Here Is What Louisiana Schoolchildren Learn About Evolution

[alzan]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

So are you saying that evolution or even the Big Bang for that matter, aren't extraordinary claims?

I'd like to say that the way those are presented as fact, and by the point science makes by saying "without evloution we wouldn't have modern science", or "to reject evolution is to reject reality". To me, those are extraordinary claims. Why? Because no other explanation is really offered, and not to mention ID is rejected in the scientific world.

To me, they're saying this explains our "existence".

I think Evolution, the Big Bang and indeed all scientific theories are explanations with a lot of extraordinary statements that when presented without proper context give rise to misunderstanding and "unbelieveability".

AFAIK, ID is being rejected by the scientific world because it's proponents do not follow the scientific method; they attempt to "prove" their theory mainly by pointing out gaps in the theories of Evolution and the Big Bang.

[Lonbjerg]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

They still are.

One of two things happened: Evloution NEVER happened with humans, or we're smart enough to change our enviorment to interrupt the "natural process", hence, we've stopped evolution.

Humans can now alter their envoirment more than ever before... to the point where it may kills us off, and truth doesn't go backwards, so we may have stopped it.

It's funny looking at scientists scurry to explain why we've stopped evolving or will stop. It's like watching a movie!

Where did the lie about stopped evolution come from? Isn't this your 8th or 9th lie in this thread?

[sandorski]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

They still are.

One of two things happened: Evloution NEVER happened with humans, or we're smart enough to change our enviorment to interrupt the "natural process", hence, we've stopped evolution.

Humans can now alter their envoirment more than ever before... to the point where it may kills us off, and truth doesn't go backwards, so we may have stopped it.

It's funny looking at scientists scurry to explain why we've stopped evolving or will stop. It's like watching a movie!

It hasn't stopped. We have certainly interrupted it and likely have taken some control over it, but I don't see any Scientist being dumbfounded as you assert.

[Rob M.]

Originally Posted by sandorski

It hasn't stopped. We have certainly interrupted it and likely have taken some control over it, but I don't see any Scientist being dumbfounded as you assert.

Well, that's fine. I admit, I jumped to that conclusion on my own.

All I was saying is that "evolution" isn't going backwards, and if we "evolve" at this rate to where we become more advanced and have more ability to take control of our enviornment, whats to say it won't be stopped?

[Rob M.]

Originally Posted by alzan

I think Evolution, the Big Bang and indeed all scientific theories are explanations with a lot of extraordinary statements that when presented without proper context give rise to misunderstanding and "unbelieveability".

AFAIK, ID is being rejected by the scientific world because it's proponents do not follow the scientific method; they attempt to "prove" their theory mainly by pointing out gaps in the theories of Evolution and the Big Bang.

The thing about God or "ID", is that it doesn't depend on the scientific method to be proven, that's the reason why.

We don't have instruments that can "test" God.

[Lonbjerg]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

Well, that's fine. I admit, I jumped to that conclusion on my own.

All I was saying is that "evolution" isn't going backwards, and if we "evolve" at this rate to where we become more advanced and have more ability to take control of our enviornment, whats to say it won't be stopped?

The flaw is detected...ignorance.

[JD50]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

Well, that's fine. I admit, I jumped to that conclusion on my own.

All I was saying is that "evolution" isn't going backwards, and if we "evolve" at this rate to where we become more advanced and have more ability to take control of our enviornment, whats to say it won't be stopped?

I'm shocked.

[DominionSeraph]

Originally Posted by sandorski

It hasn't stopped. We have certainly interrupted it

Natural selection is nothing but interruption from false reality, as it follows reality. Pretty silly to single out any one thing to be called an "interruption." Would you say that the presence of gravity has interrupted selection for zero-g traits? That shows a presumptive preference for a baseline/goal.

The baseline of the human support system has changed the selective environment, but selection within it is uninterrupted.

[Paul98]

Originally Posted by Darwin333

The faster you move through space the slower someone else perceives you going through time. Regardless of your speed you still perceive time as going the exact same speed.

"Spacetime" is hardly proof that time is actually some force, it is a mathematical shortcut and helps us perceive things better. At least that is how I understand it, which in this case I readily admit that I could be wrong.

"Preceives" makes it sound like it's not really happening but it actually is. With respect to your self time stays the same rate due to your speed always being 0. While with respect to someone else where your speed is not 0 your time is moving slower.

Time is not a force, but is one of the dimensions of spacetime like the length, width, height.

[Matt1970]

Why is this thread still alive?

[DominionSeraph]

Originally Posted by Matt1970

Why is this thread still alive?

'Cause conservatards gonna 'tard.

[Darwin333]

Originally Posted by Cerpin Taxt

Time isn't a "thing," per se. It's an abstraction. It is a coordinate system like latitude and longitude. We use it to make reference to things we observe in shared reality.

That is what I have always thought, and been taught, of it as. Granted I think its just our best guess (maybe there is a better one now) at this point though.

So basically its not necessarily something that actually exists in the physical world, something that has a force or interacts with anything in the real world/universe?

[sandorski]

Originally Posted by DominionSeraph

Natural selection is nothing but interruption from false reality, as it follows reality. Pretty silly to single out any one thing to be called an "interruption." Would you say that the presence of gravity has interrupted selection for zero-g traits? That shows a presumptive preference for a baseline/goal.

The baseline of the human support system has changed the selective environment, but selection within it is uninterrupted.

Well, I suppose it still occurs, I just meant that We and not Nature has done things that wouldn't have occurred otherwise. So certainly our affects on the Environment, Food, Medicine, Social Choices, and what not is somewhat synthetic, but as far as Natural Selection is concerned it goes on unabated where those more suited to the Synthetic Environment will advance, those less suited will digress.

