I think that you thinking that there needs to be a "why" is a far bigger "assumption". The need to ask why is a human insecurity, nothing more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
|
I think that you thinking that there needs to be a "why" is a far bigger "assumption". The need to ask why is a human insecurity, nothing more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
Ahhh Gal! Then you wish to teach religion in the class room. You religionlists make me smile. Not being able to prove, as fact, ANY of religions claims, ie; show me a Designer or a Creator, a little miricle, (walk on water) would be nice. Failing to do that leaves you with nothing left to do but attempt to discredit science. By the way, if "intelligent Design/ Creationism " would be taught in school, what would your answer be when some kid asks, "Who's the Designer? What's the Creators name?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
You would take science back thousand years if you could and teach religion as fact. You can tapdance, all you want, around the word,"RELIGION" but when it all boils down to the nitty-gritty that's all you have, belief and faith. And, my friend, belief and faith can NEVER be knowledge. And if it comes down to following "belief and faith" I opt for "reason and logic". And for the sake of our children, let us hope the law-makers don't bow down for the religious right and allow religion to be injected into our public school system as factual as science .
Has anyone else noticed that, in the original question, the word "intelligent" is misspelled? :)
Nitpicker! You never made a typo?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
OK all you proponents of the evolution theory religion. Please explain a few simple things, like the bee hive, ant den, the woodpecker's specialized skull structrue.
And if you think humans don't need a "why" you remind me of (name forgotten) who said that if he had a lever long enough and someplace to stand, he could move the Earth. You hove no place to stand. No starting point, no goal, and no way to get there. But you do have great faith in your religion.
Why should we? They're part of the evolutionary process also. Now since you're making noises like a fundamentalist please explain why the earth isn't over 5000 years old? Because the Bible told you so? Gee! I( looked all over the Bible for reference to a dinosaur. I'm still looking. I realize you people would just love it if the Christian Religion ruled the civilized world. Hey! That's already happened. There was once a time when the Christian religion did, indeed, rule over the civilized world. History will always refer to that time asThe Dark AgesQuote:
OK all you proponents of the evolution theory religion. Please explain a few simple things, like the bee hive, ant den, the woodpecker's specialized skull structrue.
and again as time passed and Religions grasp on humanity lessened history called that era The Age of Enlightenment.. There have been more wars fought in the name of religion then were ever fought over territory.
You Christians are really amusing, do you know that? When you run out of other religions to make war on you wage war on yourselves. Just look at the Protestant and Catholic conflict that's been going on for years in Ireland and only recently has been settled.
Yeah! You guys have a great track record behind you.
I didn't say that humans don't need a why. I said that they do. -_-Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
You make some interesting statements. I do not believe that the Earth is only 5,000 years old, as the Bible makes no such claim. I, personally, have seen a few miracles, no walking on water, but healings. As to the "dark ages", wasn't that when the Druids pretty much ran things in Europe? Don't try to blame Christians for that! You, and several others need to do some serious research instead of parroting Atheist mantras. Lew Wallace was an Atheist and governor of the (then) territory of Arizona. He decided that he would write a scholarly book to discredit the Bible, and began his research. The more he studied, the less certain he became that he was right. Finally, he accepted Jesus Christ as his LORD. Now, do you know what book Lew Wallace became famous for writing?Quote:
Originally Posted by speedball1
You're funny Gal.Great job of rewriting history, but no cigar for you. The Christian Religion held sway in theDARK AGES followed by the Protestant Reformation and THE AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT In which science challenged church doctrine that the sun revolved around the Earth among other things. You stick to faith and belief and I'll continue to place my trust in reason and logic. Let me repeat. You Christians are really amusing, do you know that? When you run out of other religions to make war on you wage war on yourselves. Just look at the Protestant and Catholic conflict that's been going on for years in Ireland and only recently has been settled.Quote:
As to the "dark ages", wasn't that when the Druids pretty much ran things in Europe?
