but the fallacy is only quoting the odds of the bacterium being created by chance happening on earth. you have to take the entire universe into consideration when calculating the odds and space available. this also assumes the enzymes only combine in random patterns - ive no idea if they do or dont.
Evolution vs. Intelligent Design: The Experts Speak
- Thread starter slammajamma
- Start date
but the fallacy is only quoting the odds of the bacterium being created by chance happening on earth. you have to take the entire universe into consideration when calculating the odds and space available. this also assumes the enzymes only combine in random patterns - ive no idea if they do or dont.
Science teachers have a duty to teach unprovable theories?
Yes. They are theories . They may or may not become fact because they were taught as theories. But are already well substantiated explanations, even if yet unprovable theories
{b}Do they have an equal duty to provide disclaimers before they teach?[/b]
Yes. Good science recognizes and teaches its provisos.
It is one thing to teach a process of verifiable change over time, it is quite another to teach a conclusion that may indeed be faulty or incomplete as an established fact.
Such as teaching a faulty conclusion like for instance,,, God exists?
The entire concept of evolution has it roots in "unintelligent" design, or random process of mutation and change.
Why is that any more logical than the concept of "intelligent" design?
Nothing to so with random but to do with natural. And because there is no theory or substantial explanation that comes anywhere near to supporting ID.
Its complicated therefore God made it. That's as far as ID ever gets.
Why do we accept this concept of random without proof? Simply because we can't see the design?
No one says random but you. It's not random. Itâs natural process.
Scientist study effect and guess at cause until they can prove the cause. They are lacking proof of cause, or the theory would have grown beyond the "Theory of Evolution" to the "Science of Evolution."
No guessing. Good science doesn't offer guesses as conclusions. Only religion does that. The theory grows, it always has with more and more evidence. You assume it will not evolve (ironic don't you think) into the Science of Evolution. You are just too impatient it seems.
Evolutionists are sorely lacking in anything beyond speculation of the cause.
Evolutionists have masses of substantive supportable evidence of cause. ID'ers do not.
I am not suggesting that religion be taught in science classes, only that science not be pushed onto children as THE only answer to life's mysteries. It is one possible explanation in a closed system of rules generated by science.
So who pushes science as THE only answer?.
However, outside of the scientific method is an un-useful or meaningless explanation of things. That is the territory of closed and selfish accounts of existence.
This type of dogmatic thought by atheists that science is THE answer to the unexplained is exactly as fundamentalist in nature as certain religions.
Theists do dogma. Science does science. It's the ONLY method EVER that has produced any kind of meaningful and understandable reasons for cause. Nothing fundamentalist about that.
Yes. They are theories . They may or may not become fact because they were taught as theories. But are already well substantiated explanations, even if yet unprovable theories
{b}Do they have an equal duty to provide disclaimers before they teach?[/b]
Yes. Good science recognizes and teaches its provisos.
It is one thing to teach a process of verifiable change over time, it is quite another to teach a conclusion that may indeed be faulty or incomplete as an established fact.
Such as teaching a faulty conclusion like for instance,,, God exists?
The entire concept of evolution has it roots in "unintelligent" design, or random process of mutation and change.
Why is that any more logical than the concept of "intelligent" design?
Nothing to so with random but to do with natural. And because there is no theory or substantial explanation that comes anywhere near to supporting ID.
Its complicated therefore God made it. That's as far as ID ever gets.
Why do we accept this concept of random without proof? Simply because we can't see the design?
No one says random but you. It's not random. Itâs natural process.
Scientist study effect and guess at cause until they can prove the cause. They are lacking proof of cause, or the theory would have grown beyond the "Theory of Evolution" to the "Science of Evolution."
No guessing. Good science doesn't offer guesses as conclusions. Only religion does that. The theory grows, it always has with more and more evidence. You assume it will not evolve (ironic don't you think) into the Science of Evolution. You are just too impatient it seems.
Evolutionists are sorely lacking in anything beyond speculation of the cause.
Evolutionists have masses of substantive supportable evidence of cause. ID'ers do not.
I am not suggesting that religion be taught in science classes, only that science not be pushed onto children as THE only answer to life's mysteries. It is one possible explanation in a closed system of rules generated by science.
So who pushes science as THE only answer?.
However, outside of the scientific method is an un-useful or meaningless explanation of things. That is the territory of closed and selfish accounts of existence.
This type of dogmatic thought by atheists that science is THE answer to the unexplained is exactly as fundamentalist in nature as certain religions.