[Darwin333]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

So.. they "think" it happened, but don't believe it did?

That sounds reasonable to me, honestly.

I don't know the proper word for it but I don't have a "belief" in math but I do know that math is "true". 1+1 will always equal 2, I don't need a belief system to know that, I simply need the knowledge. I don't "believe" that water is wet, or that fire is hot, or anything like that.

Evolution is happening and has happened, that is simply true and requires only the knowledge to know that. The Theory of Evolution isn't necessarily "true" because we are still perfecting it. It will probably never become an actual law, at least not in our lifetime, simply because it is so complex (for the record, the Theory of Gravity isn't a law either).

[Darwin333]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

So are you saying that evolution or even the Big Bang for that matter, aren't extraordinary claims?

As far as evolution is concerned, there is extrondinary evidence to back it up. That is what I have been trying to get through to you.

I'd like to say that the way those are presented as fact, and by the point science makes by saying "without evloution we wouldn't have modern science", or "to reject evolution is to reject reality". To me, those are extraordinary claims. Why? Because no other explanation is really offered, and not to mention ID is rejected in the scientific world.

Why would you offer another explanation when the one you have works? Would you like alternate explanations as to why 1+1=2 as well? If not, why? Your problem is that you have never given evolution a chance, if you actually did your own research with an open mind you would almost assuredly come to the same conclusion.

To me, they're saying this explains our "existence".

That is NOT what they are trying to do. The way I think you are phrasing the question it is a philosophical one and science doesn't really try to answer those.

One of two things happened: Evloution NEVER happened with humans, or we're smart enough to change our enviorment to interrupt the "natural process", hence, we've stopped evolution.

Who says that we have stopped evolving?

[Darwin333]

Originally Posted by Paul98

"Preceives" makes it sound like it's not really happening but it actually is. With respect to your self time stays the same rate due to your speed always being 0. While with respect to someone else where your speed is not 0 your time is moving slower.

Time is not a force, but is one of the dimensions of spacetime like the length, width, height.

I have heard of something like that before and its hard for me to wrap my brain around it from just the little I have heard. Do you have any decent links that I could pursue?

The thing that doesn't fit in my head, is we have to purposely move through the other "dimensions". If I don't move I will remain exactly where I am (or going until affected by an outside force) in space. Yet time, as a dimension, is constantly moving in one direction "around" us? And we can purposely move through all of the other dimensions very easily, why is the 4th, until now, impossible to move through (except for the constant one way that its moving already)? Am I making sense?

[buckshot24]

Originally Posted by Darwin333

That is NOT what they are trying to do. The way I think you are phrasing the question it is a philosophical one and science doesn't really try to answer those.

People are emotional beings, even scientists.

[Paul98]

Originally Posted by Darwin333

I don't know the proper word for it but I don't have a "belief" in math but I do know that math is "true". 1+1 will always equal 2, I don't need a belief system to know that, I simply need the knowledge. I don't "believe" that water is wet, or that fire is hot, or anything like that.

Evolution is happening and has happened, that is simply true and requires only the knowledge to know that. The Theory of Evolution isn't necessarily "true" because we are still perfecting it. It will probably never become an actual law, at least not in our lifetime, simply because it is so complex (for the record, the Theory of Gravity isn't a law either).

Theory's never become laws, a scientific theory is the best we can ever get. A scientific theory is far more robust than a law. There is both a Theory of gravity and Law of gravity. They are two different things.

[Rob M.]

Originally Posted by Darwin333

Why would you offer another explanation when the one you have works? Would you like alternate explanations as to why 1+1=2 as well? If not, why? Your problem is that you have never given evolution a chance, if you actually did your own research with an open mind you would almost assuredly come to the same conclusion.

Woah up there, I didn't say they should. I said that in order to draw a connection to it being an extraordinary claim.

I have been a proponet of NOT mixing science and "ID", have I not?

Who says that we have stopped evolving?

No one. That was simply my own conclusion. I was speaking more theoretically that if evolution is truth/fact, then nothing should stop it. If we have... say "influenced" (for lack of a better term here) natural selection by basically changing our enviroment to suit us (agriculture has protected us from many of life's ills), then we could possibly stop the process.

We've done a great deal to change our enviroment. We can't change a true equation (1+1=2 for example), so nothing should be able to influence the evolutionary process.

...unless our brains are indeed getting smaller because we're using them less, then it's simply finding a way (or scientists are making excuses).

[Lonbjerg]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

Woah up there, I didn't say they should. I said that in order to draw a connection to it being an extraordinary claim.

I have been a proponet of NOT mixing science and "ID", have I not?





No one. That was simply my own conclusion. I was speaking more theoretically that if evolution is truth/fact, then nothing should stop it. If we have... say "influenced" (for lack of a better term here) natural selection by basically changing our enviroment to suit us (agriculture has protected us from many of life's ills), then we could possibly stop the process.

We've done a great deal to change our enviroment. We can't change a true equation (1+1=2 for example), so nothing should be able to influence the evolutionary process.

...unless our brains are indeed getting smaller because we're using them less, then it's simply finding a way (or scientists are making excuses).

More goghwash...stop posting ffs!!!

[alzan]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

The thing about God or "ID", is that it doesn't depend on the scientific method to be proven, that's the reason why.

We don't have instruments that can "test" God.

What method does it depend on?

If ID is being proposed as an alternate theory to both the Big Bang and Evolution shouldn't it be held to the same testing and observational standards if it's to be taught alongside them in science class?