Yeah! You guys have a great track record behind you and if you can't walk on water or whack a stone and get MD-20 out of it you haven't convinved me in spite of all your proselytizing .
Speedball
You should understand this.
Evolution is taught in taxpayor supported public schools.
Kids are taught that from one single cell all life came from that. Fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal and so on to humans. A theory that cannot be scientifically proven because they can never scientifically reproduce this.
Breed a monkey all you want - it does not become human.
This is the "DARK AGES" -- thinking a porta potty is going to somehow over time spontaneously mutate into a working toilet system in a house with all the necessary inputs, drains, and added plumbing. The average cell is several orders more complex.
This is "ENLIGHTENMENT"
Advancing from that same porta potty and INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNING a plumbing system to include today's toilet. Surely you can understand that?
Now - do you want kids taught they are the products of random mutations and natural selection whose only goal is survival at any cost? Or do you want them to be taught ACTUAL SCIENCE. The design of the eye, or a wing or bat echolocation or genetic mutations that cause diseases such as sickle cell, cystic fibrosis, huntington's chorea etc...
No they aren't the theory of evolution does not mention this once.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
You do not need to prove it in this way for it to be an accepted theory. Just because you don't understand the supporting evidence does not mean it doesn't exist. The earth rotating around the sun has never been replicated in the lab.Quote:
Fish to amphibian to reptile to mamal and so on to humans. A theory that cannot be scientifically proven because they can never scientifically reproduce this.
That is a ridiculous straw man argument showing your ignorance of the subject and nothing more.Quote:
Breed a monkey all you want - it does not become human.
Last time I checked toilets were not capable of reproduction. This is complete logical fallacy not a plausible argument.Quote:
This is the "DARK AGES" -- thinking a porta potty is going to somehow over time spontaneously mutate into a working toilet system in a house with all the necessary inputs, drains, and added plumbing. The average cell is several orders more complex.
In order for them to truly understand ACTUAL SCIENCE they need to understand evolution.Quote:
Or do you want them to be taught ACTUAL SCIENCE. The design of the eye, or a wing or bat echolocation or genetic mutations that cause diseases such as sickle cell, cystic fibrosis, huntington's chorea etc....
Sickle cell anaemia confers a survival advantage against malaria. Funny how it only exists in population who have had extensive exposure to malaria.
Cystic Fibrosis is another perfect example of natural selection in humans. It confers a selective advantage to those infected by cholera. Funny how it only occurs in populations challenged by cholera.
Your hypothesis is that God just designed those with genetic diseases faulty. Way to go God!
Wait a minute isn't he supposed to be perfect and have designed us in his image...
Man WAS created perfect. He chose to rebel, put himself down, and thereby endowed us with imperfect bodies. This is just as provable as yor assumptions are.
"No they aren't the theory of evolution does not mention this once."
------- what about darwin's "tree of life" - we all came from some common ancestor right? :)
"You do not need to prove it in this way for it to be an accepted theory. Just because you don't understand the supporting evidence does not mean it doesn't exist. The earth rotating around the sun has never been replicated in the lab."
----- you do not need to prove!! - so like religion you expect to accept this on faith? How scientific. :eek:
"That is a ridiculous straw man argument showing your ignorance of the subject and nothing more."
-- so when evolution cannot answer this question, personally attack the questioner? :confused:
"Last time I checked toilets were not capable of reproduction. This is complete logical fallacy not a plausible argument."
--- This was addressed to a plumbing expert. So who is responsible for the elegant design observed in nature? I guess your smarter than Crick. :p
"In order for them to truly underst and ACTUAL SCIENCE they need to understand evolution."
------ ahhh Darwinian ideology... Why does one need to "understand evolution" to understand science? Is it because everything has to be seen through a darwinian perspective and through evolutionary assumptions first? It is heresy to think otherwise :p
-------Funny thing is how can evolution explain something like renal physiology when evolution itself has no explanation. Next time you get a chance to speak to a nephrologist ask them if they can understand renal physiology without evolution? Same with a neurosurgeon, do they have to pass a evolution science board exam in order to do their job?
