Yes junior.:roll: Now next time try addressing what I post instead of twisting it so you can try to argue against it. I'm sure your mommy can help you if you need help reading next time.:laugh:
/stupid juvenile banter
ID is just a different form of creationism. It doesn't belong in a science class, that is all there is to it. That is how people want it, why is it so hard to figure out? Each time a school board does it, they get the boot. (Take a hint, maybe?)
then how do you explain the red shift at the edge of the universe?
well, last time i check quantum theory was just that, a "theory" by your version of the definition, but last time i checked, you managed to post in this forum on a computer.... how did that happen? submicron manufacturing lithography is based of principals of quantum mechanics which is theory, maybe that shouldn't be taugh... you know because its just a theory with alot of math behind it, and since most people can't grasp differential equations, we'll just say god created the 65nm manufacturing process
and yes i did take quantum chemistry in my undergrad
i don't "claim to be biochemist", i am one, look at my sig
i'm still waiting for these other theorys you speak off..... you sound alot like "rip" but he is banned, you never answer questions
so i'm goign to ask you the same thing i asked him, which after 10 pages of responses never answered
how old is the earth?
about how long have humans walked the earth?
Again, I'm not arguing any of this. You can believe what you want. The OP isn't talking about what you and Harvey are trying to make this into and I certainly was not doing so either. So while you want to continue down the arguments for or against the Big Bang being "fact" you can not claim it to be "fact" no matter how many times you attempt to argue it. You can not repeat it and you can not show how something came from nothing.
So again, back to my original statement, these things should be taught withing the proper context - that we don't know for sure what happened and that there could be alternate explainations. But I supposed the close minded among us won't agree.
like what though you have not offered one, thats what we are trying to get at
we don't have 4 billion years to repeat it, and if you want to look at experimentation has shown that organic molecules can come from simple molecules, see millers work
I personally don't care what other explanations there could be, but absense of other explainations does not mean you can claim the one you want is "fact".
you seem to be forgetting one thing, the mountain of evidence supporting it as well as the lack of ANY other explainations (that have evidence supporting them) is what helps to raise it above "just another theory statement" and places it pretty damn close to fact
just like rip you refuse to answer questions relative to the discussion because you would come out looking like another fundie, meaning you bring nothing to the table
All moot.
ID accepts Evolution as the mechanism for diversity of life.
Basically ID states that some intelligent force designed all the existing conditions in the Universe (Nature), including all the things necessary that led to Evolution, Gravity, and anything else science (has or will) figures out.
ID does not oppose or claim an alternative view of nature outside scientific understanding. It is just says: "Oh yeah--well God designed it--so there"
Therefore an empty shell, therefore moot.
ID accepts Evolution as the mechanism for diversity of life.
Basically ID states that some intelligent force designed all the existing conditions in the Universe (Nature), including all the things necessary that led to Evolution, Gravity, and anything else science (has or will) figures out.
ID does not oppose or claim an alternative view of nature outside scientific understanding. It is just says: "Oh yeah--well God designed it--so there"
Therefore an empty shell, therefore moot.
I'm not the one trying to make an issue of it, you and others are. As you have just (somewhat) admitted above, it may come close to "fact" but that doesn't mean it is. As stated, absense of other explaination doesn't mean something is "fact".
What is funny is that you and others are trying to throw out this "fundie" BS when you have zero clue as to my position on things(note: I'm not on the ID bus). The whole point of this was to suggest that if people like you would atleast admit that things aren't "fact" it would become less of an issue. I'm not saying that the fringe still wouldn't continue to rail against it, but it'd be less of an issue.
Forgive me if I'm incorrect, but isn't evolution indeed a fact? I think people have trouble distinguishing between evolution and the theory of evolution as presented by Darwin. One is a fact and the other is a scientific theory attempting to explain that fact.
Captante
Lifer
- Oct 20, 2003
- 30,353
- 10,876
- 136
I did read your post & I've also read the definition of ID as defined by the state of Kansas
& while I respect your opinion of what ID should be, as well as your right to that opinion, I
disagree with it.
As I said its fine to teach that some people disagree with the theory of evolution because it conflicts with their faith, however to argue that ID has nothing to do with relegion is just silly & its equally silly to say that the theory of evolution doesn't have room for some higher power we don't understand to have played a hand in creating life as we know it.... Darwin said as much himself.
Teaching intelligent design as science would require some evidence beyond saying "we don't understand how it happened, so it must have been a higher power" .... of course their are holes in the theory of evolution/natural selection, but theres also a whole lot of scientific evidence to support it.
Get back to me with some credible science, that was funded by an unbiased source and show me some evidence based on research which dosn't conclude that because we can't explain everything yet, it must be the work of ID.
Not moot at all...it is a way for the religious to claim that evolution exists because God made it so and that is going to be fun to see people prove. They can't so it falls right back to religion and faith. So we have made no progress on the issue. People that are not religious will simply believe evolution to be more than likely and the religious people will just say evolution was designed by God so it fits into their belief structure....yet nothing is any clearer or proven. Once there is scientific evidence to support ID I will consider it, until then it simply fits in with some people's agenda to justfify their other beliefs.
