ST-One
Vice Admiral
You probably find this far more credible, don't you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF3L359yKjs&feature=related
ATTN: Texas residents, School board challenges EVOLUTION
- Thread starter Yminale
- Start date
- Status
You probably find this far more credible, don't you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF3L359yKjs&feature=related
No, fuck you. Children need to learn HOW to think...not WHAT to think. That said, BOTH "theories" need to be taught.
Why is it that you "scientific" types are so afraid of intelligent design? Is it that you're afriad that your idol Darwin just might be wrong?
And even if evolution is true...WHY does it happen?
I still don't buy that evolution is the full truth.
Why can't the secularists be more tolerant of other theories?
ST-One
Vice Admiral
'Intelligent design' (or rather Creationism, since this is what ID actually is) is not a scientific theory. It is fantasy. It doesn't have any factual basis at all.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Scientists (many of whom are Christians or members of other faiths) are tolerant of any theory that can actually be proven to be supported by facts or evidence.
Creationism lacks such facts and evidence.
Neither does evolution. In fact, if you want to play semantics, why don't we call evolution for what it really is. ADAPTATION at best. Is DNA altered in this so-called evolution? I highly doubt it. And if not...then there is no such thing as evolution.
But back to Ceationism...you call it fantasy...so Einstein...where do all things in the universe come from? According to you, they evolved from something. But where did that "something" come from?
Science may explain why something works or comes into existance, but it doesn't explain how that something works or is created.
Take a computer for example...science explains why it works, circuits and all, but it doesn't explain how it was created. The point is that everything has a creator, or builder in this case. Someone puts things together and they work in a scientific way.
Example #1: Prove that you exist....
I think, therefore I am.
In case you haven't heard...Faith is that which cannot be proved by facts or evidence. That's why it is called Faith. ie. Faith in something that cannot be physically proven.
Example #2: Prove that you love someone or something.
There's no facts there...no evidence that "love" even exists. Yet we have faith that is does.
You see, for those of you who have your head so buried up in science's ass, that you don't or can't undertsand the basic concept of faith.
For those who have faith, no evidence is needed. For those who have no faith, no amount of evidence is enough.
Last edited:
PBS recently re-ran one of their specials that detailed the evolution of dogs. An interesting part was that the Russians had experimented with the breeding of black foxes based on social queues and behavior toward humans. In the span of 20 years of breeding, the foxes actually did evolve with marked changes in behavior and even color. Many of the generations of the offspring still survive, and the change, when compared to their ancestors, is remarkable.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Okay, adaption then. How are these adaptions passed on if they aren't 'recorded' within the DNA or RNA?
Microcosm?
Hmm... I think I may mean "fundamental niche." Still the overall environment, but the parts in it specifically relating to an organism in it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_niche
Both those are good too.
Been a couple years, was too busy finishing my other degree. Guess I need to dig out my textbooks.
The thing about the guy gluing moths to trees sounds familiar, maybe not in texts, but by the prof? But the overall principal is still provable. The variety lies within the genetic code, and while various colours can exist while not being dominant. But if all of one type are consistently... eaten, then you're still going to see a drop in the occurrence of that type, as the type of the survivors increases...
For people who believe in God, this isn't... denying him or anything.
As the Badger said, "this matter is not an issue of science vs. religion." Discussions of this sort don't need to degrade to two polar groups at each other's throats. Some of the people on this BBS who don't believe in God have found articles on various facinating scientific processes, and despite the fact I believe in God, I don't see why I can't use them to appreciate the universe even more than I do.
It's a matter of what's in the genetic code that lends itself to an organism's survival. Even in the Bible, animals were created according to "kinds." What the end of the line base precisely isn't said... but we do know for example that wolves, coyotes, corgis, German Shepards etc. are all members of the same family. And if all you had was "canine", eventually through selective breeding, you could have corgis again. It's a matter of selecting colour and size until you get what you want. And if people can do it, the environment can too.
That is the importance of adaptation- species need it to survive. And this diverse genetic code is the key. I both believe in God, and think that's important. The Bible says there was a point when the earth tilted, and went from tropical to having seasons. How many species would have survived if their genetic codes didn't allow for change at such a dramatic shift? Just a thought that came to mind from Genesis, I'm not trying to start an argument on it... but diversity is important.
I never call myself a Creationist as it used to be that Creationists by definition believed that the universe was created in six 24 hour days. I know that there are are many people who believe in God and that he is a creator that do not believe this, so they do use the term... but I still won't because of the origin of the term, I don't want to give the wrong idea. I don't even think that Genesis was talking about the creation of the universe as a whole (I'm weird) but I'm going off topic... again.
What people are afraid of is having non-science ideas being taught in a science class which dilutes the understanding of what science is... which is why people don't even have a basic understanding of scientific terminology, such as all the people in this thread who don't understand what the definition of the word "theory" is in a scientific context.
This is factually incorrect. Change in DNA over time has been directly observed in the lab and in the wild. This is fundamental to both evolution and basic biology.
The rest of your post is anti-scientific in the extreme. It's very distressing to read, actually. Science is fundamentally about one thing... explaining the world around us based on evidence. Children certainly need to learn how to think... and intrinsic to that is them learning to understand the difference between belief and evidence. Shoehorning non-scientific ideas into a science class will do nothing but cause confusion as to what actually is or is not science... and things like this will do nothing but hurt the ability of future American generations to compete in areas focused around science and technology on the world stage.