"Sickle cell anaemia confers a survival advantage against malaria. Funny how it only exists in population who have had extensive exposure to malaria."
------------Interesting that Malaria is an international infection, but the "advantage" of having sickle cell anemia is not international. Oh by the way, the next time you see a person in sickle cell crisis, comfort them with your "knowledge" that they have a survival advantage for malaria.
"Cystic Fibrosis is another perfect example of natural selection in humans. It confers a selective advantage to those infected by cholera. Funny how it only occurs in populations challenged by cholera."
------- Cholera has a worldwide distribution. So why don't other exposed populations have high rates of CF?
"Your hypothesis is that God just designed those with genetic diseases faulty. Way to go God!
Wait a minute isn't he supposed to be perfect and have designed us in his image... "
------per Galveston. Yes we humans are INTELLIGENT, just like our Creator. Witness the technological advances in the last 30 years alone.
No it shows we came from one population of common ancestors. The phylogenic trees do no indicate there is only on of each creature. Check out the FAQ that asking set up, because it will help clear up a lot of these myths.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/biolog...qs-211250.html
The second part you misquoted me; I said we don't need to prove it in the way you describe. Not that we didn't need to prove it at all -it has been tested numerous times over the last 150 years.
I didn't personally attack you, I attacked your argument. I wasn't calling you a straw man, that is just the name of an argument you set up for yourself to knock down. Which is exactly what you did.
So I point out the obvious flaws in your argument and because it wasn't addressed to me it's invalid?
I don't know any renal surgeons but I'll ask the neurosurgen. I can also ask an oncologist- or is that cheating?
As for sickle cell check these maps out.
Image:Sickle cell distribution.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Image:Malaria distribution.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My initial objection still stands. It is unfair to students to deny them the right to hear both sides of this continuing argument. Evolution is full of holes, which we are told may be cleared up with further information. Maybe that information will never arrive. Creationism/intelligent design answers problems that evolution can't. The objection that a teacher cannot mention the name of the creator/designer is invalid, teacher doesn't need to, as that is the job of the parent or pastor. What the STUDENT deserves is access to ALL the information on the subject, not just that part that you may BELIEVE. The evolutionist's stance in this is intolerant.
Theory should not be confused with observation.
What continuing argument? In science classrooms, we should teach what scientists study, and in this area that is overwhelmingly the theory of evolution. There is no continuing argument in science about this, because intelligent design is not science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
Also it is not anywhere near as full of holes as you believe.
ID still isn't science, and the way the people who want it in the classroom to be taught, it's Genesis. That's religion, and religion doesn't belong in ANY classroom of a public school.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
It's not about being intolerant - it's about putting science in a science class. We don't teach geography in math, do we? No, because geography isn't math. Do you need math skills to understand geography? Sure - if we're talking about distances and topography, but that still doesn't make geography math.
And it's not about belief, it's about evidence. ID is about belief - there's no evidence pointing to a creator/designer; only that people believe that's the only way possible.
38-06-O. An Inconvenient Truth: Molecular Evidence for
An Early Emergence of Animals Long Before the
Cambrian Explosion in the Fossil Record
Blair Hedges ([email protected])
Pennsylvania State University, Department of Biology, USA
Yet, ironically,we still have a relatively POOR UNDERSTANDING of the early history
Of life on our own planet. Even more pertinent to searches for complex
Life in the cosmos is the fact that WE DON'T KNOW when our own complex
Life—for example, animals—emerged and diversified. Was it
Closer to 500 million years ago OR a billion years ago? [ quite a large gap, don't you think?]... But despite years of study using molecular clocks, there is still NO WIDELY ACCEPTED RESOLUTION OF THIS QUESTION.. . THIS RESULT IS INCONVENIENT BECAUSE IT REQUIRES AN EXPLANATION FOR SUCH LONG GAPS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD. Explanations have been proposed for the gaps but there has been resistance
To embrace them in large part because of the perceived LACK OF AGREEMENT among molecular estimates. Now, these explanations require renewed consideration.