You are correct, there is significant (testable and verifiable) evidence that evolution
does occur. Humanity has been practicing and building on our knowlege of basic
evolution for hundreds to thousands of years. Back then it was called things like
"selective breeding".
Because Darwin understood the well established principles of selective breeding,
as used in botany and animal husbandry, he was able to use that knowledge as
his basis of study in developing theoretical ideas on the evolution of species,
with significant research based on the divergence of species in the Galapagos
islands. There he was able to observe clear evidence of animal groups that
had developed traits marking them at least as seperate sub-species simply thru
generations of isolated breeding that had occured on each island.
Others since then have taken evidence from the study of species and from
other areas of science (Genetics, Organic and Bio-Chemistry for example)
to expand upon and validate those original theoretical ideas. (And to correct
conclusions that were based on limited data or incomplete testing).
It is several generations of testing and validation of the original ideas of Darwin,
Mendel and others that bring us to the current state of evolutionary theory.
ShadesOfGrey, there are at least two issues here that undermine your side of the debate:
1. You seem to be taking your disagreement with the methods of a
High School science teacher as an indightment against a whole field of
science. It is irrelevant what your teacher may have said about the factual
basis of evolution, because I'll bet 10 bucks the textbook did not say the same.
Unless you also want us to believe your High School taught courses without
the accompanying reading material and homework requirements?
2. The "Evolution is a theory" or as more commonly used by ID proponents"
"Evolution is just a theory" arguement.
The issue here is you don't seem to understand or accept the gravity (npi)*
of saying something is established scientific theory.
What any High School teacher worth thier credentials will happily tell you:
90% of all science is JUST THEORY! What makes theories so significant
is that they have been tested, observed, argued for, argued against, been
held up against competing theories and validated enough times that there
is little question that it works, there is only nitpicking over the fine details
of how it works. The fine details are left out of the teachings in high school
science classes because (a) they only have an hour each day of lecture time
to discuss the basics of a given field of science, and (b) its usually considered
a college level course unless you are already on an honors track.
If I toss a ball in the air (while standing on the ground), and it comes down,
I can say that validates my theory of gravity.
If I do it a hundred times and get the same result each time, I can say I have
statistical validity of my theory. If I get a million high school students
to do it a hundred times each, and still get the same result, I can say
"Hey, this gravity stuff is all over the place!" and include the result
in my theory of gravity. I can then use my theory of gravity as the
basis for other experiements and observations in my understanding
of the world.
If later, someone on the International Space Station shows that their ball
does not come back down when tossed gently into the air, I can say:
"Hey, maybe this gravity stuff is not all over the place!"; which may
cause me to revise my theory to include other factors (like location)
but that does not invalidate the results that supported the initial theory.
Intelligent Design does not invalidate evolution or Evolutionary theory
in any way significant enough to propose teaching it as an alternative.
Most of the arguments in favor of it don't even challenge evolution
on a scientific basis in the first place.
What also makes theories significant, and a very serious matter when they
are challenged, is because we use our understanding and acceptance of the
validity of the theory as the basis for higher areas of research and development.
Throwing out evolution does not just "make room" for ID, it also destoys the
modern foundations of cloning, stem-cell research, genetics, agriculture,
cancer research, virus research, etc...
Something you don't do just because you think there is more out there than
the current explanation supports.
* No Pun Intended
this is exactly what i was trying to get at, but it seemed to have flown over a few people's heads
I think that by not teaching religion or ID in schools it test your faith to the limits all the while making it stronger.
Belief in God is based on faith, not on what is fact. Yes some science teachers teach theories as facts.
That's YEC - young (6000 years) earth creationism, but there is also old (billions of years) earth creationism. ID is just old earth creationism with god replaced by a generic "designer".
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Arguing with Harvey who is arguing about something I wasn't arguing.
if only that were true, for your own sake
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: Harvey
Great. Post your accepted definition so we know where you're coming from.
Thanks for the personal attack. Speaking of asses, you can kiss mine. :lips:
Back to the question you never answered -- What is your understanding of the definition of the word, THEORY?I am not on the ID bus as I said before so don't try to attack me as if I were.
Tha's one out of three. Your credibility is about the same Bush's.
waiting... :clock:
Again, you are trying to attack me for an argument I've never made. I don't care if you want to teach evolution, it just always has to be taught in the proper context. Example being that in my public highschool it was taught as FACT not as theory. Sure the teacher was a bit nuts but that doesn't excuse the improper teaching. I also did not say that something else must be taugh along side like Astaroth33 seems to think. What I said was that "I don't think another option has to be presented." What part of that do you extremists not understand? You attempts to attack me because I dared mention that your sacred cow must be taught in the proper context is hilarious and quite telling. Nothing new though, it seems that Harvey has this nasty little habbit of attacking people by twisting their argument into something that it is not.
Sucks to be on the other end, doesn't it? Maybe you'll show some restraint on one of your endless "Republican vs Democrat" threads in the future.
And that's a class where it's perfectly acceptable to be taught. (And actually expected, I might add)
My only question for those that support ID teachings is:
Who/what, besides God, might this designer be?
If it is truly not a religious indoctrination, there should be a few answers to this question.
Who/what, besides God, might this designer be?
If it is truly not a religious indoctrination, there should be a few answers to this question.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 395
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter