
Ok.
The creation of the universe and abiogenesis isn't in the "realm" of "evolution" but that is where I would start.
But moving on from there:
Random isn't really random? Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean here.
Recapitulation theory. Haeckel's hypothesis, which was roundly discredited by biologists. How is this a glaring hole in evolution?
Symbiotic relationships. ...which make perfect sense evolutionarily.
|
Aussiedawgs
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8872 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Threepac wrote:
Danokan wrote: Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: I have proposed this on numerous occasions.. and will do so one more time.
One can easily teach 'ID' without teaching it.
All you have to do is teach all of the impossibilities and absurd notions concerning "atheistic evolution" and you have already done the job.
OK, I'm intrigued, let's hear some of them.
Ok.
The creation of the universe and abiogenesis isn't in the "realm" of "evolution" but that is where I would start.
But moving on from there:
Random isn't really random? Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean here.
Recapitulation theory. Haeckel's hypothesis, which was roundly discredited by biologists. How is this a glaring hole in evolution?
Symbiotic relationships. ...which make perfect sense evolutionarily.
Remember to give Dano enough time to cut'n'paste from his pro-creationism/anti-evolution websites... 
|
thwlruss
Member
|
Aussiedawgs wrote: Threepac wrote:
Danokan wrote: Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: I have proposed this on numerous occasions.. and will do so one more time.
One can easily teach 'ID' without teaching it.
All you have to do is teach all of the impossibilities and absurd notions concerning "atheistic evolution" and you have already done the job.
OK, I'm intrigued, let's hear some of them.
Ok.
The creation of the universe and abiogenesis isn't in the "realm" of "evolution" but that is where I would start.
But moving on from there:
Random isn't really random? Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean here.
Recapitulation theory. Haeckel's hypothesis, which was roundly discredited by biologists. How is this a glaring hole in evolution?
Symbiotic relationships. ...which make perfect sense evolutionarily.
Remember to give Dano enough time to cut'n'paste from his pro-creationism/anti-evolution websites... get your boots, its starting to get pretty thick around here
|
merrill
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 30th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 17603 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
On intelligent design Bush cannot talk about it because there is nothing of substance to discuss and someone decided he should say it so he did. He seldom takes questions from journalists because he cannot answer...he's too stupid on many fronts.
|
Danokan
Member
|
Aussiedawgs wrote: Threepac wrote:
Danokan wrote: Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: I have proposed this on numerous occasions.. and will do so one more time.
One can easily teach 'ID' without teaching it.
All you have to do is teach all of the impossibilities and absurd notions concerning "atheistic evolution" and you have already done the job.
OK, I'm intrigued, let's hear some of them.
Ok.
The creation of the universe and abiogenesis isn't in the "realm" of "evolution" but that is where I would start.
But moving on from there:
Random isn't really random? Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean here.
Recapitulation theory. Haeckel's hypothesis, which was roundly discredited by biologists. How is this a glaring hole in evolution?
Symbiotic relationships. ...which make perfect sense evolutionarily.
Remember to give Dano enough time to cut'n'paste from his pro-creationism/anti-evolution websites...
You mean go to KFC and get lunch!
|
Danokan
Member
|
Threepac wrote: Ok.
The creation of the universe and abiogenesis isn't in the "realm" of "evolution" but that is where I would start.
But moving on from there:
Random isn't really random? Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean here.
Is natural selection random or not?
Recapitulation theory. Haeckel's hypothesis, which was roundly discredited by biologists. How is this a glaring hole in evolution?
Is it still taught?
Symbiotic relationships. ...which make perfect sense evolutionarily.
Not if you apply logic and common sense.
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Ewwwww KFC.
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Danokan wrote: Threepac wrote: Ok.
The creation of the universe and abiogenesis isn't in the "realm" of "evolution" but that is where I would start.
But moving on from there:
Random isn't really random? Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean here.
Is natural selection random or not? <-In what sense? In the sense that the universe is random at the quantum mechanical level? I suppose so. In the sense that genetic mutation is effectively random? Yes. In the sense that there is no higher purpose? I believe so. What do you mean by your question?
Recapitulation theory. Haeckel's hypothesis, which was roundly discredited by biologists. How is this a glaring hole in evolution?
Is it still taught? <-No
Symbiotic relationships. ...which make perfect sense evolutionarily.
Not if you apply logic and common sense. <-Good refutation
|
Danokan
Member
|
Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: Threepac wrote: Ok.
The creation of the universe and abiogenesis isn't in the "realm" of "evolution" but that is where I would start.
But moving on from there:
Random isn't really random? Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean here.
Is natural selection random or not? <-In what sense? In the sense that the universe is random at the quantum mechanical level? I suppose so. In the sense that genetic mutation is effectively random? Yes. In the sense that there is no higher purpose? I believe so. What do you mean by your question?
I can't word it any differently 3pac. Random is "without design" UNLESS the "designer" includes randomness. In my many conversations with "evolutionists" when the topic of "random" comes into play, they began to use terminology that hints that NATURE isn't random.
Recapitulation theory. Haeckel's hypothesis, which was roundly discredited by biologists. How is this a glaring hole in evolution?
Is it still taught? <-No
Hehehe.. better look some more because it is.
Symbiotic relationships. ...which make perfect sense evolutionarily.
Not if you apply logic and common sense. <-Good refutation
Thank you.
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Oh I see what you mean, you're trying to say that because there is a natural order, it couldn't be random. Am I right?
Well quite simply, natural selection is not random, as it is governed by a very simple law. Survival of the fittest.
Incidentally, where exactly is recapitulation theory taught? I never learned about it till college, and then only as part of a lesson on the history of evolution. It was taught as an incorrect hypothesis.
Finally, I want an actual argument as to why symbiotic relationships are a failing in the thoery of evolution.
|
Danokan
Member
|
Threepac wrote: Oh I see what you mean, you're trying to say that because there is a natural order, it couldn't be random. Am I right?
Well quite simply, natural selection is not random, as it is governed by a very simple law. Survival of the fittest.
Incidentally, where exactly is recapitulation theory taught? I never learned about it till college, and then only as part of a lesson on the history of evolution. It was taught as an incorrect hypothesis.
Finally, I want an actual argument as to why symbiotic relationships are a failing in the thoery of evolution.
Would it be alright if we go ONE subject at a time?
If so.. you choose which one.
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Let's start with where the recapitulation hypothesis is taught, as that should be simple enough to disprove/prove.
Then we can hit symbiosis.
And finally we'll look at natural randomness. Acceptable?
|
Danokan
Member
|
Threepac wrote: Let's start with where the recapitulation hypothesis is taught, as that should be simple enough to disprove/prove.
Then we can hit symbiosis.
And finally we'll look at natural randomness. Acceptable?
Works for me. Let me research for a minute.. I thought I read where this was still being taught in public schools through textbooks.
|
Danokan
Member
|
This isn't 100% up to date..however.
Here are a list of textbooks that are still being used in schools today that teach Haeckel's drawings as facts:
1.Alton Biggs, Chris Kapicka & Linda Lundgren, Biology: The Dynamics of Life (Westerville, OH: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, 1998). ISBN 0-02-825431-7
2. Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reece & Lawrence G. Mitchell, Biology, Fifth Edition (Menlo Park, CA: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, 1999). ISBN 0-8053-6573-7
3. Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, Third Edition (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1998). ISBN 0-87893-189-9
Burton S. Guttman, Biology, (Boston: WCB/McGraw-Hill, 1999). ISBN 0-697-22366-3
4. George B. Johnson, Biology: Visualizing Life, Annotated Teacher's Edition (Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1998). ISBN 0-03-016724-8
5. Sylvia Mader, Biology, Sixth Edition (Boston: WCB/McGraw-Hill, 1998). ISBN 0-697-34080- 5
6. Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology, Fifth Edition (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2000). ISBN 0-13-436265-9
Peter H. Raven & George B. Johnson, Biology, Fifth Edition (Boston: WCB/McGraw-Hill, 1999). ISBN 0-697-35353-2
7. William D. Schraer & Herbert J. Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life , Seventh Edition (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999). ISBN 0-13-435086-3
8. Cecie Starr & Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, Eighth Edition (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1998). ISBN 0-534-53001-X.
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Haeckel's drawings were very accurate. His explanation of their meanings was where he made his mistake. Is there any way for you to check which one those books refer to?
|
Danokan
Member
|
also
http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_tbookreport900.htm#he
a quotation:
Haeckel's Embryos
Darwin believed that all animals with backbones (including humans) evolved from fish-like ancestors, and he thought the best evidence for this was that the early embryos of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals are similar to fish embryos. Many biology textbooks carry drawings (originally by Ernst Haeckel) to illustrate this, and claim that human embryos possess "gill slits." But embryologists have known for over a century that such drawings are false, and that early embryos of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals do NOT resemble fish. Human embryos pass through a stage when they have wrinkles in their necks, but they never have "gill slits."
|
LibraLabSoldier
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Apache, Oklahoma USA |
| Posts: | 2905 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
hunter wrote:
President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.
Get your panties out of a wad. He said DISCUSS ALONGSIDE EVOLUTION. There's a big difference in discussing along with and teaching one belief only.
The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.
The article you posted calls it a "theory". Do a search and see how many sites you can find that call it a theory. Seems to me that a lot of people consider both of them to be "theories". So which one is correct?
It does not deserve to be taught along side evolution. It is a myth, and a back door attempt to sneak Christianity into the public school system.
|
Danokan
Member
|
Threepac wrote: Haeckel's drawings were very accurate. His explanation of their meanings was where he made his mistake. Is there any way for you to check which one those books refer to?
http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_tbookreport900.htm#he
That gives "grades" according to what they teach.
Haeckel's drawings were graded.
I don't know if those were the same text books.. but as you can see.. it is still quite the problem.
|
LibraLabSoldier
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Apache, Oklahoma USA |
| Posts: | 2905 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
I simply refuse to support any theory that does not consider the possibility of flying invisible purple space monkeys.
ID in science class?
How about crystal healing in geology?
teach astrology in astronomy?
alchemy in chemistry??
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Danokan wrote: Threepac wrote: Haeckel's drawings were very accurate. His explanation of their meanings was where he made his mistake. Is there any way for you to check which one those books refer to?
http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_tbookreport900.htm#he
That gives "grades" according to what they teach.
Haeckel's drawings were graded.
I don't know if those were the same text books.. but as you can see.. it is still quite the problem.
These grades are incorrect on a couple of counts.
First of all, Darwin wrote about finches during his second trip to the Galapagos.
Secondly, the Miller-Urey experiment is still considered hte definitive work on abiogenesis. The argument given in the ARN document regarding primordial composition is under heavy attack, although I would not yet say completely refuted.
Third, the comment here regarding peppered moths is a classic creationist argument that was thoroughly debunked, and by this point I became extremely skeptical as to the validity of this article.
I'm pretty sure this was written by a staunch propagandist creationist, and I cannot give it merit.
Additionally, the archaeopteryx argument is wrong, it is considered a definitive link between dinosaurs and birds. Pharyngeal pouches ARE KNOWN AS GILL SLITS, and gill slits are NOT equivalent to gills. Darwin's tree of life is a simplified model of evolution, and is still accepted as a good start, and thus, the only argument this article has left is incorrect use of homology. I cannot verify this, but I would presume that the biology textbooks say that similar bone structures indicate homology, which indicates a common ancestor, and the author intentionally misinterpreted this. This article is bunk.
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Danokan, where are you?
|
Danokan
Member
|
Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: Threepac wrote: Haeckel's drawings were very accurate. His explanation of their meanings was where he made his mistake. Is there any way for you to check which one those books refer to?
http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_tbookreport900.htm#he
That gives "grades" according to what they teach.
Haeckel's drawings were graded.
I don't know if those were the same text books.. but as you can see.. it is still quite the problem.
These grades are incorrect on a couple of counts.
First of all, Darwin wrote about finches during his second trip to the Galapagos.
Secondly, the Miller-Urey experiment is still considered hte definitive work on abiogenesis. The argument given in the ARN document regarding primordial composition is under heavy attack, although I would not yet say completely refuted.
Third, the comment here regarding peppered moths is a classic creationist argument that was thoroughly debunked, and by this point I became extremely skeptical as to the validity of this article.
I'm pretty sure this was written by a staunch propagandist creationist, and I cannot give it merit.
Additionally, the archaeopteryx argument is wrong, it is considered a definitive link between dinosaurs and birds. Pharyngeal pouches ARE KNOWN AS GILL SLITS, and gill slits are NOT equivalent to gills. Darwin's tree of life is a simplified model of evolution, and is still accepted as a good start, and thus, the only argument this article has left is incorrect use of homology. I cannot verify this, but I would presume that the biology textbooks say that similar bone structures indicate homology, which indicates a common ancestor, and the author intentionally misinterpreted this. This article is bunk.
So are you saying the textbooks don't teach recapitulation?
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
I'm saying that I cannot tell you, but this article is not trustworthy.
|
Danokan
Member
|
Threepac wrote: I'm saying that I cannot tell you, but this article is not trustworthy.
Gimme a minute.
|
dmu111
Member
|
 Attachment: pic58.jpg (Downloaded 47 times)
|
dmu111
Member
|
 Attachment: pic81.jpg (Downloaded 138 times)
|
dmu111
Member
|
 Attachment: pic76.jpg (Downloaded 147 times)
|
dmu111
Member
|
 Attachment: pic75.jpg (Downloaded 150 times)
|
dmu111
Member
|
Attachment: pic79.jpg (Downloaded 120 times)
|
dmu111
Member
|
 Attachment: pic67.jpg (Downloaded 122 times)
|
dmu111
Member
|
 Attachment: pic69.jpg (Downloaded 121 times)
|
hunter
Member
|
Aussiedawgs wrote: hunter wrote:
President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.
Get your panties out of a wad. He said DISCUSS ALONGSIDE EVOLUTION. There's a big difference in discussing along with and teaching one belief only.
The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.
The article you posted calls it a "theory". Do a search and see how many sites you can find that call it a theory. Seems to me that a lot of people consider both of them to be "theories". So which one is correct?
Why stop at ID then...I think EVERY theory that is as equally valid as ID should be discussed, including the possibility that aliens planted us on earth as an agricultural project. Go ahead if you'd like. As I said, most of the kids will make up their own minds what they believe. And again, most of them don't care. Ask any kid you know how much attention he gives to evolution vs. creationism. Here's a hint, if it's part of school, most of them are just doing enough to make the grade.
|
dmu111
Member
|
![[blink]](/forums/themes/default/scared.gif) Attachment: pic65.jpg (Downloaded 116 times)
|
Danokan
Member
|
Threepac wrote: I'm saying that I cannot tell you, but this article is not trustworthy.
Ok.. now I want you to read this and read it very closely.
This is a letter that was written by a pro-evolutionist that is fighting for evolution to be taught in Texas.
http://www.texscience.org/files/icons-revealed/
Now we come to the crux of the matter. The DI creationists want all illustrations of evolution removed from textbooks, so they try to cast doubt on an important one and misleadingly say it is fraudulent and thus should be removed. But that's nonsense. I agree that the very earliest stages of vertebrate embryos are dissimilar, but that's only because they have different-sized eggs, an irrelevant factor. What is vitally important, however, is that students observe and understand the structural similarities of all vertebrate embryos--the pharyngeal pouches and grooves, the notochord, the dorsal nerve cord, the ventral blood vessel, etc.--that demonstrate their close evolutionary relationships. The presence of a notochord and pharyngeal grooves in the human embryo forcefully demonstrates our close ancestry to other vertebrates. This important information is precisely what the creationists duplicitously want the Texas SBOE to remove--because it is such a powerful illustration of evolution. The creationists don't really want information added; they want to make the vertebrate embryo illustration so controversial that the Board or--more likely--the publishers will remove it completely. In fact, one publisher (Holt, Rinehart, Winston) already has.
|
dmu111
Member
|
![[rock]](/forums/themes/default/music-smiley-010.gif) Attachment: pic23.jpg (Downloaded 134 times)
|
Danokan
Member
|
ok Dummy u
We get it.. now knock it off.
You are destroying the thread with nonsense.
|
dmu111
Member
|
 Attachment: pic35.jpg (Downloaded 126 times) Last edited on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 08:36 pm by dmu111 |
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Threepac wrote: Tarheel wrote: If a teacher were to come into a classroom and teach strict creationism, that would clearly be wrong. But it is critical that our children have a well rounded education. To teach about evolution without teaching intelligent design is doing a disservice to our children. <-Wrong, and not explained
In a country founded on judeo / Christian principals <-Wrong, I've explained this many times, where 50% of the citizens attend an organized religious event every week, it is ireesponsible to not at least discuss both sides of the issue <-By this logic history teachers should explain that the Holocaust was a good thing, because it is the other side of the issue. Or more importantly to teach the stance that most Americans embrace - - that of course evolution is based in scientific evidence, but may scientist also believe that there was a higher power involved in creating the system. <-Many believe that creationism was involved, none advocate teaching it.
The liberal agenda of excluding any idea that involves God is immature and ultimately irresponsible. <-Wrong, your logic is incorrect. By saying that we should teach ID because the majority of Americans believe it, you are implying that we should teach christian ID. After all, that is what most Americans believe.
Have you graduated from high school yet? If you are 14 or something I'm not going to waste anytime responding. If you are an educated adult, let me know, and I will rebutt.
|
dmu111
Member
|
![[grin]](/forums/themes/default/grinning-smiley-007.gif) Attachment: pic33.jpg (Downloaded 109 times)
|
swede
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Threepac wrote: We've gone over this so many times. When you produce evidence for ID, the schools will teach it. There can be no further argument. Nonsense. When THAT happens you will then cry that teaching ID violates principles of seperation of church and state.
|
AnD
Member
|
cactusJack wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/08/01/national/w200833D87.DTL
I love it when people have no idea what the definition of a "theory" is.
A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Thus, intelligent design can never be a theory. the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection has observable and repeatable facts to support it such as the process of mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, adaptation and speciation through natural selection, the "Intelligent Designer" in intelligent design is neither observable nor repeatable. This violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability. Calling it a theory is wrong and shows just how ignorant and misguided the right-wing extremists are on this.
Indeed, Creationisim is one crazy HYPOTHESIS. I'm not against the idea of the philosophcal thought that God created the universe, and that evolution was how he did it. However, when you are taching science you are teaching proven hypothosis, which then becomes a theory, not a field that is based on a hypothosis that has no backing to even become a theory.
|
AnD
Member
|
Oh my God, its like 1925 all over again
(Scopes Trial)
|
Danokan
Member
|
AnD wrote: Oh my God, its like 1925 all over again
(Scopes Trial)
ROFL
Not even close.
|
dmu111
Member
|
Bush likes Creationism because there were too many big words in the "Origin of the Species" Attachment: pic56.jpg (Downloaded 88 times) Last edited on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 08:45 pm by dmu111 |
Danokan
Member
|
DMU
If you have something intelligent to add to this discourse then do so.
BUT KNOCK THE CRAP OF BUSH/CHIMP PICTURES OFF.
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Tarheel wrote: Threepac wrote: Tarheel wrote: If a teacher were to come into a classroom and teach strict creationism, that would clearly be wrong. But it is critical that our children have a well rounded education. To teach about evolution without teaching intelligent design is doing a disservice to our children. <-Wrong, and not explained
In a country founded on judeo / Christian principals <-Wrong, I've explained this many times, where 50% of the citizens attend an organized religious event every week, it is ireesponsible to not at least discuss both sides of the issue <-By this logic history teachers should explain that the Holocaust was a good thing, because it is the other side of the issue. Or more importantly to teach the stance that most Americans embrace - - that of course evolution is based in scientific evidence, but may scientist also believe that there was a higher power involved in creating the system. <-Many believe that creationism was involved, none advocate teaching it.
The liberal agenda of excluding any idea that involves God is immature and ultimately irresponsible. <-Wrong, your logic is incorrect. By saying that we should teach ID because the majority of Americans believe it, you are implying that we should teach christian ID. After all, that is what most Americans believe.
Have you graduated from high school yet? If you are 14 or something I'm not going to waste anytime responding. If you are an educated adult, let me know, and I will rebutt.
I graduated from high school at 16. I have a 4.0 in my dual degree program (Computer Engineering and Mathematics) at Johns Hopkins University. If you are interested in a thorough spanking feel free to rebut.
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
swede wrote: Threepac wrote: We've gone over this so many times. When you produce evidence for ID, the schools will teach it. There can be no further argument. Nonsense. When THAT happens you will then cry that teaching ID violates principles of seperation of church and state. No, I won't. If you can produce proof that it happened, I would be glad to accept and teach it.
|
dmu111
Member
|
Danokan wrote:
DMU
If you have something intelligent to add to this discourse then do so.
BUT KNOCK THE CRAP OF BUSH/CHIMP PICTURES OFF.
Attachment: bush_pope.jpg (Downloaded 77 times)
|
Virtuoso80
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 6th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1048 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
AnD wrote:
Oh my God, its like 1925 all over again
(Scopes Trial)
Indeed, and that's what's so sad aboout it. This is an argument long past, and we firgured this one out 80 years ago. I've said it before...we're going backwards when we should be going forwards.
There is no scientific validity to creationism, and it should not be taught in our schools. Argument over and done...been over a done for a long time. Please stop subjecting my coutry to your extreme-right, Al-Queda-like religious fundmentalism.
|
dmu111
Member
|
Is that better? Attachment: bush_crayons.jpg (Downloaded 87 times)
|
AnD
Member
|
Danokan wrote:
AnD wrote: Oh my God, its like 1925 all over again
(Scopes Trial)
ROFL
Not even close.
Lol, the next time someoneposts a picture with a guy and a monkey with a big subtitle asking "is he my uncle?" I'll rest my case. Besides dmu has us well under way  .
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Danokan wrote: Threepac wrote: I'm saying that I cannot tell you, but this article is not trustworthy.
Ok.. now I want you to read this and read it very closely.
This is a letter that was written by a pro-evolutionist that is fighting for evolution to be taught in Texas.
http://www.texscience.org/files/icons-revealed/
Now we come to the crux of the matter. The DI creationists want all illustrations of evolution removed from textbooks, so they try to cast doubt on an important one and misleadingly say it is fraudulent and thus should be removed. But that's nonsense. I agree that the very earliest stages of vertebrate embryos are dissimilar, but that's only because they have different-sized eggs, an irrelevant factor. What is vitally important, however, is that students observe and understand the structural similarities of all vertebrate embryos--the pharyngeal pouches and grooves, the notochord, the dorsal nerve cord, the ventral blood vessel, etc.--that demonstrate their close evolutionary relationships. The presence of a notochord and pharyngeal grooves in the human embryo forcefully demonstrates our close ancestry to other vertebrates. This important information is precisely what the creationists duplicitously want the Texas SBOE to remove--because it is such a powerful illustration of evolution. The creationists don't really want information added; they want to make the vertebrate embryo illustration so controversial that the Board or--more likely--the publishers will remove it completely. In fact, one publisher (Holt, Rinehart, Winston) already has.
Danokan this article is a hearty rebuttal of the discovery paper you cited earlier. Are you retracting your earlier contention? If so are we moving on to the next topic?
|
dmu111
Member
|
last one, I promise. Attachment: bush_art.jpg (Downloaded 135 times)
|
Danokan
Member
|
Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: Threepac wrote: I'm saying that I cannot tell you, but this article is not trustworthy.
Ok.. now I want you to read this and read it very closely.
This is a letter that was written by a pro-evolutionist that is fighting for evolution to be taught in Texas.
http://www.texscience.org/files/icons-revealed/
Now we come to the crux of the matter. The DI creationists want all illustrations of evolution removed from textbooks, so they try to cast doubt on an important one and misleadingly say it is fraudulent and thus should be removed. But that's nonsense. I agree that the very earliest stages of vertebrate embryos are dissimilar, but that's only because they have different-sized eggs, an irrelevant factor. What is vitally important, however, is that students observe and understand the structural similarities of all vertebrate embryos--the pharyngeal pouches and grooves, the notochord, the dorsal nerve cord, the ventral blood vessel, etc.--that demonstrate their close evolutionary relationships. The presence of a notochord and pharyngeal grooves in the human embryo forcefully demonstrates our close ancestry to other vertebrates. This important information is precisely what the creationists duplicitously want the Texas SBOE to remove--because it is such a powerful illustration of evolution. The creationists don't really want information added; they want to make the vertebrate embryo illustration so controversial that the Board or--more likely--the publishers will remove it completely. In fact, one publisher (Holt, Rinehart, Winston) already has.
Danokan this article is a hearty rebuttal of the discovery paper you cited earlier. Are you retracting your earlier contention? If so are we moving on to the next topic?
Really? I read it entirely in my favor.
#1. He clearly states the recapitulation theory IS A POWERFUL ILLUSTRATION OF EVOLUTION.
#2. He states that ONLY ONE publisher has removed this illustration.
|
swede
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Threepac wrote: swede wrote: Threepac wrote: We've gone over this so many times. When you produce evidence for ID, the schools will teach it. There can be no further argument. Nonsense. When THAT happens you will then cry that teaching ID violates principles of seperation of church and state. No, I won't. If you can produce proof that it happened, I would be glad to accept and teach it.
The proof that it happened, and is happening, is with us even now. ID is every bit as "real" as evolution. To argue that either is "real" and "proveable" is equally inaccurate, in that the scientific method's definition of "real" does not comport with the commonly accepted reality of things. (hehehe.......Doncha just love English?)
See, Until the Sun Dies by Robert Jastrow with respect to the Big Bang.
See, also, The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel with respect to Intelligent Design.
I take you at your word, Threepac. But I daresay the evolutionists would make the seperation argument. They clearly do not want their belief system to be challenged by ANY contrary reality.
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
swede wrote: Threepac wrote: swede wrote: Threepac wrote: We've gone over this so many times. When you produce evidence for ID, the schools will teach it. There can be no further argument. Nonsense. When THAT happens you will then cry that teaching ID violates principles of seperation of church and state. No, I won't. If you can produce proof that it happened, I would be glad to accept and teach it.
The proof that it happened, and is happening, is with us even now. ID is every bit as "real" as evolution. To argue that either is "real" and "proveable" is equally inaccurate, in that the scientific method's definition of "real" does not comport with the commonly accepted reality of things. (hehehe.......Doncha just love English?)
See, Until the Sun Dies by Robert Jastrow with respect to the Big Bang.
See, also, The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel with respect to Intelligent Design.
I take you at your word, Threepac. But I daresay the evolutionists would make the seperation argument. They clearly do not want their belief system to be challenged by ANY contrary reality.
The so-called evolutionists include over 98% of all scientists. By its very nature, science is amorphous, and thus I would submit that it unlikely that the group as a whole would cling to an incorrect theory for very long.
|
Aussiedawgs
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8872 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
swede wrote:
Threepac wrote: swede wrote: Threepac wrote: We've gone over this so many times. When you produce evidence for ID, the schools will teach it. There can be no further argument. Nonsense. When THAT happens you will then cry that teaching ID violates principles of seperation of church and state. No, I won't. If you can produce proof that it happened, I would be glad to accept and teach it.
The proof that it happened, and is happening, is with us even now. ID is every bit as "real" as evolution. To argue that either is "real" and "proveable" is equally inaccurate, in that the scientific method's definition of "real" does not comport with the commonly accepted reality of things. (hehehe.......Doncha just love English?)
See, Until the Sun Dies by Robert Jastrow with respect to the Big Bang.
See, also, The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel with respect to Intelligent Design.
I take you at your word, Threepac. But I daresay the evolutionists would make the seperation argument. They clearly do not want their belief system to be challenged by ANY contrary reality.
You aren't offering any proof in your argument...
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Danokan wrote: Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: Threepac wrote: I'm saying that I cannot tell you, but this article is not trustworthy.
Ok.. now I want you to read this and read it very closely.
This is a letter that was written by a pro-evolutionist that is fighting for evolution to be taught in Texas.
http://www.texscience.org/files/icons-revealed/
Now we come to the crux of the matter. The DI creationists want all illustrations of evolution removed from textbooks, so they try to cast doubt on an important one and misleadingly say it is fraudulent and thus should be removed. But that's nonsense. I agree that the very earliest stages of vertebrate embryos are dissimilar, but that's only because they have different-sized eggs, an irrelevant factor. What is vitally important, however, is that students observe and understand the structural similarities of all vertebrate embryos--the pharyngeal pouches and grooves, the notochord, the dorsal nerve cord, the ventral blood vessel, etc.--that demonstrate their close evolutionary relationships. The presence of a notochord and pharyngeal grooves in the human embryo forcefully demonstrates our close ancestry to other vertebrates. This important information is precisely what the creationists duplicitously want the Texas SBOE to remove--because it is such a powerful illustration of evolution. The creationists don't really want information added; they want to make the vertebrate embryo illustration so controversial that the Board or--more likely--the publishers will remove it completely. In fact, one publisher (Holt, Rinehart, Winston) already has.
Danokan this article is a hearty rebuttal of the discovery paper you cited earlier. Are you retracting your earlier contention? If so are we moving on to the next topic?
Really? I read it entirely in my favor.
#1. He clearly states the recapitulation theory IS A POWERFUL ILLUSTRATION OF EVOLUTION.
#2. He states that ONLY ONE publisher has removed this illustration.
Please read it again Danokan. He says very clearly that Haeckel was wrong, but his illustration was fantastic, which was exactly what I said earlier in the thread.
|
swede
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Threepac wrote: swede wrote: Threepac wrote: swede wrote: Threepac wrote: We've gone over this so many times. When you produce evidence for ID, the schools will teach it. There can be no further argument. Nonsense. When THAT happens you will then cry that teaching ID violates principles of seperation of church and state. No, I won't. If you can produce proof that it happened, I would be glad to accept and teach it.
The proof that it happened, and is happening, is with us even now. ID is every bit as "real" as evolution. To argue that either is "real" and "proveable" is equally inaccurate, in that the scientific method's definition of "real" does not comport with the commonly accepted reality of things. (hehehe.......Doncha just love English?)
See, Until the Sun Dies by Robert Jastrow with respect to the Big Bang.
See, also, The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel with respect to Intelligent Design.
I take you at your word, Threepac. But I daresay the evolutionists would make the seperation argument. They clearly do not want their belief system to be challenged by ANY contrary reality.
The so-called evolutionists include over 98% of all scientists. By its very nature, science is amorphous, and thus I would submit that it unlikely that the group as a whole would cling to an incorrect theory for very long.
I think you are correct, Threepac. My readings suggest more and more scientists are coming to believe that evolution is unsustainable given the advances of the past 50 years or so. Of course, it is a professional death knell if they dare articulate the doubt.
|
matt30
Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | California |
| Posts: | 1300 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
How are creation theory and the age of our solar system (modern astronomy) reconciled?
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
I don't think that is true, but 45% of all biologists believe that life was started by some creator. However 99% of them believe in evolution.
|
swede
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Virtuoso80 wrote: AnD wrote:
Oh my God, its like 1925 all over again
(Scopes Trial)
Indeed, and that's what's so sad aboout it. This is an argument long past, and we firgured this one out 80 years ago. I've said it before...we're going backwards when we should be going forwards.
There is no scientific validity to creationism, and it should not be taught in our schools. Argument over and done...been over a done for a long time. Please stop subjecting my coutry to your extreme-right, Al-Queda-like religious fundmentalism. The beauty of the closed mind........(sarcasm)
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
matt30 wrote: How are creation theory and the age of our solar system (modern astronomy) reconciled? They aren't. The dogmatic types simply close their eyes and yell "HEATHENS!" whenever someone brings it up. Then they point to discredit crackpots talking about young-earth theories. These are the kinds of people who don't believe in dinosaurs. Oh brother! ![[eyeroll]](/forums/themes/default/sarcasm.gif)
|
EHJ
Member
| Joined: | Thu May 5th, 2005 |
| Location: | Playoff Bound |
| Posts: | 14130 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
matt30 wrote: How are creation theory and the age of our solar system (modern astronomy) reconciled?
"day" as written by authors of the old testament referred to three amounts of time: One 24 hour period, 1000 years, or an extremely long time.
the 6 day, one for rest, creation theory can be explained as simply God referring to each day as " an extremely long time " which fits the theory of evolution to a tee.......
|
Aussiedawgs
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8872 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
swede wrote:
Virtuoso80 wrote: AnD wrote:
Oh my God, its like 1925 all over again
(Scopes Trial)
Indeed, and that's what's so sad aboout it. This is an argument long past, and we firgured this one out 80 years ago. I've said it before...we're going backwards when we should be going forwards.
There is no scientific validity to creationism, and it should not be taught in our schools. Argument over and done...been over a done for a long time. Please stop subjecting my coutry to your extreme-right, Al-Queda-like religious fundmentalism. The beauty of the closed mind........(sarcasm)
What scientific evidence do you have that supports ID? All I've ever seen has been arguments to the effect that: because evolution doesn't have ALL the answers, it somehow validates ID. That isn't scientific.
|
Aussiedawgs
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8872 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Threepac wrote:
matt30 wrote: How are creation theory and the age of our solar system (modern astronomy) reconciled? They aren't. The dogmatic types simply close their eyes and yell "HEATHENS!" whenever someone brings it up. Then they point to discredit crackpots talking about young-earth theories. These are the kinds of people who don't believe in dinosaurs. Oh brother!
So...how do they explain all those giant bones?
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Aussiedawgs wrote: Threepac wrote:
matt30 wrote: How are creation theory and the age of our solar system (modern astronomy) reconciled? They aren't. The dogmatic types simply close their eyes and yell "HEATHENS!" whenever someone brings it up. Then they point to discredit crackpots talking about young-earth theories. These are the kinds of people who don't believe in dinosaurs. Oh brother! So...how do they explain all those giant bones?
Hoaxes perpetrated by heathen scientists. Alternatively, they will suggest that dinosaurs existed alongside humans, even though all evidence points to the contrary. Oh brother!
|
matt30
Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | California |
| Posts: | 1300 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
swede wrote: Threepac wrote: swede wrote: Threepac wrote: swede wrote: Threepac wrote: We've gone over this so many times. When you produce evidence for ID, the schools will teach it. There can be no further argument. Nonsense. When THAT happens you will then cry that teaching ID violates principles of seperation of church and state. No, I won't. If you can produce proof that it happened, I would be glad to accept and teach it.
The proof that it happened, and is happening, is with us even now. ID is every bit as "real" as evolution. To argue that either is "real" and "proveable" is equally inaccurate, in that the scientific method's definition of "real" does not comport with the commonly accepted reality of things. (hehehe.......Doncha just love English?)
See, Until the Sun Dies by Robert Jastrow with respect to the Big Bang.
See, also, The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel with respect to Intelligent Design.
I take you at your word, Threepac. But I daresay the evolutionists would make the seperation argument. They clearly do not want their belief system to be challenged by ANY contrary reality.
The so-called evolutionists include over 98% of all scientists. By its very nature, science is amorphous, and thus I would submit that it unlikely that the group as a whole would cling to an incorrect theory for very long.
I think you are correct, Threepac. My readings suggest more and more scientists are coming to believe that evolution is unsustainable given the advances of the past 50 years or so. Of course, it is a professional death knell if they dare articulate the doubt.
We have the fossil record, carbon dating, the changing of lifeforms and there gradual extinction, even DNA comparisons showing how slight mutations can create drastic changes in living things.
Darwin's "Origin of the species" is out-dated and to use it as a reference would be like trying to use Newtonian physics 30 years after Einsteins death. Current evolutionary theory is extremely precise.
|
cactusJack
Member
|
People don’t want intelligent design taught because it is a "viable scientific theory", they want it taught because it is tailored to fit their pre-existing religious beliefs. The introduction of intelligent design into the class room will be seen as a blow to the ‘evil secularists.’ It will be just another step in ‘taking back the culture.’
|
EHJ
Member
| Joined: | Thu May 5th, 2005 |
| Location: | Playoff Bound |
| Posts: | 14130 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
EHJ wrote: matt30 wrote: How are creation theory and the age of our solar system (modern astronomy) reconciled?