- From the recent Astrobiology conference.
25-02-O. How Many Hard Steps in Our Evolution?
Brandon Carter ([email protected])
Laboratoire de l’Univers et de ses Theories, Observatoire de Paris-
Meudon, France
"This means that some of the essential steps in the evolution process leading to the ultimate emergence of intelligent life would have been hard, in the sense of being
against the odds in the available time, ...... It was originally estimated
that only one or two of the essential evolutionary steps had to have
been hard in this sense, but it has become apparent that this figure may
need upward revision...... It will be shown that the fossil record provides tentative evidence in favor of a six step scenario"
Can't explain 2 steps, yet expect evolution to have all the answers when as much as 6 critical unexplained steps now postulated. :confused:
SPACE.com -- Primitive Alien Life May Exist, Stephen Hawking Says
"intelligent life as we know it is exceedingly rare." - Stephen Hawkins
What an understatement. ;)
It looks like the science hardly supports evolution - coming from evolution scientists themselves.
I don't see evidence for that from what you've posted, all I see is evidence of our understanding progressing.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
So, inthebox (or anyone, really), I'm curious - if we say "creator did it"; what would that mean? What would that get us? What would it change? Do you think we should say, "creator did it" and stop investigating the history of our planet and ourselves? Stop looking into how we got here and became who we are today?
I don't understand the benefit of saying "creator did it" unless you define the creator who did it... Or is that what you want to do? To say, "Christian god did it, just like in the bible"?
I'm honestly curious, I don't understand your opposition to evolution, since it makes no claim for or against a creator...
Jillian, my objection is that evolution is taught exclusively. And don't talk about the science classroom as though it is the only place that creation/id is prohibited. Look at the efforts of Mr. Newdow, and others who OBVIOUSLY want to rid this country of any mention of any deity. The only times that creationists have been able to present their side is after successful court battles, and it shouldn't be that way. You say there is no evidence of a creator? Just look in the mirror!
Just for fun -- how could ID or Creationism be presented in a public school science class so no one becomes offended or confused?
I doubt you can present anything that has to do with the starting of our universe without offending someone.
Evolution : upsets those who follow ID or creation
ID : upsets those who follow evolution or creation
Creation: upsets everyone who follows ID and evolution, plus then you
Have the issue of whose creation do you use ( what religion)
I am not sure in public school you can do any one method without offending someone, So perhaps all should be touched on at least in ideas that are accepted by others.
It would need scientific evidence, and, for good measure, at least a hundred peer reviewed papers on the subject in well-established scientific journals. This means it should be able to make predictions, which we can then design an experiment to verify that prediction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
At the moment, ID presents none of these things, which is why it is not suitable for the science class. Because it is not science.
It doesn't upset "us" at all, chuck, it just has no place in a science classroom, because it is religion.
Good thing that evolution has nothing to do with the starting of our universe, then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
I understand your objection, Gal, but you didn't answer my questions. What does teaching "creator did it" get us? Unless we define a specific creator, it means nothing. Would you creationists stop complaining if, on the first day of school the science teacher said, "We're going to study science in this class, but you should know, it is possible, though not proven, that it could all have been done by an intelligent creator. Now, moving on, let's talk about photosynthesis..."Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
It doesn't have anything to do with the STARTING of our universe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
Well, the first 9 billion years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Nope. What STARTED the process of evolution? (and yes, it is a process, not the start of anything)Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
Where did that first spark of life come from?
