You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Intelligent Design struck down in Federal Court
- Thread starter ZZZzzzzzzz
- Start date
Pop goes the Turok.
But, please keep up your stalking and flaming......it is nice to have lots of evidence before making a TOU violation case.
But, please keep up your stalking and flaming......it is nice to have lots of evidence before making a TOU violation case.
Quote from Turok:
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Date Registered: 06-14-04
Total Posts: 9610 (17.01 posts per day)
An addiction driven by fear. Classic "I have to be noticed" symptoms. Narcissism at work. Easy diagnosis.
JB
I think your question sucked, so why should I answer it? Please don't turn Spanish inquisition on me.....
If your aunt had gonads, would she really be your uncle?
LOL....
If your aunt had gonads, would she really be your uncle?
LOL....
Quote from Ricter:
There's no way you're ever going to come back and answer the easy question I posed about holding the Earth steady in a model of the solar system, is there?
Cut up all you like, but you're still evading.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
That is your opinion.
I don't see it as evasion at all.
Not answering a stupid question is not evasion in my "book."
It's "stupid" in your book because you know damn well what the answer is, and it undermines your "facts are facts" argument you started earlier. So you ARE evading. Call it names, change the subject, whatever. You're still evading.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
You know lightening is not the directed fury of God?
It was believed to be a few centuries back, you know when lighting seemed to complex to possibly have a natural cause.
Yes, I think the scientific community has an agenda to turn kids into atheists, or at least the type of theist that they scientifically approve of. Science has become the bottom line for the scientific community, yet science is not an independent power set apart from man, it is a creation of man, and we all know man is deeply flawed in many, many ways.
So ironic that you are typing that on a computer..
One of the checks against science is skepticism, yet the Darwinists seem to have looked the other way in their enthusiasm at this most important tool of in the scientist's bag.
Skepiticism is allowed, what isn't regarded very highly are so-called skeptics who aren't at all skeptical of their own claims.
Teach the kids how to think critically and skeptically, especially of theories that are not falsifiable.
Theories that aren't falsifiable aren't theories.
Scarcity of atheists?
Are they an endangered species?
LOL...
Polls show that about 50% of people in the US accept evolution, and that number if far higher in other places in the world. Clearly the proportion of atheists is nowhere near 50% so the obvious conclusion is that the majority of people who accept evolution are not atheists.
And even if a certain scientific principle tended to make more people atheists, would that be a reason not to teach it if it were true?
There is no need to give a "consensus" view in order for children to learn about biological processes.
Of course those biological processes are a consensus view..
This is the issue. Teaching a "consensus view" is indoctrinating children with scientific opinion, not teaching them the facts of life.
The periodic table is a scientific consensus. Most of science courses involve teaching scientific consensus. For example it is the scientific consensus that the earth orbits the sun. Should that not be taught?
I am not saying it is any more or less dogmatic than other unfalsifiable theories. Big bang theory, another unfalsifiable theory, is certainly taught by some teachers with full zeal and dogmatism.
Which is odd because evolution theory and big bang theory are falsifiable theories. If they weren't they wouldn't be theories at all.
Atomic theory has quite a bit of math behind it, and there is consistency in the use of language.
Evolution has quite a bit of math behind it too, and there is a consistency in the use of language too.
Most physicists know the history of theories being blown to hell as knowledge deepens, so they are much less dogmatic.
Big bang is a theory in physics by the way, so I guess you don't actually mean what you wrote here.
Missing link is very meaningful, we have all seen the drawings:
<img src=http://www.dispuuttau.nl/content/staut/pictures/ape-to-man.png>
Many ape-human transitional fossils have been found. Just one example: http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/WT15k.html
And image you post is a cartoon, an artists impression. It's a bit like a cartoon drawing of a nuclear explosion. It doesn't represent the accuracy of the science. For example evolution is not a gradual morphing process which is what that image suggests.
Common descent? Sure, a commonality of a designer and/or programming, not evidence of random chance evolution.
Things like shared genetic errors are not common design. For example the broken vitimin C gene present in all primates, including humans.