"day" as written by authors of the old testament referred to three amounts of time: One 24 hour period, 1000 years, or an extremely long time.
the 6 day, one for rest, creation theory can be explained as simply God referring to each day as " an extremely long time " which fits the theory of evolution to a tee.......
Evolution and creation are one.
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
^Certainly a serviceable theory. In fact, as I said, 45% of all biologists believe that. However that is a matter of faith, and until there is proof, it should not be taught.
|
Virtuoso80
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 6th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1048 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
swede wrote:
Virtuoso80 wrote: AnD wrote:
Oh my God, its like 1925 all over again
(Scopes Trial)
Indeed, and that's what's so sad aboout it. This is an argument long past, and we firgured this one out 80 years ago. I've said it before...we're going backwards when we should be going forwards.
There is no scientific validity to creationism, and it should not be taught in our schools. Argument over and done...been over a done for a long time. Please stop subjecting my coutry to your extreme-right, Al-Queda-like religious fundmentalism. The beauty of the closed mind........(sarcasm)
This is suggesting that I have a closed mind? Not at all. It's simply that I like to use my inteligence and ability to reason to come to conclusions about how the world works.
I'm sorry, but this is NOT an equal-handed argument. One side has FACTS behind it, and the other does not. It's like trying to tell people that 2+2 = 4 and them saying "well, WE believe that 2+2 = 5! Shouldn't all alternatives of thinking be taught in our schools? You can't PROVE that God DIDN'T have a hand in inventing math, so how do you know? And hey, we did find some 'scientist' somewhere that agrees with us, so that makes our point equally valid! So why shouldn't we teach bull$#it, I'm sorry, I mean 'mathematical alternativism' to our children in addition to things that actually make sense?"
...so I guess that's my 'opinion' on the matter.Last edited on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 09:30 pm by Virtuoso80 |
EHJ
Member
| Joined: | Thu May 5th, 2005 |
| Location: | Playoff Bound |
| Posts: | 14130 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Most of the creation days in the Old testament, God ended them by saying " and it was good" however one of the days, he did not. Scholars are now saying that perhaps that was the "day" that the Dinosaurs were destroyed, eliminated, whacked, by a meteor or something.......what have you.....
Something I read and I forgot what day it was in the article and never checked to see if it fit with when "men" were created and when animals were and what not.
anyway......
Last edited on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 09:32 pm by EHJ |
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
If the creationists were smart enough to define an algebra, they could certainly argue that 2+2=5.
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
EHJ wrote: Most of the creation days in the Old testament, God ended them by saying " and it was good" however one of the days, he did not. Scholars are now saying that perhaps that was the "day" that the Dinosaurs were destroyed, eliminated, whacked, by a meteor or something.......what have you.....
Something I read and I forgot what day it was in the article and never checked to see if it fit with when "men" were created and when animals were and what not.
anyway......
That is a good way to interpret the bible. Dogma is not.
|
matt30
Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | California |
| Posts: | 1300 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Virtuoso80 wrote: swede wrote:
Virtuoso80 wrote: AnD wrote:
Oh my God, its like 1925 all over again
(Scopes Trial)
Indeed, and that's what's so sad aboout it. This is an argument long past, and we firgured this one out 80 years ago. I've said it before...we're going backwards when we should be going forwards.
There is no scientific validity to creationism, and it should not be taught in our schools. Argument over and done...been over a done for a long time. Please stop subjecting my coutry to your extreme-right, Al-Queda-like religious fundmentalism. The beauty of the closed mind........(sarcasm)
This is suggesting that I have a closed mind? Not at all. It's simply that I like to use my inteligence and ability to reason to come to conclusions about how the world works.
I'm sorry, but this is NOT an equal-handed argument. One side has FACTS behind it, and the other does not. It's like trying to tell people that 2+2 = 4 and them saying "well, WE believe that 2+2 = 5! Shouldn't all alternatives of thinking be taught in our schools? You can't PROVE that God DIDN'T have a hand in inventing math, so how do you know? And hey, we did find some 'scientist' somewhere that agrees with us, so that makes our point equally valid! So why shouldn't we teach bull$#it, I'm sorry, I mean 'mathematical alternativism' to our children in addition to things that actually make sense?"
...so I guess that's my 'opinion' on the matter.
I thing it would be more like saying -2^1/2= 3 ( The square root of negative two equals three).
Nobody knows what the root of a negative number is.
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
It's i.
|
matt30
Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | California |
| Posts: | 1300 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Threepac wrote: It's i.
"I" standing for Imaginary.
|
Aussiedawgs
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8872 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
EHJ wrote:
EHJ wrote: matt30 wrote: How are creation theory and the age of our solar system (modern astronomy) reconciled?
"day" as written by authors of the old testament referred to three amounts of time: One 24 hour period, 1000 years, or an extremely long time.
the 6 day, one for rest, creation theory can be explained as simply God referring to each day as " an extremely long time " which fits the theory of evolution to a tee.......
Evolution and creation are one.
Perhaps, but only should be taught as a science...
|
Rodack
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 31st, 2004 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 26888 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
How dare President Bush giving Public School Students a choice, just disgraceful
|
EHJ
Member
| Joined: | Thu May 5th, 2005 |
| Location: | Playoff Bound |
| Posts: | 14130 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Aussiedawgs wrote: EHJ wrote:
EHJ wrote: matt30 wrote: How are creation theory and the age of our solar system (modern astronomy) reconciled?
"day" as written by authors of the old testament referred to three amounts of time: One 24 hour period, 1000 years, or an extremely long time.
the 6 day, one for rest, creation theory can be explained as simply God referring to each day as " an extremely long time " which fits the theory of evolution to a tee.......
Evolution and creation are one.
Perhaps, but only should be taught as a science...
Liberals need to censor information to further their agenda.
Good point.
Say, you have a little mud behind your ear
|
Aussiedawgs
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8872 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Aussiedawgs wrote:
Evolution and creation are one.
I mispoke and didn't catch "edit" quick enough - I meant to say, "only one should be taught as science..."
dang computers 
Last edited on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 09:43 pm by Aussiedawgs |
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
matt30 wrote: Threepac wrote: It's i. "I" standing for Imaginary.
Not really, it's just convenient. When you say it's imaginary, all we mean is there is no real number such that x = (-1)^.5. Within the complex field, which is a superset of the reals, i is simply a vector, much like the number 3.
|
Aussiedawgs
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8872 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
EHJ wrote:
Liberals need to censor information to further their agenda.
Good point.
Say, you have a little mud behind your ear
....by product of creation...
|
Al Gore
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | Fek Off, Cup |
| Posts: | 5414 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Threepac wrote: Aussiedawgs wrote: Threepac wrote:
matt30 wrote: How are creation theory and the age of our solar system (modern astronomy) reconciled? They aren't. The dogmatic types simply close their eyes and yell "HEATHENS!" whenever someone brings it up. Then they point to discredit crackpots talking about young-earth theories. These are the kinds of people who don't believe in dinosaurs. Oh brother! So...how do they explain all those giant bones?
Hoaxes perpetrated by heathen scientists. Alternatively, they will suggest that dinosaurs existed alongside humans, even though all evidence points to the contrary. Oh brother!
they also like the "satan put those 'bones' there to trick us into believing there is no god" speil.
|
matt30
Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | California |
| Posts: | 1300 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
I respect Bush for promoting a liberal education to broaden the mind and enrich the scientific landscape. But our secondary public schools (Elementary, Junior high, High school) are really exist to provide a basic education and provide the necessary skills to succeed in post-secondary education.
If a biologist chooses to research ID at a university using the scientific method to make it a widely accepted scientific theory, so be it. I'm sure there are several out there doing there damnedest.
But until that happens the school system needs concentrate on the subjects it's students are failing now. And see to it that time tested theory's like pascals triangle (as it relates to probability) and evolution are understood by students.
The schools should not bow to political pressure to accommodate everyones beliefs, it should teach science based on the facts we have at hand.
|
lilswede85
Member
|
Aussiedawgs wrote: swede wrote:
Virtuoso80 wrote: AnD wrote:
Oh my God, its like 1925 all over again
(Scopes Trial)
Indeed, and that's what's so sad aboout it. This is an argument long past, and we firgured this one out 80 years ago. I've said it before...we're going backwards when we should be going forwards.
There is no scientific validity to creationism, and it should not be taught in our schools. Argument over and done...been over a done for a long time. Please stop subjecting my coutry to your extreme-right, Al-Queda-like religious fundmentalism. The beauty of the closed mind........(sarcasm)
What scientific evidence do you have that supports ID? All I've ever seen has been arguments to the effect that: because evolution doesn't have ALL the answers, it somehow validates ID. That isn't scientific.
I'd suggest one start with Lee Strobel's, The Case for Creation. It's obvious Strobel is advancing his ideas, but the numerous experts interviewed seem pretty credible on their face. See, also, Until the Sun Dies by Robert Jastrow for the Big Bang.
I'm not qualified as a liberal arts major to go much beyond this.
My basic point was intended to illustrate the closed, presumably scientific, mind which refuses to even consider an alternative, as above.
|
PATruth
Member
|
Never fear my liberal friends, the good news, or the bad news, depending on how you look at it is our public schools can barely teach reading, writing and math, so I wouldn't be worried about kids learning creationism.
|
matt30
Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | California |
| Posts: | 1300 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
lilswede85 wrote: Aussiedawgs wrote: swede wrote:
Virtuoso80 wrote: AnD wrote:
Oh my God, its like 1925 all over again
(Scopes Trial)
Indeed, and that's what's so sad aboout it. This is an argument long past, and we firgured this one out 80 years ago. I've said it before...we're going backwards when we should be going forwards.
There is no scientific validity to creationism, and it should not be taught in our schools. Argument over and done...been over a done for a long time. Please stop subjecting my coutry to your extreme-right, Al-Queda-like religious fundmentalism. The beauty of the closed mind........(sarcasm)
What scientific evidence do you have that supports ID? All I've ever seen has been arguments to the effect that: because evolution doesn't have ALL the answers, it somehow validates ID. That isn't scientific.
I'd suggest one start with Lee Strobel's, The Case for Creation. It's obvious Strobel is advancing his ideas, but the numerous experts interviewed seem pretty credible on their face. See, also, Until the Sun Dies by Robert Jastrow for the Big Bang.
I'm not qualified as a liberal arts major to go much beyond this.
My basic point was intended to illustrate the closed, presumably scientific, mind which refuses to even consider an alternative, as above.
I haven't read "The case for Ceation" but I have read the other. In that book Jastrow talks about how it's impossible to know what the origin of the universe is because it was destroyed on creation.
Also he said that science is unable to comprehend God because God works outside the confines of "our" physics.
It's less about science and more about theology and philosophy.
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
PATruth wrote: Never fear my liberal friends, the good news, or the bad news, depending on how you look at it is our public schools can barely teach reading, writing and math, so I wouldn't be worried about kids learning creationism. It's not the schools, it's the parents and students.
|
Danokan
Member
|
Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: Threepac wrote: I'm saying that I cannot tell you, but this article is not trustworthy.
Ok.. now I want you to read this and read it very closely.
This is a letter that was written by a pro-evolutionist that is fighting for evolution to be taught in Texas.
http://www.texscience.org/files/icons-revealed/
Now we come to the crux of the matter. The DI creationists want all illustrations of evolution removed from textbooks, so they try to cast doubt on an important one and misleadingly say it is fraudulent and thus should be removed. But that's nonsense. I agree that the very earliest stages of vertebrate embryos are dissimilar, but that's only because they have different-sized eggs, an irrelevant factor. What is vitally important, however, is that students observe and understand the structural similarities of all vertebrate embryos--the pharyngeal pouches and grooves, the notochord, the dorsal nerve cord, the ventral blood vessel, etc.--that demonstrate their close evolutionary relationships. The presence of a notochord and pharyngeal grooves in the human embryo forcefully demonstrates our close ancestry to other vertebrates. This important information is precisely what the creationists duplicitously want the Texas SBOE to remove--because it is such a powerful illustration of evolution. The creationists don't really want information added; they want to make the vertebrate embryo illustration so controversial that the Board or--more likely--the publishers will remove it completely. In fact, one publisher (Holt, Rinehart, Winston) already has.
Danokan this article is a hearty rebuttal of the discovery paper you cited earlier. Are you retracting your earlier contention? If so are we moving on to the next topic?
Really? I read it entirely in my favor.
#1. He clearly states the recapitulation theory IS A POWERFUL ILLUSTRATION OF EVOLUTION.
#2. He states that ONLY ONE publisher has removed this illustration.
Please read it again Danokan. He says very clearly that Haeckel was wrong, but his illustration was fantastic, which was exactly what I said earlier in the thread.
Sorry 3pac
Away from the computer most of the day today.. which is probably a good thing
Let me quote:
What is vitally important, however, is that students observe and understand the structural similarities of all vertebrate embryos--the pharyngeal pouches and grooves, the notochord, the dorsal nerve cord, the ventral blood vessel, etc.--that demonstrate their close evolutionary relationships. The presence of a notochord and pharyngeal grooves in the human embryo forcefully demonstrates our close ancestry to other vertebrates.
To me 3pac.. he is stating almost identical to Haeckel.
|
matt30
Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | California |
| Posts: | 1300 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
PATruth wrote: Never fear my liberal friends, the good news, or the bad news, depending on how you look at it is our public schools can barely teach reading, writing and math, so I wouldn't be worried about kids learning creationism.
Actually elementary schools do a fantastic job. Our 4th to 8th graders are among the brightest in the world.
Somehow its the high schools that are unable to get the job done.
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
No, you misunderstood Haeckel, friend. Haeckel's claim was that an embryo will pass through all the evolutionary stages that a species has undergone. For example, since we evolved from fish, we would have a fishlike embryonic stage. This was discredited. The similarities in embryos, however, is a strong argument in the case for evolution, and is almost unviersally accepted in the scientific community. Last edited on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 10:04 pm by Threepac |
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
matt30 wrote: PATruth wrote: Never fear my liberal friends, the good news, or the bad news, depending on how you look at it is our public schools can barely teach reading, writing and math, so I wouldn't be worried about kids learning creationism. Actually elementary schools do a fantastic job. Our 4th to 8th graders are among the brightest in the world.
Somehow its the high schools that are unable to get the job done. *Raises eyebrow* are you sure about that? I've never heard such a thing, and I'd like to see statistics.
|
Danokan
Member
|
Threepac wrote: No, you misunderstood Haeckel, friend. Haeckel's claim was that an embryo will pass through all the evolutionary stages that a species has undergone. For example, since we evolved from fish, we would have a fishlike embryonic stage. This was discredited. The similarities in embryos, however, is a strong argument in the case for evolution, and is almost unviersally accepted in the scientific community.
So let me see if I have this straight..
To go through a fishlike embryonic stage is incorrect..
But to go through an embryonic stage SIMILAR to a fish isn't?
|
PATruth
Member
|
Threepac wrote: PATruth wrote: Never fear my liberal friends, the good news, or the bad news, depending on how you look at it is our public schools can barely teach reading, writing and math, so I wouldn't be worried about kids learning creationism. It's not the schools, it's the parents and students.
When I'm paid to do a job, I'M RESPONSIBLE for seeing to it that it's done right! If they don't want the responsibilty then give someone else a chance and the funding that goes along with it!
We are all tired of the excuses, the lies, the wasted money and the failing results! When somehitng hasn't worked for 40 years, YOU TRY SOMETHING ELSE!!!!!!!!!!! Not that difficult!
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Danokan wrote: Threepac wrote: No, you misunderstood Haeckel, friend. Haeckel's claim was that an embryo will pass through all the evolutionary stages that a species has undergone. For example, since we evolved from fish, we would have a fishlike embryonic stage. This was discredited. The similarities in embryos, however, is a strong argument in the case for evolution, and is almost unviersally accepted in the scientific community.
So let me see if I have this straight..
To go through a fishlike embryonic stage is incorrect..
But to go through an embryonic stage SIMILAR to a fish isn't?
Sort of, it's more like this. We don't go through a stage representing every evolutoinary ancestor we have, but we have embryos similar to the species which are closely related to us.
|
LibraLabSoldier
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Apache, Oklahoma USA |
| Posts: | 2905 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Rodack wrote: How dare President Bush giving Public School Students a choice, just disgraceful
Evidently, you chose not to learn a damn thing in school.
Education is not a menu, moron. It is a foundation for learning. It is preparing people to function in the world, not become perfect little fundy automatons.
As soon as you give me some actual concrete evidence of a young earth, special creation, or something that is impossible to explain through natural phenomena, I will give this a bit more credence.
Why not start with the Babel fish?
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
PATruth wrote: Threepac wrote: PATruth wrote: Never fear my liberal friends, the good news, or the bad news, depending on how you look at it is our public schools can barely teach reading, writing and math, so I wouldn't be worried about kids learning creationism. It's not the schools, it's the parents and students.
When I'm paid to do a job, I'M RESPONSIBLE for seeing to it that it's done right! If they don't want the responsibilty then give someone else a chance and the funding that goes along with it!
We are all tired of the excuses, the lies, the wasted money and the failing results! When somehitng hasn't worked for 40 years, YOU TRY SOMETHING ELSE!!!!!!!!!!! Not that difficult!
Right, try this. Get parents involved in their kids education, get students interested in learning. This society teaches people that everyone is special, and that mediocrity is a virtue. These are the problems. This is why Asian, Indian, and Jewish immigrany kids outperform Americans so harshly. These cultures emphasize education and performance, and the parents get involved.
|
Danokan
Member
|
Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: Threepac wrote: No, you misunderstood Haeckel, friend. Haeckel's claim was that an embryo will pass through all the evolutionary stages that a species has undergone. For example, since we evolved from fish, we would have a fishlike embryonic stage. This was discredited. The similarities in embryos, however, is a strong argument in the case for evolution, and is almost unviersally accepted in the scientific community.
So let me see if I have this straight..
To go through a fishlike embryonic stage is incorrect..
But to go through an embryonic stage SIMILAR to a fish isn't?