The fact that the people like you who trash evolution (without even understanding it) have such fundamental misunderstandings on what science actually is really just exemplifies the problem.
And like I said to Dayton3 (who's done a very good job of ignoring most of the arguments presented to him)... if you have such a massive disdain for science, why are you even posting in the science subforum? Considering the adversarial nature of your posts, actually having an actual discussion doesn't appear to be one of your goals.
Your logic is flawed, as it leads to an infinite regress. If everything needs a creator, then who created the creator, and who created the creator's creator, and so on into infinity. Eventually, one has to accept either a first cause or a cyclical universe.
If there is a first cause, a thing that does not have an origin, cause, or creator, then then there is no necessity for that first cause to be some sort of supernatural force, but could be a random natural process.
If the universe is cyclical, then there is no first cause at all.
A problem lies in that assertions about the existence or non-existence of a first cause are non-falsifiable. They are philosophy, not science. Thus, they should be taught in philosophy classes, not science classes.
O Irony, how sweet are thou.
One is a scientific theory, the other one is not. Simple as that.
I love your use of "quotes".
Of course not. Science get better by the day. But creationism is most certainly NOT the full truth.
Because it's not a theory. It's narrative. It's philosophy. It's mythology. It is not science. If we allow creationism in science classes, then we must allow poetry in math classes, geography in physical education and home economics in art classes. It doesn't make sense.
Where did you get the impression that the theory of evolution applies to all things in the universe? It's a biological fenomenon. It has nothing to do with cosmology or the birth of the universe?
Actually, usually it's the opposite. Science can explain how something works, but rarely it tackles the reasons why something exists.
You really think you are the first one to come out with such ideas?
A faith that doesn't have any place in science classes.
Part one: For those who have faith, no evidence is needed. Ok, that is good.
Part two: For those who have no faith, no amount of evidence is enough. That makes no sense. If something has evidences, it requires no faith. For those who have no faith, the only thing they can have is evidence.
Maybe you wanted to say: For those who have faith, no amount of evidence of the contrary is enough. That is how faith works, last time I checked.
Sorry, I do not
There was a thread in which the discussion went 'round to the atomic bomb. Dayton said, in short, that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets because the torpedoes launched against Pearl Harbor were made in the former, and the Combined Fleet sailed out of the latter.
I pointed out that the Combined Fleet did not sail out of or anywhere near Nagasaki. He then said it returned to Nagasaki. I pointed out that the Combined Fleet did not return to or anywhere near Nagasaki.
He didn't reply after that.
I have a problem with a history teacher making up facts and refusing to explain his position when it is shown to be false. So whenever Dayton says *anything*, I remind him of this incident.
^You might not agree with it and you might not like it but history teachers have a little saying
"If you make it up as you go along, no one can prove you're wrong".
Probably irritates the hell out of non teachers, but it is meant to indicate the need to project certainty when educating people about things that can continue to be explored endlessly.
Someone wrote a book similiar to that IIRC called
"I love Paul Revere. Whether he rode or not"
In the thread you mentioned, while I had a couple of details incorrect, the fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets because they had significant munitions factories is undeniable.
"If you make it up as you go along, no one can prove you're wrong".
Probably irritates the hell out of non teachers, but it is meant to indicate the need to project certainty when educating people about things that can continue to be explored endlessly.
Someone wrote a book similiar to that IIRC called
"I love Paul Revere. Whether he rode or not"
In the thread you mentioned, while I had a couple of details incorrect, the fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets because they had significant munitions factories is undeniable.
What.. teachers can't be infallable and have to call upon reference material or do research? One of the best teachers I ever had would drop the lesson plan in a heartbeat for the sake of learning. Thank you, Mr Lewis!
It would be interesting to see how you spin that projected air of certainty when contraversial topics come up, Dayton. That's the attitude that put the first atomic bomb being dropped on Korea in a science textbook.
What.. teachers can't be infallable and have to call upon reference material or do research? One of the best teachers I ever had would drop the lesson plan in a heartbeat for the sake of learning. Thank you, Mr Lewis!
It would be interesting to see how you spin that projected air of certainty when contraversial topics come up, Dayton. That's the attitude that put the first atomic bomb being dropped on Korea in a science textbook.
I don't even use history textbooks. If you studied a few you would understand.
You should see what they say about Ho Chi Minh in the Contemporary American History Textbook.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Of course you can be proven wrong.
But it figures that you would subscribe to teaching falsehoods rather than educate yourself in the first place.
This discussion about the theory of evolution is a perfect example.
That's fantastic. So most of the time, you're lying.
And you're right. As a published, peer-reviewed, respected historian, I find that philosophy despicable.
And incorrect. I proved you wrong.
Which is irrelevant to the conversation you and I were having. You lied, and this is the first time you've 'fessed up to it. And not only have you admitted to lying, you're baldly stating that lying is your preferred approach to discussing history.
No, it irritates the hell out of people with half a brain. So you would prefer people to teach falsehood instead of doing their research? That's... extremely reprehensible.
- Status
Similar threads
