U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-20-2013, 10:41 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,346,520 times
Reputation: 3735

Advertisements

Here goes: my running commentary on some of the best, and obviously worst, posts here so far!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker5in1 View Post
There is nothing wrong with teaching evolution as a theory, along with creation as a theory. Neither should be taught as proven fact, because both are unproveable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by patient.rflmn
Creationism cannot be demonstrated, I"ll agree on that. [Why not? Because, like legions of other screwy ideas that are blatantly false, like making gold out of coal, or wine out of pig urine, it simply doesn't work, nor exist.]

Evolution? Perhaps you might grace us with your definition of it, perhaps in short point form, so we can first ascertain if you even have the intellectual right to be in a debate on which ,on first blush ,you seem to have absolutely not understanding of. So... Would you care to do that for us? Because if not, you'll just have to clear out
[btw, I can accomplish that simple goal in a simple short paragraph. Are you up to it as well, or are you willing to admit I know far more than you?]
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid View Post
Evolution is observable, where as abiogenesis is not.
Not exactly, HK. Abiogenesis' starting points have in fact recently been clearly demo'd. As in, the seemingly impossible has been documented in the lab by those danged persistent British scientists: they observed the formation of the essential building blocks of amino acids and enzymes form up, due entirely to well-understood natural interactions and forces.

We Evil Syunteestás™ had only to provide 1) the right key basic chemical elements, 2) the right atmospherics & environmental conditions, and 3) patience.
(after all, it took several million years for all of these conditions to be "just right" and then, the next step, formation of the next steps up that chain. We can't just "demand" that it be shown in a high-school lab at 2:00pm this afternoon...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker5in1 View Post
And you can't prove that creation is just a myth. Both theories should be presented as just that: theories. Suggesting that those who ascribe to the creation theory are delusional is a bit insulting don't you think?
Actually, Seeker5, we can show it's only a myth, pending your provision of some evidence beyond "Well, it's in the bible, so there!".

Wow! I have a bunch of those sorts of statements in my copy of Lord of the Rings as well, but their continuity editors were on the job, unlike the drunken minstrels who penned that durned confusing bible!

But anyhow, please, oh puh-leeeeezzz, Seeker5: it's your turn to define here, in point form, your obviously unique definition of a scientific theory.

HINT: your current one is entirely, absolutely and technically WRONG, so go from there. Perhaps you could start by looking it up on Wiki, right here on your convenient laptop. Then, when you've made that correction, maybe you could also review and revise the statement^ you made here, yes?

Let's also add in that the main point that's evolved on this thread is whether both should be taught in a science class. What's your position on that? To my earlier post point, it's inappropriate to teach crocheting in a class on Spanish cooking, don't you agree? Ditto for teaching a truly, demonstrably scientific point (Evolution, laser beams, inorganic chemistry, how to make synthetic nylon and so on...) with the philosophy of Creationism, which cannot, in any way, be "tested" via the SM.

So perhaps you could tell us how Creationism might be confirmed by some other method?


Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid View Post
So changes in DNA and observable traits over time are cannot be proven? Survival of the fittest cannot be proven?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
You have proved nothing.

There are so many inconsistencies, impossibilities, and outright lies involved in ToE that anyone who believes such nonsense ought to have their head examined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuppitt-rflmn
Again with the outright lies stuff. Harrier, you old goat you, ; why don't you tell us which are the outright lies? As a professional career biologist (who majored in biochemical toxicology, genetics, Evolution and the biology of mammal animals, like, you know, us hominids... plus some geology, oh and that engineering degree too... So where did I miss out, pray tell?) ....I'm surely keen to change my mind if you'll only engage us with your summary info. I mean, I can, and have, provided the forum, time and agaiun, with my ideas in handy irrefutible point form; why can't you? Or do you just stand off to the side and try to out-yell us fact-bringers?

Show me the errors, OK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Funny how when the holes are filled in as new technology and discoveries come along the theory of evolution just gets stronger.

Your last sentence makes no sense. If a missing piece of the picture shows up (and missing pieces show up every day), it is no longer missing.
But then, suzie_q, as we always see, the opposition simply closes ranks and mutters that there's still some tiny little hole yet unfilled. Oh No!

So let's think this one through: if we find and then follow the breadcrumb trail for, say, 20 miles, and then one tiny little crumb is missing, but the trail nonetheless resumes again a few feet further along, and at the end, another 200 miles later, we find those Ravens feasting away, plus all the other members of the bird family, but also a gopher, and a few others, that means the breadcrumb trail is totally invalid, right, drone-heads?

You betcha. Yup. A very compelling argument. Btw, thx: suzie: not sure I can rep yah right now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlenextyear View Post
Agreed. It is a theory, akin to the theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease, and the cell theory.

So, just as we teach students that the flu is caused by viruses, and not from "bad air" or "miasma", we'll teach students that species become reproductive isolated and change over time due to environmental selection pressures. Not because the "locally recognized deity put them there"
"Oh you guys! Logic, logic, logic. Logic be damned, it's only a Theory, and therefore it's all a big but bad guess!", right, hive-minds? Thx seattlenextyear?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
Aside from the fact that this is not entirely accurate, you again miss the elephant in the living room, which is why you would be better served by listening more, and talking less.