Sort of, it's more like this. We don't go through a stage representing every evolutoinary ancestor we have, but we have embryos similar to the species which are closely related to us.
Ok..tomato or tomatoe..
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
I don't know a clearer way to explain it, perhaps someone else here can. However, that paper is not in support of Haeckel's recapitulation, and in fact refutes it most vehemently. Last edited on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 10:12 pm by Threepac |
Danokan
Member
|
Threepac wrote: I don't know a clearer way to explain it, perhaps someone else here can. However, that paper is not in support of Haeckel's recapitulation, and in fact refutes it most vehemently.
Ok..
I think that may be the contention concerning "text books".
|
LibraLabSoldier
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Apache, Oklahoma USA |
| Posts: | 2905 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Sure, lets just have a whole class called alternative creation theories.
We can include every single creation "theory" from every religion or every culture we can find, and let the kids decide.
Isnt that what you guys want? Equal time?
|
Danokan
Member
|
LibraLabSoldier wrote: Sure, lets just have a whole class called alternative creation theories.
We can include every single creation "theory" from every religion or every culture we can find, and let the kids decide.
Isnt that what you guys want? Equal time?
I have stated quite clearly what I want.
What is your problem with it?
|
matt30
Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | California |
| Posts: | 1300 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
PATruth wrote: Threepac wrote: PATruth wrote: Never fear my liberal friends, the good news, or the bad news, depending on how you look at it is our public schools can barely teach reading, writing and math, so I wouldn't be worried about kids learning creationism. It's not the schools, it's the parents and students.
When I'm paid to do a job, I'M RESPONSIBLE for seeing to it that it's done right! If they don't want the responsibilty then give someone else a chance and the funding that goes along with it!
We are all tired of the excuses, the lies, the wasted money and the failing results! When somehitng hasn't worked for 40 years, YOU TRY SOMETHING ELSE!!!!!!!!!!! Not that difficult!
Thats inaccurate as well. In education the US hovers around average to slightly below average in public education statistics. Which is not bad for a country of this size with a localized public school system.
US university's are still the top in the world.
http://www.oecd.org/statisticsdata/0,2643,en_33873108_33873886_1_1_1_1_1,00.html
|
LibraLabSoldier
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Apache, Oklahoma USA |
| Posts: | 2905 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Danokan wrote: LibraLabSoldier wrote: Sure, lets just have a whole class called alternative creation theories.
We can include every single creation "theory" from every religion or every culture we can find, and let the kids decide.
Isnt that what you guys want? Equal time?
I have stated quite clearly what I want.
What is your problem with it?
Look, let me put it like this:
I promise not to teach evolution in your church, keep your religious bullSH!T out of public school. Dont like it? Send your kids to the private school of your choice.
If this so called Culture war that the Religious right keeps perpetrating keeps up, there will be shooting.
Not all liberals and freethinkers are little pansy hippy pacificists. Some of us are gun toting true patriots that dont plan on lying down and watch this country get raped by the religious zealots.
|
Danokan
Member
|
LibraLabSoldier wrote: Danokan wrote: LibraLabSoldier wrote: Sure, lets just have a whole class called alternative creation theories.
We can include every single creation "theory" from every religion or every culture we can find, and let the kids decide.
Isnt that what you guys want? Equal time?
I have stated quite clearly what I want.
What is your problem with it?
Look, let me put it like this:
I promise not to teach evolution in your church, keep your religious bullSH!T out of public school. Dont like it? Send your kids to the private school of your choice.
If this so called Culture war that the Religious right keeps perpetrating keeps up, there will be shooting.
Not all liberals and freethinkers are little pansy hippy pacificists. Some of us are gun toting true patriots that dont plan on lying down and watch this country get raped by the religious zealots.
What religion do I want taught in public schools?
|
allthegoodnamesaretaken
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1320 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
"If a teacher were to come into a classroom and teach strict creationism, that would clearly be wrong.
But it is critical that our children have a well rounded education.
To teach about evolution without teaching intelligent design is doing a disservice to our children."
well said!
bravo!
I agree...
so
is it also a disservice to our children to teach ABSTINANCE UNTIL MARRIAGE ONLY....
without ALSO teaching safe sex outside of marriage?
and would it be a disservice to our children to teach "homosexuality is WRONG!" without ALSO teaching..."there's nothing wrong with being gay"?
and would it be a disservice to our children to teach "pot is evil!" without also teaching..."many people believe smoking pot should be legal!"
you DO want the kids to have well rounded educations, no?
-----------------------------
"The liberal agenda of excluding any idea that involves God is immature and ultimately irresponsible."
as is the conservative agenda of excluding everything they find offensive....
|
LibraLabSoldier
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Apache, Oklahoma USA |
| Posts: | 2905 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Danokan wrote: LibraLabSoldier wrote: Danokan wrote: LibraLabSoldier wrote: Sure, lets just have a whole class called alternative creation theories.
We can include every single creation "theory" from every religion or every culture we can find, and let the kids decide.
Isnt that what you guys want? Equal time?
I have stated quite clearly what I want.
What is your problem with it?
Look, let me put it like this:
I promise not to teach evolution in your church, keep your religious bullSH!T out of public school. Dont like it? Send your kids to the private school of your choice.
If this so called Culture war that the Religious right keeps perpetrating keeps up, there will be shooting.
Not all liberals and freethinkers are little pansy hippy pacificists. Some of us are gun toting true patriots that dont plan on lying down and watch this country get raped by the religious zealots.
What religion do I want taught in public schools?
Let me see if I can dumb this down sufficiently: Intelligent design is just the pseudoscientific face of good old fashioned Fundamentalist Evangelical Genesis Creationism. They espouse catastrophism (World Wide Flood) as an explanation for most fossil evidence, and other unscientific claims. The use stuff like teleology (study for patterns) to claim that things are just too darn complex to happen naturally....although when you point out that something as simple as a salt crystal will always be a cube no matter how small you crush it due to its crystaline structure, they look at you like you just advocated ritual baby killing.
ID relies on an untestable, unquantifiable SUPREME CREATOR (notice they never say it was possible there are CREATORS) that fits quite well with the Big Three of religion, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. So those are the religions that back it. Why do they back it? Because they want back in the school house, that is why.
|
kenrolf
Member
|
LibraLabSoldier wrote: Danokan wrote: LibraLabSoldier wrote: Sure, lets just have a whole class called alternative creation theories.
We can include every single creation "theory" from every religion or every culture we can find, and let the kids decide.
Isnt that what you guys want? Equal time?
I have stated quite clearly what I want.
What is your problem with it?
Look, let me put it like this:
I promise not to teach evolution in your church, keep your religious bullSH!T out of public school. Dont like it? Send your kids to the private school of your choice.
If this so called Culture war that the Religious right keeps perpetrating keeps up, there will be shooting.
Not all liberals and freethinkers are little pansy hippy pacificists. Some of us are gun toting true patriots that dont plan on lying down and watch this country get raped by the religious zealots.
And some of us "Religous zealots"Are not pansys also. Keep that in mind.
|
allthegoodnamesaretaken
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1320 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
"If a teacher were to come into a classroom and teach strict creationism, that would clearly be wrong. '
and yet...
that is exactly what many conservative christians want!
they consider evolution to be "the big lie"
if they ever have the opportunity to remove it ...
they will....
and i have a strong suspicion that instead of admonishing them for being irresponsible...
you will be explaining why it's the "right thing to do"!
|
LibraLabSoldier
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Apache, Oklahoma USA |
| Posts: | 2905 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
kenrolf wrote: LibraLabSoldier wrote: Danokan wrote: LibraLabSoldier wrote: Sure, lets just have a whole class called alternative creation theories.
We can include every single creation "theory" from every religion or every culture we can find, and let the kids decide.
Isnt that what you guys want? Equal time?
I have stated quite clearly what I want.
What is your problem with it?
Look, let me put it like this:
I promise not to teach evolution in your church, keep your religious bullSH!T out of public school. Dont like it? Send your kids to the private school of your choice.
If this so called Culture war that the Religious right keeps perpetrating keeps up, there will be shooting.
Not all liberals and freethinkers are little pansy hippy pacificists. Some of us are gun toting true patriots that dont plan on lying down and watch this country get raped by the religious zealots.
And some of us "Religous zealots"Are not pansys also. Keep that in mind.
You see, there is this wonderful document that was supposed to stop things like this from happening. Since King George II wants to destroy it, I guess all of you are gonna blindly follow him, and bring on the second Civil War.
I swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is a shame that the President gets closer and closer to fitting that definition.
|
allthegoodnamesaretaken
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1320 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
"And some of us "Religous zealots"Are not pansys also. Keep that in mind."
is that a threat?
ALL religious zealots are wackos....
if you admit being a religious zealot...
you are a wacko...
and ALL wackos are dangerous...
are you dangerous?
wacko?
Last edited on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 11:49 pm by allthegoodnamesaretaken |
Danokan
Member
|
LibraLabSoldier wrote: Danokan wrote: LibraLabSoldier wrote: Danokan wrote: LibraLabSoldier wrote: Sure, lets just have a whole class called alternative creation theories.
We can include every single creation "theory" from every religion or every culture we can find, and let the kids decide.
Isnt that what you guys want? Equal time?
I have stated quite clearly what I want.
What is your problem with it?
Look, let me put it like this:
I promise not to teach evolution in your church, keep your religious bullSH!T out of public school. Dont like it? Send your kids to the private school of your choice.
If this so called Culture war that the Religious right keeps perpetrating keeps up, there will be shooting.
Not all liberals and freethinkers are little pansy hippy pacificists. Some of us are gun toting true patriots that dont plan on lying down and watch this country get raped by the religious zealots.
What religion do I want taught in public schools?
Let me see if I can dumb this down sufficiently: Intelligent design is just the pseudoscientific face of good old fashioned Fundamentalist Evangelical Genesis Creationism. They espouse catastrophism (World Wide Flood) as an explanation for most fossil evidence, and other unscientific claims. The use stuff like teleology (study for patterns) to claim that things are just too darn complex to happen naturally....although when you point out that something as simple as a salt crystal will always be a cube no matter how small you crush it due to its crystaline structure, they look at you like you just advocated ritual baby killing.
ID relies on an untestable, unquantifiable SUPREME CREATOR (notice they never say it was possible there are CREATORS) that fits quite well with the Big Three of religion, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. So those are the religions that back it. Why do they back it? Because they want back in the school house, that is why.
blah blah
Now answer my question.
What RELIGION did I say I wanted taught in school?
|
matt30
Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | California |
| Posts: | 1300 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
kenrolf wrote: LibraLabSoldier wrote: Danokan wrote: LibraLabSoldier wrote: Sure, lets just have a whole class called alternative creation theories.
We can include every single creation "theory" from every religion or every culture we can find, and let the kids decide.
Isnt that what you guys want? Equal time?
I have stated quite clearly what I want.
What is your problem with it?
Look, let me put it like this:
I promise not to teach evolution in your church, keep your religious bullSH!T out of public school. Dont like it? Send your kids to the private school of your choice.
If this so called Culture war that the Religious right keeps perpetrating keeps up, there will be shooting.
Not all liberals and freethinkers are little pansy hippy pacificists. Some of us are gun toting true patriots that dont plan on lying down and watch this country get raped by the religious zealots.
And some of us "Religous zealots"Are not pansys also. Keep that in mind.
So you are conceding that you are part of the religious right trying to spread the word through our public schools?
|
kenrolf
Member
|
LibraLabSoldier wrote: kenrolf wrote: LibraLabSoldier wrote: Danokan wrote: LibraLabSoldier wrote: Sure, lets just have a whole class called alternative creation theories.
We can include every single creation "theory" from every religion or every culture we can find, and let the kids decide.
Isnt that what you guys want? Equal time?
I have stated quite clearly what I want.
What is your problem with it?
Look, let me put it like this:
I promise not to teach evolution in your church, keep your religious bullSH!T out of public school. Dont like it? Send your kids to the private school of your choice.
If this so called Culture war that the Religious right keeps perpetrating keeps up, there will be shooting.
Not all liberals and freethinkers are little pansy hippy pacificists. Some of us are gun toting true patriots that dont plan on lying down and watch this country get raped by the religious zealots.
And some of us "Religous zealots"Are not pansys also. Keep that in mind.
You see, there is this wonderful document that was supposed to stop things like this from happening. Since King George II wants to destroy it, I guess all of you are gonna blindly follow him, and bring on the second Civil War.
I swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is a shame that the President gets closer and closer to fitting that definition.
You’re not the only one buddy I enlisted and am waiting for my asvab results to. I wouldn’t what that happening but if it came down to defending my religious freedom you damn right ill fight. I’m in no way advocating a war but from what you said up there it sounds like you want one. If i miss understood im sorry butto take some of your words im not a bout to laydown also.
|
kenrolf
Member
|
matt30 wrote: kenrolf wrote: LibraLabSoldier wrote: Danokan wrote: LibraLabSoldier wrote: Sure, lets just have a whole class called alternative creation theories.
We can include every single creation "theory" from every religion or every culture we can find, and let the kids decide.
Isnt that what you guys want? Equal time?
I have stated quite clearly what I want.
What is your problem with it?
Look, let me put it like this:
I promise not to teach evolution in your church, keep your religious bullSH!T out of public school. Dont like it? Send your kids to the private school of your choice.
If this so called Culture war that the Religious right keeps perpetrating keeps up, there will be shooting.
Not all liberals and freethinkers are little pansy hippy pacificists. Some of us are gun toting true patriots that dont plan on lying down and watch this country get raped by the religious zealots.
And some of us "Religous zealots"Are not pansys also. Keep that in mind.
So you are conceding that you are part of the religious right trying to spread the word through our public schools?
No I believe it should it shouldn’t. But from what he said sounds like he thinks only them libs have guns and are not afraid to use them, I was just stating some of us an't pansies at all eather.
|
kenrolf
Member
|
kenrolf wrote: matt30 wrote: kenrolf wrote: LibraLabSoldier wrote: Danokan wrote: LibraLabSoldier wrote: Sure, lets just have a whole class called alternative creation theories.
We can include every single creation "theory" from every religion or every culture we can find, and let the kids decide.
Isnt that what you guys want? Equal time?
I have stated quite clearly what I want.
What is your problem with it?
Look, let me put it like this:
I promise not to teach evolution in your church, keep your religious bullSH!T out of public school. Dont like it? Send your kids to the private school of your choice.
If this so called Culture war that the Religious right keeps perpetrating keeps up, there will be shooting.
Not all liberals and freethinkers are little pansy hippy pacificists. Some of us are gun toting true patriots that dont plan on lying down and watch this country get raped by the religious zealots.
And some of us "Religous zealots"Are not pansys also. Keep that in mind.
So you are conceding that you are part of the religious right trying to spread the word through our public schools?
No I believe it should it shouldn’t. But from what he said sounds like he thinks only them libs have guns and are not afraid to use them, I was just stating some of us an't pansies at all eather.
Sorry for the triple posting it wont let me edit i ment to say it should not. Sorry a bout that.
|
LibraLabSoldier
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Apache, Oklahoma USA |
| Posts: | 2905 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
kenrolf wrote: LibraLabSoldier wrote: kenrolf wrote: LibraLabSoldier wrote: Danokan wrote: LibraLabSoldier wrote: Sure, lets just have a whole class called alternative creation theories.
We can include every single creation "theory" from every religion or every culture we can find, and let the kids decide.
Isnt that what you guys want? Equal time?
I have stated quite clearly what I want.
What is your problem with it?
Look, let me put it like this:
I promise not to teach evolution in your church, keep your religious bullSH!T out of public school. Dont like it? Send your kids to the private school of your choice.
If this so called Culture war that the Religious right keeps perpetrating keeps up, there will be shooting.
Not all liberals and freethinkers are little pansy hippy pacificists. Some of us are gun toting true patriots that dont plan on lying down and watch this country get raped by the religious zealots.
And some of us "Religous zealots"Are not pansys also. Keep that in mind.
You see, there is this wonderful document that was supposed to stop things like this from happening. Since King George II wants to destroy it, I guess all of you are gonna blindly follow him, and bring on the second Civil War.
I swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is a shame that the President gets closer and closer to fitting that definition.
You’re not the only one buddy I enlisted and am waiting for my asvab results to. I wouldn’t what that happening but if it came down to defending my religious freedom you damn right ill fight. I’m in no way advocating a war but from what you said up there it sounds like you want one. If i miss understood im sorry butto take some of your words im not a bout to laydown also.
Listen up sparky. I have been active duty for almost nine years now. I have simply stated that if the current trends continue with more and more open assaults on the spirit of freedom clearly outlined in the founding documents of nation, then a fight will happen. I am not beating my chest and looking for a fight. If you read around these boards, it would seem that most of the more rabid conservatives on here think anyone with a liberal world view is a weak, limp-wristed morally bankrupt drug addict who is on welfare.
I am a soldier, and a father, and a gun owner. I just happen to believe that we shouldnt be throwing our rights away for some silly notion of equal time. The no establishment of religion clause was not meant to be used to dismantle historical mentions and depictions of religion in this country. I have gone up against liberals on this fact more than once. At the same time, it is not something to do an end run around, claiming that states can declare a state religion.
IF you know anything about history, the south didnt fight the Civil War over slavery. They fought it over states rights. That is why the landed gentry of the South were able to get the common man who owned neither land nor slaves to fight against the North.
I do not want to see my country torn apart. We are a country that is diverse, rich, and powerful, much as Rome was. However, much like Rome, there is only one way that the USA will ever fall to the barbarian hordes:
BY DESTROYING OURSELVES FROM WITHIN, AND FIGHTING OVER GRAINS OF SAND WHILE THE HUNS BATTER DOWN THE GATES.
|
kenrolf
Member
|
LibraLabSoldier wrote: kenrolf wrote: LibraLabSoldier wrote: kenrolf wrote: LibraLabSoldier wrote: Danokan wrote: LibraLabSoldier wrote: Sure, lets just have a whole class called alternative creation theories.
We can include every single creation "theory" from every religion or every culture we can find, and let the kids decide.
Isnt that what you guys want? Equal time?
I have stated quite clearly what I want.