Life could not get far in space, there are many hypotheses about this, and the vast majority of them require a terrestrial setting, whether it be due to a lightning bolt, ocean foam, clay, radioactivity, sulphates etc. Since the Earth only formed 4.5 billion years ago, evolution is irrelevant for the first 9 billion years unless we find some evidence for an extraterrestrial form of life, at least from evolution on Earth's point of view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
During the past billions of years, when has a "lightning bolt, ocean foam, clay, radioactivity, sulphates etc." or other agent spontaneously created life a second time?Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
Doesn't matter the theory of evolution doesn't mention where the first spark of life comes from. It only deals with the first replicating cell on. Just as the theory of gravity doesn't explain where gravity comes from. The theory of gravity is still a good theory so is evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I don't understand why every time evolution is brought up certain people on this board bring up other scientific theories at the same time that have nothing to do with evolution. If you want to attack evolution at least understand the theory before you do. Many of the people have had the same question answered for them many times but then go on to post that same question again in a different question. While I understand that most of the people that do that aren't going to learn anything. Please at least come up with new question so we aren't answering the same ones over again or post the answer that you got earlier and say why that's not what your were looking for.
“To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today”
~Isaac Asimov
Just adding my two cents...
I did study evolution in school under the subject biology,it was just another sub-heading a part of many.
I remember we used to have one of those soft spoken, a well mannered, wonderful lady who taught us biology lessons.
If I remember right,she was a firmbeliever of the Christian faith.
She taught us evolution among all the other sub heading I haven't mentioned here.
I do not remember it being highlighted more than the other topics,nor do I remember her mentioning Creationism during the evolution topic.
What I do remember is whenever we studied any part or information on living organisms,cell structure, etc,she would always say something like, how wonderfully created each of them are... or something like -Beautiful creation or how intricately designed is this.. etc.
Being a muslim I was always in awe of everything taught in my bio class,as each seems an explanation of how the natural world I live in works from inside out.
I always used to admire her faith and how she explained things.
By not highlighting anything more than what the syllabus required,she did not go into detail in the topic of evolution.
In that way,the different students of different faiths did not have any problems nor do I remember any parents or students objecting to it.
It was just another lesson and we needed to know enough to answer a test paper :).
And during my school years and till now, if "Intelligent Design" is mentioned, in my heart I always believe it to mean the Almighty.
I wasn't attacking you but just making sure everyone understands that evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life. The one-time, first-time creation of life has never been replicated. Scientists et al. have always used existing life to create life.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Evolution is a whole 'nother ballgame.
The current hypothesizes are either the conditions on earth aren't right for forming life anymore or since there is already life on earth the chemicals aren't allowed enough time to "cook" before some other life form uses those chemical compounds for themselves. We don't teach those hypothesizes though because they don't have much evidence behind them yet but neither of those hypothesizes have anything to do with the validity of the theory of evolution. Even if we found proof that God himself came down and formed the first cell it would still not invalidate the theory of evolution because the theory of evolution doesn't deal with that theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I don't know, how would you find it and distinguish it from life from the first bolt etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I know you weren't attacking me, I was speaking about people that disagree with the theory of evolution perhaps attack was the wrong word. Sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Through a controlled experiment that doesn't contain pre-existing life in its elements?Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
Using what? It's not clear what the Earth was made of at that time, we don't know what the mechanism was, and we're not entirely sure how long it took.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
If it took a few hundred million years over the whole of the Earth to make one self-replicating molecule, what are the chances of us doing it in a box on a desk?
Wondergirl absence of proof is not proof of absence.
You might want to use that quote against a hard line atheist one day. However it also operates the other way with abinogenisis.
Just because it is not clear how evolution started it doesn't mean this topples the multitude of evidence that it did happen, and continues to do so.
You can even say god started it if you want. Hence why you don't have to be an atheist to know evolution is a fact.
I always thought for a theist isn't evolution a more glorious process for a deity to create than just designing everything. I mean things are designed all the time, you get very few things that have been set up to build themselves. But that is just a random philosophical tangent.
I have no problem with God using evolution to form the world. I'm not against you, but just asking questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by templelane
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:38 AM. |