Theists do dogma. Science does science. It's the ONLY method EVER that has produced any kind of meaningful and understandable reasons for cause. Nothing fundamentalist about that.
Yes. They are theories . They may or may not become fact because they were taught as theories. But are already well substantiated explanations, even if yet unprovable theories
Teaching a method of how scientific theory is derived is fine.
Teaching a conclusion that theory is fact or that it probably is fact because we don't have a better working theory is not science.
Yes. Good science recognizes and teaches its provisos.
The difference would be to state what we "know" versus what we "believe" is actually happening.
We don't "know" that man evolved from mud or apes.
Such as teaching a faulty conclusion like for instance,,, God exists?
You have fact that God doesn't exist? Or is that your belief?
In any case, I see no reason for religion to be taught in the classroom.
However, the theory of intelligent design has enough reason behind it to be taught as a theory.
Nothing to so with random but to do with natural. And because there is no theory or substantial explanation that comes anywhere near to supporting ID.
Here is where science falls flat, when it rests on the concept of "natural."
Just as we don't know where the laws of "nature" come from, the theories are constructed on the foundation of "nature" and many assumptions are made as to the cause of nature.
Its complicated therefore God made it. That's as far as ID ever gets.
It is certainly more complicated than our human intelligence.
No one says random but you. It's not random. Itâs natural process.
Complete dodge. "It is not random, it is natural." That is a joke. A full admission of ignorance. Scientists reach the limits of science and call it "natural."
Without knowing what the cause of nature is, the source of nature is, it is just looking at the parts and guessing about the whole story.
No guessing. Good science doesn't offer guesses as conclusions. Only religion does that. The theory grows, it always has with more and more evidence. You assume it will not evolve (ironic don't you think) into the Science of Evolution. You are just too impatient it seems.
I am too impatient? You are too assumptive of being right. I am stating a fact that it is nothing but a theory without proof, you fully believe it to be true based on your comments.
It is guessing. Just as many traders claim they are not "gamblers" but speculators, so science claims "theory" not guesswork.
Unless you know with certainty, it is guesswork. Educated, uneducated, logical, or illogical, it is still reaching a conclusion without proof.
Then when someone invests themselves emotionally in that conclusion without proof, it becomes their faith.
Evolutionists have masses of substantive supportable evidence of cause. ID'ers do not.
Massive assumptions not proven.
So who pushes science as THE only answer?.
Many who frequently post in these forums.
However, outside of the scientific method is an un-useful or meaningless explanation of things. That is the territory of closed and selfish accounts of existence.
Now you have the hubris to tell others what "should" be useful in their lives?
Theists do dogma. Science does science. It's the ONLY method EVER that has produced any kind of meaningful and understandable reasons for cause. Nothing fundamentalist about that.
More hubris. Now you know what "should" be meaningful and understandable for all men?
Teaching a method of how scientific theory is derived is fine.
Teaching a conclusion that theory is fact or that it probably is fact because we don't have a better working theory is not science.
Yes. Good science recognizes and teaches its provisos.
The difference would be to state what we "know" versus what we "believe" is actually happening.
We don't "know" that man evolved from mud or apes.
Such as teaching a faulty conclusion like for instance,,, God exists?
You have fact that God doesn't exist? Or is that your belief?
In any case, I see no reason for religion to be taught in the classroom.
However, the theory of intelligent design has enough reason behind it to be taught as a theory.
Nothing to so with random but to do with natural. And because there is no theory or substantial explanation that comes anywhere near to supporting ID.
Here is where science falls flat, when it rests on the concept of "natural."
Just as we don't know where the laws of "nature" come from, the theories are constructed on the foundation of "nature" and many assumptions are made as to the cause of nature.
Its complicated therefore God made it. That's as far as ID ever gets.
It is certainly more complicated than our human intelligence.
No one says random but you. It's not random. Itâs natural process.
Complete dodge. "It is not random, it is natural." That is a joke. A full admission of ignorance. Scientists reach the limits of science and call it "natural."
Without knowing what the cause of nature is, the source of nature is, it is just looking at the parts and guessing about the whole story.
No guessing. Good science doesn't offer guesses as conclusions. Only religion does that. The theory grows, it always has with more and more evidence. You assume it will not evolve (ironic don't you think) into the Science of Evolution. You are just too impatient it seems.
I am too impatient? You are too assumptive of being right. I am stating a fact that it is nothing but a theory without proof, you fully believe it to be true based on your comments.