What is your problem with it?
Look, let me put it like this:
I promise not to teach evolution in your church, keep your religious bullSH!T out of public school. Dont like it? Send your kids to the private school of your choice.
If this so called Culture war that the Religious right keeps perpetrating keeps up, there will be shooting.
Not all liberals and freethinkers are little pansy hippy pacificists. Some of us are gun toting true patriots that dont plan on lying down and watch this country get raped by the religious zealots.
And some of us "Religous zealots"Are not pansys also. Keep that in mind.
You see, there is this wonderful document that was supposed to stop things like this from happening. Since King George II wants to destroy it, I guess all of you are gonna blindly follow him, and bring on the second Civil War.
I swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is a shame that the President gets closer and closer to fitting that definition.
You’re not the only one buddy I enlisted and am waiting for my asvab results to. I wouldn’t what that happening but if it came down to defending my religious freedom you damn right ill fight. I’m in no way advocating a war but from what you said up there it sounds like you want one. If i miss understood im sorry butto take some of your words im not a bout to laydown also.
Listen up sparky. I have been active duty for almost nine years now. I have simply stated that if the current trends continue with more and more open assaults on the spirit of freedom clearly outlined in the founding documents of nation, then a fight will happen. I am not beating my chest and looking for a fight. If you read around these boards, it would seem that most of the more rabid conservatives on here think anyone with a liberal world view is a weak, limp-wristed morally bankrupt drug addict who is on welfare.
I am a soldier, and a father, and a gun owner. I just happen to believe that we shouldnt be throwing our rights away for some silly notion of equal time. The no establishment of religion clause was not meant to be used to dismantle historical mentions and depictions of religion in this country. I have gone up against liberals on this fact more than once. At the same time, it is not something to do an end run around, claiming that states can declare a state religion.
IF you know anything about history, the south didnt fight the Civil War over slavery. They fought it over states rights. That is why the landed gentry of the South were able to get the common man who owned neither land nor slaves to fight against the North.
I do not want to see my country torn apart. We are a country that is diverse, rich, and powerful, much as Rome was. However, much like Rome, there is only one way that the USA will ever fall to the barbarian hordes:
BY DESTROYING OURSELVES FROM WITHIN, AND FIGHTING OVER GRAINS OF SAND WHILE THE HUNS BATTER DOWN THE GATES.
I know the reason for the civil war you don’t need to tell me that. And if it’s a misunderstanding then ill admit I was wrong. Also it’s not just the cons acting like brats look around the board and see the anti - religiousness shi* going on with you libs. I’m sure not all of you feel that way but what do you expect to happen if both sides keep talking there shi*? As far as your duty goes, I salute you and respect you. Who knows maybe if im in the same branch as you we’ll work together but as I said if my religious freedom is in jeopardy I will damn well fight.
|
LibraLabSoldier
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Apache, Oklahoma USA |
| Posts: | 2905 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
No one is trying to take your religious freedom away from you.
That is the misconception.
You are free to worship any way you want.
What you are not free to do is use the public school system and government funds to favor one religion over another.
I have no problem with the kids who meet before school at the flagpole to pray (Do they still do that? They did it when I was in school)
I have no problem with kids bringing Bibles to school.
I have a problem when people use their position in a majority religion to directly impose laws that impede other peoples freedom of religion.
AFTER ALL, FREEDOM OF RELIGION MEANS EVERYONES RELIGION.
OR LACK THEREOF.
|
kenrolf
Member
|
LibraLabSoldier wrote: No one is trying to take your religious freedom away from you.
That is the misconception.
You are free to worship any way you want.
What you are not free to do is use the public school system and government funds to favor one religion over another.
I have no problem with the kids who meet before school at the flagpole to pray (Do they still do that? They did it when I was in school)
I have no problem with kids bringing Bibles to school.
I have a problem when people use their position in a majority religion to directly impose laws that impede other peoples freedom of religion.
AFTER ALL, FREEDOM OF RELIGION MEANS EVERYONES RELIGION.
OR LACK THEREOF.
They let you do that when you went to school? I go suspended when I did that in school. We where not allowed to even mention "god" in school. Any ways I do agree with you I never said I didn’t, if you look up at one of my post i said i didnt think it was good idea. (not in thos words). And I guess it was a misunderstanding on my part.
|
LibraLabSoldier
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Apache, Oklahoma USA |
| Posts: | 2905 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
We had a group of kids who met before school to pray at the flag pole. Perfectly legal, and legit.
However, in my school people got suspended for wearing a wiccan pentacle, being caught with books such as Ray Bucklands guide to Witchcraft, ect.
How do I know? Because I was one of the people who was suspended.
It should not be illegal for people to pray, or anything like that in school. It crosses the line when a teacher says "Class, bow your heads."
|
matt30
Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | California |
| Posts: | 1300 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
LibraLabSoldier wrote: No one is trying to take your religious freedom away from you.
That is the misconception.
You are free to worship any way you want.
What you are not free to do is use the public school system and government funds to favor one religion over another.
I have no problem with the kids who meet before school at the flagpole to pray (Do they still do that? They did it when I was in school)
I have no problem with kids bringing Bibles to school.
I have a problem when people use their position in a majority religion to directly impose laws that impede other peoples freedom of religion.
AFTER ALL, FREEDOM OF RELIGION MEANS EVERYONES RELIGION.
OR LACK THEREOF.
Three years ago (during my senior year) they stepped it up a notch. They made huge circles where people would hold hands and pray.
They pissed everyone off because they took up so much room. But we couldn't say anything because the hottest girls in the class (WHY!?!?!?!) were always hardcore Christians.
At least in college it's the complete opposite.
|
kenrolf
Member
|
LibraLabSoldier wrote: We had a group of kids who met before school to pray at the flag pole. Perfectly legal, and legit.
However, in my school people got suspended for wearing a wiccan pentacle, being caught with books such as Ray Bucklands guide to Witchcraft, ect.
How do I know? Because I was one of the people who was suspended.
It should not be illegal for people to pray, or anything like that in school. It crosses the line when a teacher says "Class, bow your heads."
Ya same thing happened when we had some kids with a Wicca pentacle to. I never thought it wasnt fair that I could wear my cross and yet my friend couldn’t wear her pentacle. She ended up wearing it any ways. A lot of us kids got together and complained. It worked. But other then that if we even said god, alia or what ever you call god we get in big trouble.Any ways i got to go nice talking to you. Even if we got off ont he worng foot.
Last edited on Wed Aug 3rd, 2005 12:33 am by kenrolf |
hunter
Member
|
LibraLabSoldier wrote:
No one is trying to take your religious freedom away from you.
That is the misconception.
You are free to worship any way you want.
What you are not free to do is use the public school system and government funds to favor one religion over another.
I have no problem with the kids who meet before school at the flagpole to pray (Do they still do that? They did it when I was in school)
I have no problem with kids bringing Bibles to school.
I have a problem when people use their position in a majority religion to directly impose laws that impede other peoples freedom of religion.
AFTER ALL, FREEDOM OF RELIGION MEANS EVERYONES RELIGION.
OR LACK THEREOF.
I am not trying to hijack this thread, and I am not trying to start anything here, but Soldier, look at what you just wrote.
I have a problem when people use their position in a majority religion to directly impose laws that impede other peoples freedom of religion.
How about when people use their position period to directly impose laws that impede other peoples freedom of religion?
Isn't that just as important? It's also not fair to use the public school system and government funds to to favor one opinion over another.
|
Stonecold189
Member
|
What's wrong with exposing people to different theories?
|
LibraLabSoldier
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Apache, Oklahoma USA |
| Posts: | 2905 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Because, and let me make this perfectly, perfectly crystal clear:
INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT A THEORY, IT IS A CREATION MYTH PUMPED UP WITH PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC JARGON TO CONFUSE THE UNINFORMED.
Honestly. Do you think there is some dark cabal of scientists who want to keep the truth hidden just to advance a (according to creationists) discredited theory?
There is nothing wrong with exposing kids to different theories. AS LONG AS THEY ARE THEORIES, AND NOT RELIGIOPOLITICAL AGENDAE.
|
supermanrulez13
Member
|
they call gravity a theory so we should put a note in science school books about gravity only be a theory.
I love using right wing logic against the right wing
|
Danokan
Member
|
supermanrulez13 wrote: they call gravity a theory so we should put a note in science school books about gravity only be a theory.
I love using right wing logic against the right wing
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html
Sir Isaac Newton: The
Universal Law of Gravitation
http://capita.wustl.edu/ME567_Informatics/concepts/thermo.html
Laws of Thermodynamics
|
LibraLabSoldier
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Apache, Oklahoma USA |
| Posts: | 2905 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Ok, so you posted the law of thermodynamics.
Are you honestly going to claim that this proves evolution doesnt work so I can cut your silly argument to ribbons.
|
hunter
Member
|
Stonecold189 wrote:
What's wrong with exposing people to different theories?
Nothing, but some of these people think that our kids are too stupid to decide for themselves which one they will believe. And in the end, what difference does it really make which one they believe. Will it change the world? Will it change our kids? It won't make any difference here on earth. It won't make any differnce when we die either, we will all go back to what we were in the beginning. No matter which one you believe, you will be dust.
|
BigMan
Member
|
cactusJack wrote: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/08/01/national/w200833D87.DTL
I love it when people have no idea what the definition of a "theory" is.
A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Thus, intelligent design can never be a theory. the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection has observable and repeatable facts to support it such as the process of mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, adaptation and speciation through natural selection, the "Intelligent Designer" in intelligent design is neither observable nor repeatable. This violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability. Calling it a theory is wrong and shows just how ignorant and misguided the right-wing extremists are on this.
There are flaws in any theory and to say either has been proven without doubt is lacking in truth. there is some evidence or lack there of for creation no one can prove how we just happened to be. my theory is god created the universe and the seeds for life on earth then evolution took over.
|
BigMan
Member
|
LibraLabSoldier wrote: Because, and let me make this perfectly, perfectly crystal clear:
INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT A THEORY, IT IS A CREATION MYTH PUMPED UP WITH PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC JARGON TO CONFUSE THE UNINFORMED.
Honestly. Do you think there is some dark cabal of scientists who want to keep the truth hidden just to advance a (according to creationists) discredited theory?
There is nothing wrong with exposing kids to different theories. AS LONG AS THEY ARE THEORIES, AND NOT RELIGIOPOLITICAL AGENDAE.
If it is not a theory please explain how life started.
this should be good.
|
BigMan
Member
|
LibraLabSoldier wrote: Because, and let me make this perfectly, perfectly crystal clear:
INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT A THEORY, IT IS A CREATION MYTH PUMPED UP WITH PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC JARGON TO CONFUSE THE UNINFORMED.
Honestly. Do you think there is some dark cabal of scientists who want to keep the truth hidden just to advance a (according to creationists) discredited theory?
There is nothing wrong with exposing kids to different theories. AS LONG AS THEY ARE THEORIES, AND NOT RELIGIOPOLITICAL AGENDAE.
If it is not a theory please explain how life started.
this should be good.
|
forestroot
Member
|
well ,if you can prove evoulution, which of course you can't , well you just might have a point,but until that time we will teach the kids the truth. I am so sorry to be the one to tell you this.
|
LibraLabSoldier
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Apache, Oklahoma USA |
| Posts: | 2905 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
BigMan wrote: LibraLabSoldier wrote: Because, and let me make this perfectly, perfectly crystal clear:
INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT A THEORY, IT IS A CREATION MYTH PUMPED UP WITH PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC JARGON TO CONFUSE THE UNINFORMED.
Honestly. Do you think there is some dark cabal of scientists who want to keep the truth hidden just to advance a (according to creationists) discredited theory?
There is nothing wrong with exposing kids to different theories. AS LONG AS THEY ARE THEORIES, AND NOT RELIGIOPOLITICAL AGENDAE.
If it is not a theory please explain how life started.
this should be good.
Evolution is a theory. I did not deny this fact. However, intelligent design is not a scientific theory.
There is a large difference between a scientific theory, and a layman's theory.
Creationism fails as a theory because they start with the answer, and make the information fit their presupposed answer.
Evolution came about because of all of the evidence pointed toward the diversification of life.
Do I know how the initial life started on this planet? No. There are different theories as to how life started.
Panspermia, terraforming, abiogenesis, and others are all ideas. Is it possible some supernatural being said "let there be life" and it was? Yes, that is possible. However, since it is neither testable, quantifiable, provable or disprovable, it does not fit the scientific model.
Therefore, it does not belong in SCIENCE class.
If you want to teach the story of creation, leave it where it belongs. In church, not in the classroom.
Do you honestly want an equal discussion of the evidence for evolution alongside of creationism?
I think it would cast more doubt on the veracity of religion than just the teaching of evolution could by itself.
ON second thought, lets teach them both. It would be easier for people to realize the lies the church tries to feed them.
|
Eyes
Member
|
merrill wrote: On intelligent design Bush cannot talk about it because there is nothing of substance to discuss and someone decided he should say it so he did. He seldom takes questions from journalists because he cannot answer...he's too stupid on many fronts.
He did give an interesting speech on "Creative Arithmetic" once in Texas.
|
steelblitzer
Member
|
LibraLabSoldier wrote: BigMan wrote: LibraLabSoldier wrote: Because, and let me make this perfectly, perfectly crystal clear:
INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT A THEORY, IT IS A CREATION MYTH PUMPED UP WITH PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC JARGON TO CONFUSE THE UNINFORMED.
Honestly. Do you think there is some dark cabal of scientists who want to keep the truth hidden just to advance a (according to creationists) discredited theory?
There is nothing wrong with exposing kids to different theories. AS LONG AS THEY ARE THEORIES, AND NOT RELIGIOPOLITICAL AGENDAE.
If it is not a theory please explain how life started.
this should be good.
Evolution is a theory. I did not deny this fact. However, intelligent design is not a scientific theory.
There is a large difference between a scientific theory, and a layman's theory.
Creationism fails as a theory because they start with the answer, and make the information fit their presupposed answer.
Evolution came about because of all of the evidence pointed toward the diversification of life.
Do I know how the initial life started on this planet? No. There are different theories as to how life started.
Panspermia, terraforming, abiogenesis, and others are all ideas. Is it possible some supernatural being said "let there be life" and it was? Yes, that is possible. However, since it is neither testable, quantifiable, provable or disprovable, it does not fit the scientific model.
Therefore, it does not belong in SCIENCE class.
If you want to teach the story of creation, leave it where it belongs. In church, not in the classroom.
Do you honestly want an equal discussion of the evidence for evolution alongside of creationism?
I think it would cast more doubt on the veracity of religion than just the teaching of evolution could by itself.
ON second thought, lets teach them both. It would be easier for people to realize the lies the church tries to feed them.
Creationism is just as much a theory as any other theory until it has been shown for a fact one theory is correct just because you don't want to believe it does not make it a non theory. not all evidence points to evolution. should it be taught in school some parts of it should be because it ties in with evolution for example scientists are unable to make a lab on there theory of how life started and this does play into the Creationism theory.
|
Danokan
Member
|
LibraLabSoldier wrote: Ok, so you posted the law of thermodynamics.
Are you honestly going to claim that this proves evolution doesnt work so I can cut your silly argument to ribbons.
No Libra..
Man.. you really need to catch up on what I have been saying.
Last edited on Wed Aug 3rd, 2005 01:42 pm by Danokan |
Aussiedawgs
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8872 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Danokan wrote:
LibraLabSoldier wrote: Danokan wrote: LibraLabSoldier wrote: Danokan wrote: LibraLabSoldier wrote: Sure, lets just have a whole class called alternative creation theories.
We can include every single creation "theory" from every religion or every culture we can find, and let the kids decide.
Isnt that what you guys want? Equal time?
I have stated quite clearly what I want.
What is your problem with it?
Look, let me put it like this:
I promise not to teach evolution in your church, keep your religious bullSH!T out of public school. Dont like it? Send your kids to the private school of your choice.
If this so called Culture war that the Religious right keeps perpetrating keeps up, there will be shooting.
Not all liberals and freethinkers are little pansy hippy pacificists. Some of us are gun toting true patriots that dont plan on lying down and watch this country get raped by the religious zealots.
What religion do I want taught in public schools?
Let me see if I can dumb this down sufficiently: Intelligent design is just the pseudoscientific face of good old fashioned Fundamentalist Evangelical Genesis Creationism. They espouse catastrophism (World Wide Flood) as an explanation for most fossil evidence, and other unscientific claims. The use stuff like teleology (study for patterns) to claim that things are just too darn complex to happen naturally....although when you point out that something as simple as a salt crystal will always be a cube no matter how small you crush it due to its crystaline structure, they look at you like you just advocated ritual baby killing.
ID relies on an untestable, unquantifiable SUPREME CREATOR (notice they never say it was possible there are CREATORS) that fits quite well with the Big Three of religion, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. So those are the religions that back it. Why do they back it? Because they want back in the school house, that is why.
blah blah
Now answer my question.
What RELIGION did I say I wanted taught in school?
Danokin, by teaching that life was designed by a "supreme creator" you are teaching religon, not necessarily a specific religon, but religon becuase it requires a "belief" in a supreme creator that is not based on scientific principals. Why does it need to be taught in a science class? Put in in a comparative religon classs with all the other religous creation stories. In addition...if you were to teach that life was engineered by a supreme creator you run into some problems - was it one supreme creator or many? What is it's nature? yada yada yada
When you put it side-=by-side with Evolution, ID has far less scientific evidence supporting it then Evolution. It is less credible as a science. So WHY would you then present it on equal footing with science? And - by stating that evolution is "only a theory", rather than stating that evolution is the theory that BEST FITS all the available data - you are doing exactly that.
|
Danokan
Member
|
Aussiedawgs wrote: Danokan wrote:
LibraLabSoldier wrote: Danokan wrote: LibraLabSoldier wrote: Danokan wrote: LibraLabSoldier wrote: Sure, lets just have a whole class called alternative creation theories.
We can include every single creation "theory" from every religion or every culture we can find, and let the kids decide.
Isnt that what you guys want? Equal time?
I have stated quite clearly what I want.