Do scientists theorize the age of the earth, or do the calculate the age of the earth based on carbon 14 dating?
They calculate the age based on radiodating, but if you think that would convince young earth creationists that an old earth isn't a dogmatic guess then you haven't encountered young earth creationists before.
Of course, there is an acceptance that carbon 14 dating and other geological measurements are accurate
Young earth creationists would disagree.
but quite frankly, there is a degree of speculation and possible error in those calculations.
They are clear there is definite error. According to them the facts of geology are better explained by a 6,000 year old earth. Should we only teach the facts in schools?
Survival instinct, by evolutionary teaching, is a product of evolution. Survival instinct is not a product of design, but some random chance unplanned condition of some atomic particles eventually joining together and producing man.....The cycle continues unbroken, despite the passage of millions of years, and plenty of opportunity for these defining characteristics of biological organism to magically mutate into something else.
You seem to be arguing against natural selection. You are saying "why shouldn't we see organisms that have no ability to survive if evolution is true?". Well that's obvious - organisms that lose the ability to survive will have died out. We will only see organisms with an ability to survive by default, so it is hardly suprising that is what we do see.
Who said macro evolution must be defined in genetic terms? You?
If it isn't then it's meaningless. You might as well say "the kind of evolution I agree with has been observed, but the kind I disagree with has not been observed".
We have not seen complex biological species evolved into different species.
Yes we have. Seeing as many species differ only in behavior or color this should not be suprising. A new species can arise simply by a bit of adaptation.
We have not seen a fish evolve into a land loving lizard.
A fish is not a species. A lizard is not a species.
We have not seen a monkey evolve into a human being.
And neither would evolution predict that we would. Do you seriously think evolution says that one day a monkey gave birth to a human? (considering also that we didn't evolve from moneys, we share a common ancestor)
I know, I know, the excuse or rationalization is that "it takes time" for this to happen.
How do you know?
The fossil record shows a progression of hominid fossil species from more ape-like ones to more human-like ones. Genetic similarities such as ERVs and pseudogenes are distributed across species in a nested heirarchy - something expected by common descent, so it's terribly coincidental that would be found if common descent were not true. Geographical distribution of species - with island species similar to mainland species also indicates new species arise from old ones. The uniqueness of remote island species supports genetic divergance due to geographical isolation. Vestigal organs such as the pelvis of the whale (combined with fossil whales with legs), legs of the snake (combined with fossils of legged snakes). And this is just skimming a few examples from some of the lines of evidence. Evolution could also have been refuted (falsified) countless times by new observations (finding a modern mammal in the cambrian for just one example), but time and time again they support it. That would be truely bizzare if evolution wasn't actually true.
Not on the level of macro evolution of more advanced species.
See now you shift the goal posts and not only demand observations of new species, but now you want them to be more "advanced" too. Well what on earth does that mean? How do you measure the level of advancement in different types of creature? Is a bird more or less advanced than a horse?
We see micro organisms adapt to environmental stress, but it is still not known if this adaptation is by design, or within the realm of possibilities of programming of the organisms.
It is known. It is known for example that anti-biotic resistance can be gained by mutation and natural selection.
We really don't know if a "new" species has suddenly "evolved" or if the species is just presenting itself to us in one of its various and potential forms. [/B]
Okay well if you are going to use arbitary definitions then perhaps modern humans are just a form of ape and speciation isn't even necessary to explain that transition. Perhaps we didn't evolve from apes, we just adapted from them. It is still the same change involved no matter what you want to call it.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Change on a micro level takes place as micro organisms employ the biological characteristic of adaptation in order to survive. No one doubts that biological organisms seek to survive, in fact this survival instinct is part of my argument for design. If this was all by chance, then it is reasonable that we would have seen a mutation out of this survival instinct, but that has never happened....each and every single organism has this characteristic. As far as the leap from this micro level adaptation to macro evolution, there is not single example of observed macro evolution. No empirical proof at all.
Are a dog and a rat members of the same "species?"
This is a serious question and it is extremely important to my understanding of your position of micro vs. macro evolution.