It is guessing. Just as many traders claim they are not "gamblers" but speculators, so science claims "theory" not guesswork.
Unless you know with certainty, it is guesswork. Educated, uneducated, logical, or illogical, it is still reaching a conclusion without proof.
Then when someone invests themselves emotionally in that conclusion without proof, it becomes their faith.
Evolutionists have masses of substantive supportable evidence of cause. ID'ers do not.
Massive assumptions not proven.
So who pushes science as THE only answer?.
Many who frequently post in these forums.
However, outside of the scientific method is an un-useful or meaningless explanation of things. That is the territory of closed and selfish accounts of existence.
Now you have the hubris to tell others what "should" be useful in their lives?
Theists do dogma. Science does science. It's the ONLY method EVER that has produced any kind of meaningful and understandable reasons for cause. Nothing fundamentalist about that.
More hubris. Now you know what "should" be meaningful and understandable for all men?
Aphex,
That's why it doesn't belong in a science classroom.
Oh I see , sorry, I didn't realize you had already decided there was no answer to the question you posed to me.
The problem here is that most people associate science with the ultimate process in which to understand all of reality.
Then it's 'their' problem. Perhaps they need to educate themselves toward a better understanding of what science actually is.
Science is a logical and inductive process that is grounded in hypothesis, testing and reproducibility. If you can't come up with a hypothesis, there is no science. If you can't test it, there is no science. If you can't reproduce it, it wasn't science.
Then it's a pity 'they' don't realize that , isn't it!
So if there is no hypothesis, no testing, no reproducibility there is no science but there IS something else like a God !! ?? Just why should there be anything at all to test if there is nothing to test??
Likewise, knowing something from something other than science does not make it wrong in the absolute sense, it just doesn't belong underneath science..
So just how do you know something is something, other than by using the scientific method and ultimately science itself to know it is something ??
Yes I can !!The "kind of physics " which "existed during the Planck period "would be quantum physics. I think you are the wrong track here aphie
That's why it doesn't belong in a science classroom.
Oh I see , sorry, I didn't realize you had already decided there was no answer to the question you posed to me.
The problem here is that most people associate science with the ultimate process in which to understand all of reality.
Then it's 'their' problem. Perhaps they need to educate themselves toward a better understanding of what science actually is.
Science is a logical and inductive process that is grounded in hypothesis, testing and reproducibility. If you can't come up with a hypothesis, there is no science. If you can't test it, there is no science. If you can't reproduce it, it wasn't science.
Then it's a pity 'they' don't realize that , isn't it!
So if there is no hypothesis, no testing, no reproducibility there is no science but there IS something else like a God !! ?? Just why should there be anything at all to test if there is nothing to test??
Likewise, knowing something from something other than science does not make it wrong in the absolute sense, it just doesn't belong underneath science..
So just how do you know something is something, other than by using the scientific method and ultimately science itself to know it is something ??
So just how do you know something is something, other than by using the scientific method and ultimately science itself to know it is something ??
Women call it intuition. Artists call it inspiration. Athletes call it the "zone."
Man is more than senses, logic, and intellect.
Women call it intuition. Artists call it inspiration. Athletes call it the "zone."
Man is more than senses, logic, and intellect.
Women call it intuition. Artists call it inspiration. Athletes call it the "zone."
Man is more than senses, logic, and intellect
A list of nouns doesn't explain a thing.
And you can't know "Man" is more than senses, logic, and intellect" just by saying he is or listing nouns.
At the least you need a method. The Scientific one has always appeared to "Man" as the most useful.
Man is more than senses, logic, and intellect
A list of nouns doesn't explain a thing.
And you can't know "Man" is more than senses, logic, and intellect" just by saying he is or listing nouns.
At the least you need a method. The Scientific one has always appeared to "Man" as the most useful.
Useful by your definition, not in practice necessarily.
The list I provided is perfectly intelligible to those who have had experience with intuition, inspiration, and the "zone."
To the blind man, talk of colors is not useful.
The list I provided is perfectly intelligible to those who have had experience with intuition, inspiration, and the "zone."
To the blind man, talk of colors is not useful.
What I've learned in life is that you can use all the most colorful descriptors imaginable -- the most flowing and beautiful words, the deepest emotions (basically what it means do me a complex, thinking machine) and most atheists won't see past the "logic 1's and 0's" mentality they have on the world.
If you know that feeling of being close to god, then consider yourself extremely fortunate -- especially in today's increasingly godless society.
You may not get another man to believe in god, but you can sharpen and enhance your own relationship with him.