What is your problem with it?
Look, let me put it like this:
I promise not to teach evolution in your church, keep your religious bullSH!T out of public school. Dont like it? Send your kids to the private school of your choice.
If this so called Culture war that the Religious right keeps perpetrating keeps up, there will be shooting.
Not all liberals and freethinkers are little pansy hippy pacificists. Some of us are gun toting true patriots that dont plan on lying down and watch this country get raped by the religious zealots.
What religion do I want taught in public schools?
Let me see if I can dumb this down sufficiently: Intelligent design is just the pseudoscientific face of good old fashioned Fundamentalist Evangelical Genesis Creationism. They espouse catastrophism (World Wide Flood) as an explanation for most fossil evidence, and other unscientific claims. The use stuff like teleology (study for patterns) to claim that things are just too darn complex to happen naturally....although when you point out that something as simple as a salt crystal will always be a cube no matter how small you crush it due to its crystaline structure, they look at you like you just advocated ritual baby killing.
ID relies on an untestable, unquantifiable SUPREME CREATOR (notice they never say it was possible there are CREATORS) that fits quite well with the Big Three of religion, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. So those are the religions that back it. Why do they back it? Because they want back in the school house, that is why.
blah blah
Now answer my question.
What RELIGION did I say I wanted taught in school?
Danokin, by teaching that life was designed by a "supreme creator" you are teaching religon, not necessarily a specific religon, but religon becuase it requires a "belief" in a supreme creator that is not based on scientific principals. Why does it need to be taught in a science class? Put in in a comparative religon classs with all the other religous creation stories. In addition...if you were to teach that life was engineered by a supreme creator you run into some problems - was it one supreme creator or many? What is it's nature? yada yada yada
What did I say I wanted taught?
I wish you guys would actually READ what I have posted.
|
thwlruss
Member
|
i cannot believe you people still argue about this.
http://www.evolutionhappens.net/
the real question is how the seeds of life got here.
the next question is how viruses got here.
|
Aussiedawgs
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8872 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
steelblitzer wrote:
Creationism is just as much a theory as any other theory until it has been shown for a fact one theory is correct just because you don't want to believe it does not make it a non theory. not all evidence points to evolution. should it be taught in school some parts of it should be because it ties in with evolution for example scientists are unable to make a lab on there theory of how life started and this does play into the Creationism theory.
No. Creationism is not just as much a theory as any other theory. That isn't how science works.
Here are some theories on the creation of life:
Evolution
Biblican Creation
Intellegent Design by a Supreme Being
Farting Clowns (per CactusJack)
Coyote
In the beginning, Raven made the world
Aliens seeding the planet
5-toed Chicken spreading dirt around
Spider Woman and the Sun God
Are all of equal weight?
|
Danokan
Member
|
Aussiedawgs wrote: steelblitzer wrote:
Creationism is just as much a theory as any other theory until it has been shown for a fact one theory is correct just because you don't want to believe it does not make it a non theory. not all evidence points to evolution. should it be taught in school some parts of it should be because it ties in with evolution for example scientists are unable to make a lab on there theory of how life started and this does play into the Creationism theory.
No. Creationism is not just as much a theory as any other theory. That isn't how science works.
Here are some theories on the creation of life:
Evolution
Biblican Creation
Intellegent Design by a Supreme Being
Farting Clowns (per CactusJack)
Coyote
In the beginning, Raven made the world
Aliens seeding the planet
5-toed Chicken spreading dirt around
Spider Woman and the Sun God
Are all of equal weight?
Well what is interesting.. when you take all of the above.. you are still faced with ONLY TWO possibilities.
#1. Atheistic evolution
#2. ID
|
Aussiedawgs
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8872 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Danokan wrote:
What did I say I wanted taught?
I wish you guys would actually READ what I have posted.
This is what you said:
One can easily teach 'ID' without teaching it.
All you have to do is teach all of the impossibilities and absurd notions concerning "atheistic evolution" and you have already done the job.
The problem is, there are very few "impossibilities and absurdities" - there are however, unanswered questions.
The theory of evolution has never claimed to have all the answers. ID, on the other hand DOES claim to have all the answers because any unanswered question can be attributed to a "supreme being". This isn't science, it's a dead end and it's religon.
Why not teach evolution as the theory that BEST FITS all available facts? Because, that is exactly what it is.
|
Danokan
Member
|
Aussiedawgs wrote: Danokan wrote:
What did I say I wanted taught?
I wish you guys would actually READ what I have posted.
This is what you said:
One can easily teach 'ID' without teaching it.
All you have to do is teach all of the impossibilities and absurd notions concerning "atheistic evolution" and you have already done the job.
The problem is, there are very few "impossibilities and absurdities" - there are however, unanswered questions.
The theory of evolution has never claimed to have all the answers. ID, on the other hand DOES claim to have all the answers because any unanswered question can be attributed to a "supreme being". This isn't science, it's a dead end and it's religon.
Why not teach evolution as the theory that BEST FITS all available facts? Because, that is exactly what it is.
Why not teach evolution then teach all of the intrinsic impossibilities and let the students decide?
|
Aussiedawgs
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8872 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Danokan wrote:
Aussiedawgs wrote: steelblitzer wrote:
Creationism is just as much a theory as any other theory until it has been shown for a fact one theory is correct just because you don't want to believe it does not make it a non theory. not all evidence points to evolution. should it be taught in school some parts of it should be because it ties in with evolution for example scientists are unable to make a lab on there theory of how life started and this does play into the Creationism theory.
No. Creationism is not just as much a theory as any other theory. That isn't how science works.
Here are some theories on the creation of life:
Evolution
Biblican Creation
Intellegent Design by a Supreme Being
Farting Clowns (per CactusJack)
Coyote
In the beginning, Raven made the world
Aliens seeding the planet
5-toed Chicken spreading dirt around
Spider Woman and the Sun God
Are all of equal weight?
Well what is interesting.. when you take all of the above.. you are still faced with ONLY TWO possibilities.
#1. Atheistic evolution
#2. ID
Look a bit further. Which theories best account for the available data without requiring a belief system?
ID is not science - it does not stand up to the scrutiny of science. Why insist on teaching it as a science?
|
Danokan
Member
|
Aussiedawgs wrote: Danokan wrote:
Aussiedawgs wrote: steelblitzer wrote:
Creationism is just as much a theory as any other theory until it has been shown for a fact one theory is correct just because you don't want to believe it does not make it a non theory. not all evidence points to evolution. should it be taught in school some parts of it should be because it ties in with evolution for example scientists are unable to make a lab on there theory of how life started and this does play into the Creationism theory.
No. Creationism is not just as much a theory as any other theory. That isn't how science works.
Here are some theories on the creation of life:
Evolution
Biblican Creation
Intellegent Design by a Supreme Being
Farting Clowns (per CactusJack)
Coyote
In the beginning, Raven made the world
Aliens seeding the planet
5-toed Chicken spreading dirt around
Spider Woman and the Sun God
Are all of equal weight?
Well what is interesting.. when you take all of the above.. you are still faced with ONLY TWO possibilities.
#1. Atheistic evolution
#2. ID
Look a bit further. Which theories best account for the available data without requiring a belief system?
ID is not science - it does not stand up to the scrutiny of science. Why insist on teaching it as a science?
*SIGH*
When did I say to teach ID as a science?
When did I say to teach ID?
Pay attention aussie.. PAY ATTENTION.
|
Aussiedawgs
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8872 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Danokan wrote:
Aussiedawgs wrote: Danokan wrote:
What did I say I wanted taught?
I wish you guys would actually READ what I have posted.
This is what you said:
One can easily teach 'ID' without teaching it.
All you have to do is teach all of the impossibilities and absurd notions concerning "atheistic evolution" and you have already done the job.
The problem is, there are very few "impossibilities and absurdities" - there are however, unanswered questions.
The theory of evolution has never claimed to have all the answers. ID, on the other hand DOES claim to have all the answers because any unanswered question can be attributed to a "supreme being". This isn't science, it's a dead end and it's religon.
Why not teach evolution as the theory that BEST FITS all available facts? Because, that is exactly what it is.
Why not teach evolution then teach all of the intrinsic impossibilities and let the students decide?
How deep does one go in evolution (or any one science) in public schools? Mostly, it is superficially examined is it not? I strongly suspect that grade schools are not the place to go into a lot of depth on comparitive theories/microbiology/genetics etc. As PATruth said, it's hard enough just getting the basics accross. Isn't it sufficient to simply state that evolution is, at this point, the theory that best fits all available facts? Many of the "intrinsic impossibilities" that are used as examples by proponents of ID are inaccurate or debunked by science. What you are stating is to teach evolution in a manner which delibrately descredits it. I have no problems with teaching evolution as the best theory, and then saying that there are still unanswered questions because the purpose of science is to keep seeking answers from the natural world, not from a diety.
The point at which they should be exploring alternative theories and comparative topics is primarily at the University level, is it not? (I could be wrong - it's been years since I've been in grade school).
|
Danokan
Member
|
Aussiedawgs wrote: Danokan wrote:
Aussiedawgs wrote: Danokan wrote:
What did I say I wanted taught?
I wish you guys would actually READ what I have posted.
This is what you said:
One can easily teach 'ID' without teaching it.
All you have to do is teach all of the impossibilities and absurd notions concerning "atheistic evolution" and you have already done the job.
The problem is, there are very few "impossibilities and absurdities" - there are however, unanswered questions.
The theory of evolution has never claimed to have all the answers. ID, on the other hand DOES claim to have all the answers because any unanswered question can be attributed to a "supreme being". This isn't science, it's a dead end and it's religon.
Why not teach evolution as the theory that BEST FITS all available facts? Because, that is exactly what it is.
Why not teach evolution then teach all of the intrinsic impossibilities and let the students decide?
How deep does one go in evolution (or any one science) in public schools? Mostly, it is superficially examined is it not? I strongly suspect that grade schools are not the place to go into a lot of depth on comparitive theories/microbiology/genetics etc. As PATruth said, it's hard enough just getting the basics accross.
They have 10 months. *shrug* Isn't it sufficient to simply state that evolution is, at this point, the theory that best fits all available facts? Not if there are problems.. which there are. Many of the "intrinsic impossibilities" that are used as examples by proponents of ID are inaccurate or debunked by science. Not true.. What you are stating is to teach evolution in a manner which delibrately descredits it. No. Just with all the facts represented. Strange how people don't want that done.
|
Ynde
Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 16 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Aussiedawgs wrote: Danokan wrote:
Aussiedawgs wrote:
No. Creationism is not just as much a theory as any other theory. That isn't how science works.
Here are some theories on the creation of life:
Evolution
Biblican Creation
Intellegent Design by a Supreme Being
Farting Clowns (per CactusJack)
Coyote
In the beginning, Raven made the world
Aliens seeding the planet
5-toed Chicken spreading dirt around
Spider Woman and the Sun God
Are all of equal weight?
Well what is interesting.. when you take all of the above.. you are still faced with ONLY TWO possibilities.
#1. Atheistic evolution
#2. ID
Look a bit further. Which theories best account for the available data without requiring a belief system?
ID is not science - it does not stand up to the scrutiny of science. Why insist on teaching it as a science?
Could we maybe define a few terms here? I'm getting confused. As I understand it, atheistic evolution, as an explanation for "how it all got here," refers to the belief that everything arose from something much less complex--life coming out of non-life, etc.--and it did this entirely due to random chance. ID, on the other hand, is much less specific. Young-earth creationism is a form of ID, the Christian creation story is a form of ID, various different American Indian creation legends are all forms of ID. Also ID, however, is the belief that everything happened precisely as I described for Athiestic Evolution, except that instead of being due to random chance, the progress was due to an outside influence of some kind.
Unless there's something wrong with my definitions, it seems to me that you can't call either one of these concepts "hard science" since we have absolutely no way of experimenting to discover the why or even the how behind more complex life arising out of less complex. In fact, we can't even experiment to find out if, or at least, no one has yet succeeded in doing so. Which either means we haven't done the experiment properly, or the results have come back negative (and wouldn't that leave us back at square one).
|
Aussiedawgs
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8872 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Danokan wrote:
How deep does one go in evolution (or any one science) in public schools? Mostly, it is superficially examined is it not? I strongly suspect that grade schools are not the place to go into a lot of depth on comparitive theories/microbiology/genetics etc. As PATruth said, it's hard enough just getting the basics accross.
They have 10 months. *shrug*
10 months to teach what? To really understand some of the arguments, you need some understanding of genetics, biology, microbiology, biochemistry, chemistry, geology, zoology.
Isn't it sufficient to simply state that evolution is, at this point, the theory that best fits all available facts? Not if there are problems.. which there are.
Every theory has problems - including gravity. Evolution has no more problems then most other commonly excepted theories.
It also doesn't negate the FACT that evolution is, at this point, the theory that best fits all available facts?. ID legitimizes itself, not by providing alternative scientific explanations, but by attempting to descredit evolution because it does not yet answer all questions.
Why aren't you guys arguing for alternative gravity theories?
Many of the "intrinsic impossibilities" that are used as examples by proponents of ID are inaccurate or debunked by science. Not true..
It certainly appears to be true, and threepac showed that in some of his replies to you.
What you are stating is to teach evolution in a manner which delibrately descredits it. No. Just with all the facts represented. Strange how people don't want that done.
Strange how people seem to think that these so-called "facts" should be presented on an equal footing when the majority of the scientific community has successfully debunked them. We are talking about science aren't we?
What "facts" are you talking about?
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Danokan wrote: Why not teach evolution then teach all of the intrinsic impossibilities and let the students decide?
You have yet to show any intrinsic impossibilities. Unless I missed it we have not yet begun our second topic, and the recapitulation argument was thoroughly shredded.
|
thwlruss
Member
|
it seems we can all agree that evolution happens. the question is weather mutations are random or guided. I have no problem with exposing children to this debate; however, the arguments are quite complex and probably cannot be discussed until much later in the curriculum.
but at the end of the day, genesis is bs.
Last edited on Wed Aug 3rd, 2005 03:39 pm by thwlruss |
Aussiedawgs
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8872 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Threepac wrote:
Danokan wrote: Why not teach evolution then teach all of the intrinsic impossibilities and let the students decide?
You have yet to show any intrinsic impossibilities. Unless I missed it we have not yet begun our second topic, and the recapitulation argument was thoroughly shredded.
I'm looking forward to this debate...you are sharp on the sciences Threepac
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Aussiedawgs wrote: Threepac wrote:
Danokan wrote: Why not teach evolution then teach all of the intrinsic impossibilities and let the students decide?
You have yet to show any intrinsic impossibilities. Unless I missed it we have not yet begun our second topic, and the recapitulation argument was thoroughly shredded.
I'm looking forward to this debate...you are sharp on the sciences Threepac *curtsies* Thank you kindly ma'am.
|
Danokan
Member
|
Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: Why not teach evolution then teach all of the intrinsic impossibilities and let the students decide?
You have yet to show any intrinsic impossibilities. Unless I missed it we have not yet begun our second topic, and the recapitulation argument was thoroughly shredded.
Shredded?
hehe.. umm.. no.
Last I knew we came to pretty much of an impasse.. agreeing that HAECKEL'S theory was wrong.. but disagreed as to whether or not it was still in text books.
|
CTHULHU
Member
|
kenrolf wrote:
I know the reason for the civil war you don’t need to tell me that. And if it’s a misunderstanding then ill admit I was wrong. Also it’s not just the cons acting like brats look around the board and see the anti - religiousness s*** going on with you libs. I’m sure not all of you feel that way but what do you expect to happen if both sides keep talking there s***? As far as your duty goes, I salute you and respect you. Who knows maybe if im in the same branch as you we’ll work together but as I said if my religious freedom is in jeopardy I will damn well fight.
Religious freedom in 'jeopardy'?????!! Now THAT is a fukin' LAUGH!! The religious in this country enjoy more freedoms than ANYONE else for doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING other than worshipping! That does NOTHING for society (and more often hurts it). I DARE you to name ONE instance in which your freedom of relgion has in ANY way been harmed!
I DARE YOU!
I also would suggest that you read up on it a bit. There's a great new book called 'God vs. the Gavel' that outlines the instances in which religion is given special preference in EVERY case. You're so full of bullsht it's DISGUSTING!
|
Danokan
Member
|
CTHULHU wrote: kenrolf wrote:
I know the reason for the civil war you don’t need to tell me that. And if it’s a misunderstanding then ill admit I was wrong. Also it’s not just the cons acting like brats look around the board and see the anti - religiousness s*** going on with you libs. I’m sure not all of you feel that way but what do you expect to happen if both sides keep talking there s***? As far as your duty goes, I salute you and respect you. Who knows maybe if im in the same branch as you we’ll work together but as I said if my religious freedom is in jeopardy I will damn well fight.
Religious freedom in 'jeopardy'?????!! Now THAT is a fukin' LAUGH!! The religious in this country enjoy more freedoms than ANYONE else for doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING other than worshipping! That does NOTHING for society (and more often hurts it). I DARE you to name ONE instance in which your freedom of relgion has in ANY way been harmed!
I DARE YOU!
I also would suggest that you read up on it a bit. There's a great new book called 'God vs. the Gavel' that outlines the instances in which religion is given special preference in EVERY case. You're so full of bullsht it's DISGUSTING!
Time to look at the clock.
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Danokan wrote: Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: Why not teach evolution then teach all of the intrinsic impossibilities and let the students decide?
You have yet to show any intrinsic impossibilities. Unless I missed it we have not yet begun our second topic, and the recapitulation argument was thoroughly shredded.
Shredded?
hehe.. umm.. no.
Last I knew we came to pretty much of an impasse.. agreeing that HAECKEL'S theory was wrong.. but disagreed as to whether or not it was still in text books.
Haeckel's theory was discredited years ago. The source you cited was impeached by both myself, and the legal document you found. Thus there is no reason to believe Haeckel's theory is being taught as fact, and the argument was shredded. Agreed?
|
Danokan
Member
|
Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: Why not teach evolution then teach all of the intrinsic impossibilities and let the students decide?
You have yet to show any intrinsic impossibilities. Unless I missed it we have not yet begun our second topic, and the recapitulation argument was thoroughly shredded.
Shredded?
hehe.. umm.. no.
Last I knew we came to pretty much of an impasse.. agreeing that HAECKEL'S theory was wrong.. but disagreed as to whether or not it was still in text books.
Haeckel's theory was discredited years ago. The source you cited was impeached by both myself, and the legal document you found. Thus there is no reason to believe Haeckel's theory is being taught as fact, and the argument was shredded. Agreed?
Not exactly because I posted other sites.
Unfortunately I cannot verify because I don't have access to the books themselves..
But there are numerous sites stating that this theory is still being taught in text books that are in public school.
I will agree to an impasse i.e.. it is in the unknown.
|
LibraLabSoldier
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Apache, Oklahoma USA |
| Posts: | 2905 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Danokan wrote: Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: Why not teach evolution then teach all of the intrinsic impossibilities and let the students decide?
You have yet to show any intrinsic impossibilities. Unless I missed it we have not yet begun our second topic, and the recapitulation argument was thoroughly shredded.
Shredded?
hehe.. umm.. no.
Last I knew we came to pretty much of an impasse.. agreeing that HAECKEL'S theory was wrong.. but disagreed as to whether or not it was still in text books.
I have yet to find any current text book that is still in use that describes Haekels theories as anything more than a footnote in history, that was ultimately incorrect.
However, textbooks do still show similiarities in verterbrate embryos and yes, there are striking similiarities.
Recapitulation was incorrect. However, that is what science is all about. One scientists puts forth a ground breaking theory, and ten scientists fall over themselves trying to disprove it. Ultimately, science is advanced.
Creationism has no such system of checks and balances. As a matter of fact, there is much infighting amongst creationists (Especially Ken Ham of AiG and the guys at ICR.org). As a matter of fact,AiG has a very interesting webpage entitled
Arguments Creationists should not use:
Here it is.
What is important for creationists to defend, and what should be held more loosely?
Darwin recanted on his deathbed’. Many people use this story, originally from a Lady Hope. However, it is almost certainly not true, and there is no corroboration from those who were closest to him, even from Darwin’s wife Emma, who never liked evolutionary ideas. Also, even if true, so what? If Ken Ham recanted Creation, would that disprove it? There is no value to this argument whatever.
Moon-Dust thickness proves a young moon’. For a long time, creationists claimed that the dust layer on the moon was too thin if dust had truly been falling on it for billions of years. They based this claim on early estimates—by evolutionists—of the influx of moon dust, and worries that the moon landers would sink into this dust layer. But these early estimates were wrong, and by the time of the Apollo landings, NASA was not worried about sinking. So the dust layer thickness can’t be used as proof of a young moon (or of an old one either). See also Moon Dust and the Age of the Solar System (Technical).
long day” and Hezekiah’s sundial movement of Joshua 10 and 2 Kings 20.’ Not promoted by major creationist organizations, but an hoax in wide circulation, especially on the Internet.
Essentially the same story, now widely circulated on the Internet, appeared in the somewhat unreliable 1936 book The Harmony of Science and Scripture by Harry Rimmer. Evidently an unknown person embellished it with modern organization names and modern calculating devices.
Also, the whole story is mathematically impossible—it requires a fixed reference point before Joshua’s long day. In fact we would need to cross-check between both astronomical and historical records to detect any missing day. And to detect a missing 40 minutes requires that these reference points be known to within an accuracy of a few minutes. It is certainly true that the timing of solar eclipses observable from a certain location can be known precisely. But the ancient records did not record time that precisely, so the required cross-check is simply not possible. Anyway, the earliest historically recorded eclipse occurred in 1217 BC, nearly two centuries after Joshua. So there is no way the missing day could be detected by any computer. See also Has NASA Discovered a ‘Missing Day’? for historical and scientific documentation that this alleged discovery is mythological.
Note that discrediting this myth doesn’t mean that the events of Joshua 10 didn’t happen. Features in the account support its reliability, e.g. the moon was also slowed down. This was not necessary to prolong the day, but this would be observed from Earth’s reference frame if God had accomplished this miracle by slowing Earth’s rotation. See Joshua’s long day—did it really happen?
Woolly mammoths were snap frozen during the Flood catastrophe’. This is contradicted by the geological setting in which mammoths are found. It’s most likely that they perished toward the end of the Ice Age, possibly in catastrophic dust storms. Partially digested stomach contents are not proof of a snap freeze, because the elephant’s stomach functions as a holding area—a mastodon with preserved stomach contents was found in mid-western USA, where the ground was not frozen. See also technical PDF article.
Where are all the human fossils? from the Answers Book.
Who was ‘Java man’?
Live plesiosaurs: weighing the evidence and Letting rotting sharks lie: Further evidence that the Zuiyo-maru carcass was a basking shark, not a plesiosaur
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall’. This law says that the entropy (‘disorder’) of the Universe increases over time, and some have thought that this was the result of the Curse. However, disorder isn’t always harmful. An obvious example is digestion, breaking down large complex food molecules into their simple building blocks. Another is friction, which turns ordered mechanical energy into disordered heat—otherwise Adam and Eve would have slipped as they walked with God in Eden! A less obvious example to laymen might be the sun heating the Earth—to a physical chemist, heat transfer from a hot object to a cold one is the classic case of the Second Law in action. Also, breathing is based on another classic Second Law process, gas moving from a high pressure to low pressure. Finally, all beneficial processes in the world, including the development from embryo to adult, increase the overall disorder of the universe, showing that the Second Law is not inherently a curse.
Death and suffering of nephesh animals before sin are contrary to the Biblical framework above, as are suffering (or ‘groaning in travail’ (Rom. 8:20–22)). It is more likely that God withdrew some of His sustaining power (Col. 1:15–17) at the Fall so that the decay effect of the Second Law was no longer countered.
races’) and the evolutionist explanation of people origins? Answer: the former involves separation of already-existing information and loss of information through mutations; the latter requires the generation of tens of millions of ‘letters’ of new information.
Regenerating ribs: Adam and that ‘missing’ rib.
Archaeopteryx is a fraud’. Archaeopteryx was genuine (unlike Archaeoraptor, a ‘Piltdown bird’), as shown by anatomical studies and close analysis of the fossil slab. It was a true bird, not a ‘missing link’.(I do have to add somthing here. How many birds do we have today with teeth, claws, and long tails with a paddle like tail? It is a transitional fossil, and the creationists are just trying to play semantics games to negate that fact.)
Beetle Bloopers: defects can be an advantage sometimes, New eyes for blind cave fish? and Is antibiotic resistance really due to increase in information?
Q&A: Speciation.
Genesis 1:14 before the Flood, which strongly suggests an axial tilt from the beginning. Some creationists believe that a change in axial tilt (but not from the vertical) started Noah’s Flood. But a lot more evidence is needed and this idea should be regarded as speculative for now. Furthermore, computer modelling suggests that an upright axis would make temperature differences between the poles and equator far more extreme than now, while the current tilt of 23.5° is ideal. The Moon has an important function in stabilizing this tilt, and the Moon’s large relative size and the fact that its orbital plane is close to the Earth’s (unlike most moons in our solar system) are design features.
[url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/link.asp?http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-151.htm]Paluxy tracks[/url] prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.’ Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. However there is much evidence that dinosaurs and humans co-existed—see Q&A: Dinosaurs.
Darwin v The Eye and An eye for creation).
Gen. 10:25) refers to catastrophic splitting of the continents.’ Commentators both before and after Lyell and Darwin (including Calvin, Keil and Delitzsch, and Leupold) are almost unanimous that this passage refers to linguistic division at Babel and subsequent territorial division. We should always interpret Scripture with Scripture, and there’s nothing else in Scripture to indicate that this referred to continental division. But only eight verses on (note that chapter and verse divisions were not inspired), the Bible states, ‘Now the whole earth had one language and one speech’ (Gen. 11:1), and as a result of their disobedience, ‘the LORD confused the language of all the earth’ (Gen. 11:9). This conclusively proves that the ‘Earth’ that was divided was the same Earth that spoke only one language, i.e. ‘Earth’ refers in this context to the people of the Earth, not Planet Earth.
Another major problem is the scientific consequences of such splitting—another global flood! This gives us the clue as to when the continents did move apart — during Noah’s Flood — see below on plate tectonics.
Some remarks preliminary to a Biblical chronology, CEN Technical Journal12(1):98–106, 1998.
Biblical genealogies for exegetical proof.
Abraham, Jacob, Judah and David. Also, the Protevangelium of Gen. 3:15, regarded as Messianic by both early Christians and the Jewish Targums, refers to ‘the seed of the woman’. This is supported by Gal. 4:4, ‘God sent forth His Son, coming (genomenon) from a woman.’ Most importantly, for Jesus to have died for our sins, Jesus, the ‘last Adam’ (1 Cor. 15:45), had to share in our humanity (Heb. 2:14), so must have been our relative via common descent from the first Adam as Luke 3:38 says. In fact, seven centuries before His Incarnation, the Prophet Isaiah spoke of Him as literally the ‘Kinsman-Redeemer’, i.e. one who is related by blood to those he redeems (Isaiah 59:20, uses the same Hebrew word goel as used to describe Boaz in relation to Ruth). To answer the concern about original sin, the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary (Luke 1:35), preventing any sin nature being transmitted. See also The Virginal Conception of Christ for a defence of this foundational doctrine and further discussion of these Biblical passages.
1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution.’ To develop a Scriptural model properly, we must understand what the author intended to communicate to his intended audience, which in turn is determined by the grammar and historical context. We must not try to read into Scripture that which appears to support a particular viewpoint. The original Greek word translated ‘science’ is gnosis, and in this context refers to the élite esoteric ‘knowledge’ that was the key to the mystery religions, which later developed into the heresy of Gnosticism. This was not an error by the KJV translators, but an illustration of how many words have changed their meanings over time. The word ‘science’ originally meant ‘knowledge’, from the Latin scientia, from scio meaning ‘know’. This original meaning is just not the way it is used today, so modern translations correctly render the word as ‘knowledge’ in this passage.
Of course AiG believes that evolution is anti-knowledge because it clouds the minds of many to the abundant evidence of God’s action in Creation and the true knowledge available in His Word, the Bible. But as this page points out, it is wrong to use fallacious arguments to support a true viewpoint. On a related matter, it is linguistically fallacious to claim that even now, ‘science really means knowledge’, because meaning is determined by usage, not derivation (etymology).
Q&A: Geocentrism, Faulkner, D., Geocentrism and Creation , TJ15(2):110–121; 2001.
Ron Wyatt has found Noah’s Ark’ This claimed Ark shape is a natural geological formation caused by a mud flow.
Ron Wyatt has found much archaeological proof of the Bible’ There is not the slightest substantiation for Wyatt’s claims, just excuses to explain away why the evidence is missing.
Maintaining Creationist Integrity, our response to Hovind’s reply to this article).
no such thing. See also Physicists’ God-talk.
[/list]
Noah’s Flood—Where did the water come from? from the Answers Book.
Genesis 2:5–6 at face value teaches only that there was no rain at the time Adam was created. But it doesn’t rule out rain at any later time before the Flood, as great pre-uniformitarian commentators such as John Calvin pointed out. A related fallacy is that the rainbow covenant of Genesis 9:12–17 proves that there were no rainbows before the Flood. As Calvin pointed out, God frequently invested existing things with new meanings, e.g. the bread and wine at the Lord’s Supper.
information problem. Arguments about tautology distract attention from the real weakness of neo-Darwinism — the source of the new information required. Given an appropriate source of variation (for example, an abundance of created genetic information with the capacity for Mendelian recombination), replicating populations of organisms would be expected to be capable of some adaptation to a given environment, and this has been demonstrated amply in practice.
Natural selection is also a useful explanatory tool in creationist modelling of post-Flood radiation with speciation [see Q&A: Natural Selection].
How can we see distant stars in a young Universe? from the Answers Book.
Q&A: Fossils.
Q&A: Plate Tectonics. However, AiG recognises that some reputable creationist scientists disagree with plate tectonics.
‘Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.’ These terms, which focus on ‘small’ v. ‘large’ changes, distract from the key issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a ‘micro’ increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off.
‘The Gospel is in the stars.’ This is an interesting idea, but quite speculative, and many Biblical creationists doubt that it is taught in Scripture, so we do not recommend using it.
[/list]
IF creationists themselves think these arguments are doubtful, why do lay people keep using them to defend ID and creationism?
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Danokan wrote: Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: Why not teach evolution then teach all of the intrinsic impossibilities and let the students decide?
You have yet to show any intrinsic impossibilities. Unless I missed it we have not yet begun our second topic, and the recapitulation argument was thoroughly shredded.
Shredded?
hehe.. umm.. no.
Last I knew we came to pretty much of an impasse.. agreeing that HAECKEL'S theory was wrong.. but disagreed as to whether or not it was still in text books.
Haeckel's theory was discredited years ago. The source you cited was impeached by both myself, and the legal document you found. Thus there is no reason to believe Haeckel's theory is being taught as fact, and the argument was shredded. Agreed?
Not exactly because I posted other sites.
Unfortunately I cannot verify because I don't have access to the books themselves..
But there are numerous sites stating that this theory is still being taught in text books that are in public school.
I will agree to an impasse i.e.. it is in the unknown.
Yes, but it is an unknown in the same sense that we do not know if physics textbooks teach gravity. I cannot prove it, as I only have the Resnick and Halliday books, but I can pretty much guarantee any elementary physics textbook will discuss gravity. Haeckel's theory was disproved long before you or I were born. I am positive it is not being taught, and there is no reason to believe it is. Shall we move on to out next topic?
|
Danokan
Member
|
Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: Why not teach evolution then teach all of the intrinsic impossibilities and let the students decide?
You have yet to show any intrinsic impossibilities. Unless I missed it we have not yet begun our second topic, and the recapitulation argument was thoroughly shredded.
Shredded?
hehe.. umm.. no.
Last I knew we came to pretty much of an impasse.. agreeing that HAECKEL'S theory was wrong.. but disagreed as to whether or not it was still in text books.
Haeckel's theory was discredited years ago. The source you cited was impeached by both myself, and the legal document you found. Thus there is no reason to believe Haeckel's theory is being taught as fact, and the argument was shredded. Agreed?
Not exactly because I posted other sites.
Unfortunately I cannot verify because I don't have access to the books themselves..
But there are numerous sites stating that this theory is still being taught in text books that are in public school.
I will agree to an impasse i.e.. it is in the unknown.
Yes, but it is an unknown in the same sense that we do not know if physics textbooks teach gravity. I cannot prove it, as I only have the Resnick and Halliday books, but I can pretty much guarantee any elementary physics textbook will discuss gravity. Haeckel's theory was disproved long before you or I were born. I am positive it is not being taught, and there is no reason to believe it is. Shall we move on to out next topic?
Yes 3pac.
As I said.. it may be the fact that they were using the drawings.. yet several sites say they are teaching the Theory.
As a side note: Macarion in an argument many threads ago brought up the 'FACT OF RECAPITULATION'.
I wonder where they came up with that idea?????????
But .. let's move on.
|
hunter
Member
|
LibraLabSoldier wrote: BigMan wrote: LibraLabSoldier wrote: Because, and let me make this perfectly, perfectly crystal clear:
INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT A THEORY, IT IS A CREATION MYTH PUMPED UP WITH PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC JARGON TO CONFUSE THE UNINFORMED.
Honestly. Do you think there is some dark cabal of scientists who want to keep the truth hidden just to advance a (according to creationists) discredited theory?
There is nothing wrong with exposing kids to different theories. AS LONG AS THEY ARE THEORIES, AND NOT RELIGIOPOLITICAL AGENDAE.
If it is not a theory please explain how life started.
this should be good.
Evolution is a theory. I did not deny this fact. However, intelligent design is not a scientific theory.
There is a large difference between a scientific theory, and a layman's theory.
Creationism fails as a theory because they start with the answer, and make the information fit their presupposed answer.
Evolution came about because of all of the evidence pointed toward the diversification of life.
Do I know how the initial life started on this planet? No. There are different theories as to how life started.
Panspermia, terraforming, abiogenesis, and others are all ideas. Is it possible some supernatural being said "let there be life" and it was? Yes, that is possible. However, since it is neither testable, quantifiable, provable or disprovable, it does not fit the scientific model.
Therefore, it does not belong in SCIENCE class.
If you want to teach the story of creation, leave it where it belongs. In church, not in the classroom.
Do you honestly want an equal discussion of the evidence for evolution alongside of creationism?
I think it would cast more doubt on the veracity of religion than just the teaching of evolution could by itself.
ON second thought, lets teach them both. It would be easier for people to realize the lies the church tries to feed them.
Every theory starts with an answer and backtracks to the origin. Evolution is no exception. Scientists started with how did we get here, just like the layman did.
I like your second thought. Yes, let's tell them both and let the ones who even care decide for themselves.
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Danokan wrote: Yes 3pac.
As I said.. it may be the fact that they were using the drawings.. yet several sites say they are teaching the Theory.
As a side note: Macarion in an argument many threads ago brought up the 'FACT OF RECAPITULATION'.
I wonder where they came up with that idea?????????
But .. let's move on.
First, I haven't seen another site claiming that these books were teaching Haeckel's recapitulation, perhaps I missed one of your posts?
The fact of recapitulation that Macarion most likely refers to is the connection between phylogeny and ontogeny, which is a foundation of recapitulation theory that happens to be true. Haeckel extrapolated incorrectly, but this plank of his theory is fairly good evidence for evolution.
|
hunter
Member
|
Aussiedawgs wrote: Danokan wrote:
Aussiedawgs wrote: Danokan wrote:
What did I say I wanted taught?
I wish you guys would actually READ what I have posted.
This is what you said:
One can easily teach 'ID' without teaching it.
All you have to do is teach all of the impossibilities and absurd notions concerning "atheistic evolution" and you have already done the job.
The problem is, there are very few "impossibilities and absurdities" - there are however, unanswered questions.
The theory of evolution has never claimed to have all the answers. ID, on the other hand DOES claim to have all the answers because any unanswered question can be attributed to a "supreme being". This isn't science, it's a dead end and it's religon.
Why not teach evolution as the theory that BEST FITS all available facts? Because, that is exactly what it is.
Why not teach evolution then teach all of the intrinsic impossibilities and let the students decide?
How deep does one go in evolution (or any one science) in public schools? Mostly, it is superficially examined is it not? I strongly suspect that grade schools are not the place to go into a lot of depth on comparitive theories/microbiology/genetics etc. As PATruth said, it's hard enough just getting the basics accross. Isn't it sufficient to simply state that evolution is, at this point, the theory that best fits all available facts? Many of the "intrinsic impossibilities" that are used as examples by proponents of ID are inaccurate or debunked by science. What you are stating is to teach evolution in a manner which delibrately descredits it. I have no problems with teaching evolution as the best theory, and then saying that there are still unanswered questions because the purpose of science is to keep seeking answers from the natural world, not from a diety.
The point at which they should be exploring alternative theories and comparative topics is primarily at the University level, is it not? (I could be wrong - it's been years since I've been in grade school). I agree, I've said this since the beginning of the post. Even at the middle and high school grades, I do not believe these kids give it the second thoughts that we do. They care more about where they are going Friday night after the football game.
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
^I think you're generalizing here. Intelligent kids will always ponder the issue. Try to remember that I am 17, Alex(F) is 16, and we've both argued vehemently on the matter. Also, any encroachment of religion into government should be excised. Last edited on Wed Aug 3rd, 2005 05:29 pm by Threepac |
hunter
Member
|
Threepac wrote: ^I think you're generalizing here. Intelligent kids will always ponder the issue. Try to remember that I am 17, Alex(F) is 16, and we've both argued vehemently on the matter. Also, any encroachment of religion into government should be excised.
Heck, 3Pac, there probably aren't many teachers that know as much as you do. I know you were at the top of your class, but you are in the minority, sad to say. I said most of the kids, and those who are interested enough will do their own research. And if you do your own research, you will find conflicting opinions on both sides. That's why I think it doesn't hurt to tell them all the opinions, let them do the research and find out for themselves.
As far as Alex goes, IMO, Alex just argues to be arguing.
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
^Whether or not that's the case, she makes valid points, so she muyst be researching the issues. Incidentally, there is a pattern in American education of teaching to the dumbest students, and not the brightest. It is one of the reasons we lag in education. If we simply ignore science and teach unfounded ideas, why even have school at all?
|
LibraLabSoldier
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Apache, Oklahoma USA |
| Posts: | 2905 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
I was the same way in highschool, which put me at odds with the faculty, for the most part.
In Louisiana, they did teach Creation alongside evolution. I did tons of research on my own about everything that interested me. I looked into why people believed in paranormal phenomena, and many other things.
Kids now do research on their own. I find it very encouraging that young people like Threepac and Alex(F) do question things. Kids still have the amazing ability to imagine the impossible. I try to keep that ability sharp in myself, but so far all I have suceeded in doing is being sort of goofy much of the time.
Self study is the hall mark of a gifted student. I was disappointed with the chemistry set that my parents got me, so I set about doing my own experiments....
Did you know it is very easy to manufacture gun powder from simple elements, and consequently leave a crater in your parents back yard big enough to turn into an ornamental fish pond?
It really isnt any wonder my parents were worried that I was nuts.
But this is the same kind of spirit that has moved American innovation forward.
One of the teams on the DARPA challenge was high school kids. ANd they didnt do any worse than the adult teams with corporate funding.
Keep questioning everything.
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: Yes 3pac.
As I said.. it may be the fact that they were using the drawings.. yet several sites say they are teaching the Theory.
As a side note: Macarion in an argument many threads ago brought up the 'FACT OF RECAPITULATION'.
I wonder where they came up with that idea?????????
But .. let's move on.
First, I haven't seen another site claiming that these books were teaching Haeckel's recapitulation, perhaps I missed one of your posts?
The fact of recapitulation that Macarion most likely refers to is the connection between phylogeny and ontogeny, which is a foundation of recapitulation theory that happens to be true. Haeckel extrapolated incorrectly, but this plank of his theory is fairly good evidence for evolution.
Danokan, where are you?
|
Danokan
Member
|
Threepac wrote: Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: Yes 3pac.
As I said.. it may be the fact that they were using the drawings.. yet several sites say they are teaching the Theory.
As a side note: Macarion in an argument many threads ago brought up the 'FACT OF RECAPITULATION'.
I wonder where they came up with that idea?????????
But .. let's move on.
First, I haven't seen another site claiming that these books were teaching Haeckel's recapitulation, perhaps I missed one of your posts?
The fact of recapitulation that Macarion most likely refers to is the connection between phylogeny and ontogeny, which is a foundation of recapitulation theory that happens to be true. Haeckel extrapolated incorrectly, but this plank of his theory is fairly good evidence for evolution.
Danokan, where are you?
ROFL
Everywhere else.
And getting ready to leave.
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Boo! I was just starting to enjoy this thread.
|
Danokan
Member
|
Threepac wrote: Boo! I was just starting to enjoy this thread.
hehe.. I will be back.
Probably not today though.
|
Danokan
Member
|
Threepac wrote: Boo! I was just starting to enjoy this thread.
Oh and 3pac
We need to decide which one is next.
I think the other 2 were
Randomness?
and
Symbiosis
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
I THINK we said sybiosis, but I'm too lazy to look it up.
|
Danokan
Member
|
Threepac wrote: I THINK we said sybiosis, but I'm too lazy to look it up.
ROFL
Ok.. symbiosis it is.
That should last until ....the next election
|
LibraLabSoldier
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Apache, Oklahoma USA |
| Posts: | 2905 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Here is a beginning point on symbiosis.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/Symbiosis.html
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Dammit Danokan, I've seen you posting. Get thy ass here.
|
Danokan
Member
|
Threepac wrote: Dammit Danokan, I've seen you posting. Get thy ass here.
I answered you in another thread..obviously you didn't see it. Here is a repost:
ROFL
Just got out of my staff meeting.
Blowing off steam.
Then going out to eat with my wife for our anniversary.
Red Lobster sound good to you?
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
^ Damn your anniversary! Evolution! Debate! Slacking off!
|
Aussiedawgs
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8872 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Just want to say hats off to Danokan and to threepac who manage to debate with curtesy, humor and civility...you guys (gals?) are great
![[yay]](/forums/themes/default/luxhello.gif)
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Guy, and I'm pretty sure Danokan is as well.
Again, *curtsies* thank you kindly ma'am.
|
Danokan
Member
|
Aussiedawgs wrote: Just want to say hats off to Danokan and to threepac who manage to debate with curtesy, humor and civility...you guys (gals?) are great
Guy.
thanks!
And I am OUTTA HERE.
Be back tomorrow
|
Aussiedawgs
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8872 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Danokan wrote:
Aussiedawgs wrote: Just want to say hats off to Danokan and to threepac who manage to debate with curtesy, humor and civility...you guys (gals?) are great
Guy.
thanks!
And I am OUTTA HERE.
Be back tomorrow
Have a great anniversary!
Red Lobster....mmmmmm
|
LibraLabSoldier
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Apache, Oklahoma USA |
| Posts: | 2905 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Anyway, what is the problem with symbiosis?
Hell, our own bodies would not work without the bacteria that live in out large intestine and small intestine. We have many many kinds of benign and benevolent bacteria that live in, on, and around out bodies. Hell, dust mites by the millions live in your bed! Also, many creatures have evolved into symbiotic relationships with humans, some through domestication, and others through just plain oppurtunism:
Coyotes, raccoons, squirrels, foxes, pigeons,crows,rats, and the list goes on and on. We are supporting a vast ecosystem, whether we realize it or not!
And the evolution grinds on.
Dont believe that humans evolve?
Go to Louisiana (shameless plug for the old home state, )
Go to the antebellum homes, and reach down for the doorknobs. Thats right, reach down. Humans are getting steadily taller, and larger. We are reaching sexual maturity at younger and younger ages. Why? Because we have an increased food supply, increased optimal living conditions, increased lifespan....and better nutrition and less deadly accidents and disfigurations in childhood.
Ergo, we are growing larger, taller, stronger, and smarter. Well, some of us, anyway.
Evolution is selective.
|
hunter
Member
|
Danokan wrote:
Threepac wrote: Dammit Danokan, I've seen you posting. Get thy ass here.
I answered you in another thread..obviously you didn't see it. Here is a repost:
ROFL
Just got out of my staff meeting.
Blowing off steam.
Then going out to eat with my wife for our anniversary.
Red Lobster sound good to you?
Happy Anniversary!!!!!
And Threepac, you might have to wait. Anniversaries come first.
|
Zelbach
Member
|
He does? Good - this is the type of thing is why I voted for him. ![[usa]](/forums/themes/default/usa.gif)
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Zelbach wrote: He does? Good - this is the type of thing is why I voted for him. Oh, because you're a fundamentalist loon? Good to know. Oh brother.
|
Zelbach
Member
|
Threepac wrote: Zelbach wrote: He does? Good - this is the type of thing is why I voted for him. Oh, because you're a fundamentalist loon? Good to know. Oh brother.
Another fine example of liberals being open-minded. If someone thinks children should hear both sides, they're a "fundamentalist loon."
|
Danokan
Member
|
Threepac wrote: Guy, and I'm pretty sure Danokan is as well.
Again, *curtsies* thank you kindly ma'am.
3pac
Semi-emergency on this end.
WIll try later this afternoon.
Just wanted to drop you a line.
Thanks for your patience.
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
No problem Danokan, handle your business. We'll talk when you're available.
|
Danokan
Member
|
Threepac wrote: No problem Danokan, handle your business. We'll talk when you're available.
Well.. I finally found the checkbook.
That is a start
Will probably be tomorrow 3pac..
|
LibraLabSoldier
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Apache, Oklahoma USA |
| Posts: | 2905 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Zelbach wrote: Threepac wrote: Zelbach wrote: He does? Good - this is the type of thing is why I voted for him. Oh, because you're a fundamentalist loon? Good to know. Oh brother.
Another fine example of liberals being open-minded. If someone thinks children should hear both sides, they're a "fundamentalist loon."
Except it is not truly both sides, Zel. Evolution is on one side. What side does creationism stand on, scientifically? It doesnt.
|
SlobberBone
Member
|
|
LibraLabSoldier
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Apache, Oklahoma USA |
| Posts: | 2905 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
SlobberBone wrote:
ROFLMAO!!!!BEAUTIFUL!
|
CTHULHU
Member
|
Ynde wrote:
Could we maybe define a few terms here? I'm getting confused. As I understand it,atheistic evolution, as an explanation for "how it all got here," refers to the belief that everything arose from something much less complex--life coming out of non-life, etc.--and it did this entirely due to random chance. ID, on the other hand, is much less specific. Young-earth creationism is a form of ID, the Christian creation story is a form of ID, various different American Indian creation legends are all forms of ID. Also ID, however, is the belief that everything happened precisely as I described for Athiestic Evolution, except that instead of being due to random chance, the progress was due to an outside influence of some kind.
Unless there's something wrong with my definitions, it seems to me that you can't call either one of these concepts "hard science" since we have absolutely no way of experimenting to discover the why or even the how behind more complex life arising out of less complex. In fact, we can't even experiment to find out if, or at least, no one has yet succeeded in doing so. Which either means we haven't done the experiment properly, or the results have come back negative (and wouldn't that leave us backat square one).
Both I.D. and Evolution are traced back to the same question which is: 'What created God?' and 'What caused the Big Bang'. Both are questions that no human has been able to answer and both questions are eternally locked in Mystery. But the belief in a higher power that created 'something from nothing' is not bound by any laws of nature or even quantum physics. So it is absolutely LUDICROUS to present the idea of a GOD or ID to students because there is not even a HINT of reality to it. And also I don't understand why people refer to evolution as a 'theory' - SURE there was a theory that started the idea -- but it has data that backs it up -- for MANY years this has been the primary source that scientists look to -- there was also a 'Theory of Gravity' -- the fact that a theory existed does not make it a theory after we KNOW it is happening in all we see and know. JEEZ some people are stupid.
|
LibraLabSoldier
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Apache, Oklahoma USA |
| Posts: | 2905 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
CTH, that is what we are dealing with.
First the creationists complained that the real scientists would not debate with them, in stacked circuses meant to make scientists look foolish with nonsensical orations that have nothing to do with science.
Then, they claimed victory because the scientists refused to show up to something rigged against them.
They never allow their "discoveries" to be examined by independant laboratories, they quote the most dubious of sources, and expect us all to buy into the myth.
Now, they are emboldened by a funnymentalist in the White House, and are launching outright assaults on freedom, education, science, medicine, research, law, politics, and who knows what else?
These people will eventually go away. Unfortunately, we have to live through their footnote in history.
|
Discourser
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 26th, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 2390 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Nutty Bush on Creationist Public Education
FFRF: Creationists Bolstered by Bush "Intelligent Design" Nod
BBSNews, Sunday, August 07 2005 @ 12:23 AM EDT
http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20050805190017815
Creationist Wolf in Cheap Clothing
FFRF via BBSNews - 2005-08-05 -- Are we surprised when a president known more for his faith than his intellect advises us that creationism should be taught in public schools? George W. Bush, responding this week to a question about evolution and "intelligent design," gave us his learned scientific opinion: "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about. . . . Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought."
Widely considered the father of evolution, Charles Darwin is often times a revered figure in scientific circles, and a reviled figure in some religious circles. Particularly Christians who believe in the theory of Creationism, where the universe was for them created in six days by a Christian God.
Darwin for a time struggled between the notion of being a country doctor or a clergyman, but an opportunity arose to make a five year long scientific quest around the world on the H.M.S. Beagle. During this long voyage he collected specimens and observed life forms at Pacific coral islands, the Galapagos islands and South America.
In On the Origin of Species, one of the most famous scientific texts ever written, Darwin spelled out his notoriously brilliant idea of natural selection, he wrote in 1859:
"As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected. From the strong principle of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form."
A myth that still struggles for survival today is that Charles Darwin "repented" from Evolution or even converted to Christianity on his deathbed is just that, a myth. Darwin was not an atheist. He was a deist, in other words and quite ironically, a believer in an intelligent designer.
Does anyone think Bush really cares about an objective academic debate? Our president, the darling of the Christian right, is simply using his office to legitimize his theistic views, which happen to be the origin myth of the believing bloc that voted him into office.
As Christian conservative Gary Bauer pointed out: "With the president endorsing it, at the very least it makes Americans who have that position more respectable."
|
Is Jesus Or Satan The Liberal?
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 1st, 2004 |
| Location: | EARTH |
| Posts: | 2589 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
cactusJack wrote: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/08/01/national/w200833D87.DTL
I love it when people have no idea what the definition of a "theory" is.
A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Thus, intelligent design can never be a theory. the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection has observable and repeatable facts to support it such as the process of mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, adaptation and speciation through natural selection, the "Intelligent Designer" in intelligent design is neither observable nor repeatable. This violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability. Calling it a theory is wrong and shows just how ignorant and misguided the right-wing extremists are on this.
It was right in front of me for so very long yet only recently have I become aware of it. And now, it is undeniably self-evident. This modern form of so-called christianity is the exact same religion as Islam with the same aspirations. It is just in a less mature form due to cultural opposition.
Our entire technological civilization is based on scientific method and now we have a minority of cultists insisting on bypassing all scientific and political protocol and insisting on teaching superstition in public high school.
Intelligent design very well may be, but it wouldn't be from a giant semi-invisible vertebrae in the sky as commonly implied and imagined by the vulgar class. If anything it's direct genetic manipulation by some living species either native to this planet and preceding homosapiens or extraterrestrial. Perhaps the latter is the implication the President is advocating.
|
Eyes
Member
|
hunter wrote: Guess what? If someone is curious enough to want to know, they will research and find it out anyway. There's nothing wrong with presenting both sides to the kids, it might just make them think for a change.
So if it is ok to teach Intelligent Design in school, is it also ok to teach evolution in sunday school?
Who is the designer in ID?
|
75Norton
Member
|
The law of gravity is another theory with gaps and holes. Look at balloons and clouds fer gosh sake! Attachment: id.jpg (Downloaded 145 times)
|
spiffyfranz
Member
|
ID is funny. Its supposedly science. Lets see. Science tries to work with something and then get a conclusion. ID already has one and they are trying to make it work.
|
Discourser
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 26th, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 2390 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Bush’s neocon friends shocked as he backs the Darwin-doubters
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1724138,00.html
While Bush’s conservative Christian fundamentalist base is delighted by his pronouncement, it has opened a split with neoconservatives and other secular allies on the right.
In Texas, where the president likes to spend August reconnecting with his heartland, Bush said last week: "Both sides ought to be taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about."
Some of the president’s greatest supporters in the war on terror are shaking their heads in disbelief at his remarks. Charles Krauthammer, a neoconservative commentator, said the idea of teaching intelligent design (creationism’s modern step-child) was "insane".
"To teach it as science is to encourage the supercilious caricature of America as a nation in the thrall of a religious authority," he wrote. "To impose it on the teaching of evolution is ridiculous."
[Krauthammer added:] "If you look at this purely as a cynical political move, it will help in the heartlands and people of my ilk care a lot more about Iraq than about textbooks in Kansas."
There's no need to learn what was in that top-secret briefing that the president received as he settled down for his monthlong vacation at his Texas ranch on Aug. 6 [2001]. Reports at the time show that Mr. Bush broke off from work early and spent most of that day fishing. [Emphasis added.] If he had received foreknowledge of an attack that morning, he would have acted upon it, and no Democratic leader has said otherwise (despite Dick Cheney's smears to the contrary)."
-- Frank Rich, "Thanks for the Heads-Up", The New York Times, May 25, 2002
|
Realistic_Swede
Member
|
|
Danokan
Member
|
Swede.. I asked you this in another thread and I haven't seen you answer..
When you say THERE IS NO GOD.. are you saying that in an absolute manner?
|
Danokan
Member
|
3pac
Symbiosis
Nile Croc and the Egyptian plover
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
|
|