[edited for brevity, but a good post nonetheless! Thx, sny!]

Dogma is the only thing standing in the way between this rather elementary conclusion and the insistence that the nucleus of the cell is the central brain controlling it. It's really a matter of simple deduction.

[edited for brevity, but you do get a bit off course here...[/i]!]

...it can adapt and become impervious to antibiotics ... and no, that's not evolution ... it's adaptation ... it's the immune response inside the bacteria. Just like when you get sick and have a fever and a runny nose ... are you evolving because you have a fever that kills off the offending bug infecting you?

Quote:
Well, uhmmmm... actually yes, GnT, we do indeed now have, courtesy of that new DNA genome mapping ability, immutable proof of some overall changes in the human genome, esp. in those who have been exposed many times to certain prolific viral bugs, so that some degree of immunity is indeed transfered during the overall reproductive process. Remember as well that a lot of Evolution's results are measured by statistical methods, rather than expecting each and every sample member to have the exact same genome...)
You should realize that applies WAY MORE to you than me, you evolved monkey you!

You see, I make no such attempt to explain the origin of life. I certainly don't subscribe to the fairytale of the white bearded guy with the magic wand, floating in the clouds, nor the other fairytale from a man fitting a similar description who today would be appalled by the blatant distortions of his own theory to cover it's obvious flaws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tired-rflmn
(edited for brevity again, plus I"d have to write an additional "tome" to discuss it now. No time. Got some guns to 'smith!. Thx anyhow!)
Sounds like the same deal that's going on with Darwinism is playing out with the dogma of the Big Bang.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLASTED View Post
The problem with evolution is you are teaching children that they are nothing more than another species of animals. Human beings are not animals, and animals are not human beings. An animal has no moral consciousness. It acts out of instinct and programmed behavior.

If evolutionists truly believe that human beings are simply another class of species then they can't say bestiality is immoral and wrong. Evolution strips away our very humanity and degrades things like love and passion to nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain.
Quote:
Hmmm... So then... tell me why we are NOT animals, BLASTED. Be specific please, and don't try that tired old "Well, we're more capable than they are!" or that "We have souls and they don't!" hog-twaddle! How, pray tell, would you know these things about the, as you like to say, "lesser" animals? I, as a pro wildlife biologist (I know, you'll just dismss my ±12 years of direct field observation work...) know they do indeed think ahead, and exhibit some altruisms, which is a prime indicator of the same sort of higher thoughts that we demonstrate. Esp. the chimps!
[quote=OhioRules;28648394]
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812 View Post
Well yeah, a dog is not going to evolve into a tree. A dog will always be a dog, as opposed to a fish or a plant fungus.

But when school children study evolution, are they studying how life began, or just how it evolves? I don't know much about creationism, but doesn't it also include some form of evolution?[/quote]

Quote:
Nope. How could we have the necessary time, unless magic is involved, for all the species we know to exist now, plus the other (estimated...) 60+ million species that have gone extinct (we DO have those pesky fossil remains after all, and we can accurately date them now as well..) to hve evolved via God's hand?

This is just a case of Creationists, having been logically corners, then coming up with really off-the-wall answers that are in no way supported by ANY text or prophecy or, well, anything. Sorry.
I just picked up the Bible and read the part about God creating the earth.

He says he created species. Nothing I saw would suggest evolution.

I admit, I'm not a Bible expert either.
Quote:
Yup. The bible's' scientifically illiterate authors had literally NO idea about dinosaur fossils, or those clam shells up on Mt. Everest. So they couldn't and also didn't write anything into the bible to cover, expose or discuss them. Just one unrelated line about Job and his crocodile.

That's it for herds of T-rexs roaming through the village as co-existing pets for the kiddies to ride on?

And not one single unfossilized leg bone from a Brontosaurus alongside a cave dwelling? No paintings of the 3000+ species of dinosaurs, from those tiny little future bird ones on up? Unlikey, huh? Everything else that the rabid Creationist fringe says is just modern add-on stuff!
Quote:
Oh well... so much to say, so little time! Bye for now, tribal members!

 
Old 03-20-2013, 10:56 AM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,316 posts, read 28,130,488 times
Reputation: 28805
Quote:
Originally Posted by EugeneOnegin View Post
A cell nucleus is not the only place where DNA and RNA are found.

Gene expression analysis of human red blood cells

Evolution is not a progressive march forward from simple to complex. Evolution moves backwards, sideways, and sometimes forward in terms of complexity. Organisms survive because they're able to fill niches and are able to effectively reproduce, a human's arbitrary opinion of "superior" or "inferior" has nothing to do with it.
Thank you!
 
Old 03-20-2013, 12:07 PM
 
9,066 posts, read 5,597,399 times
Reputation: 3824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
This is an issue of labeling, not of evolution. If you want to label yourself as being separate from the animal kingdom then by all means do so. It will not change the reality that that is exactly what you are however.

I would not get caught up in labels though. They are just a means to help communicate. A monkey is a "hominid". So are you. So you are both "Hominids". So what? Just because the same word or "set" incorporates you and something else... that does not mean we are saying you are the same in every way as that something else.

We can teach evolution in schools without issue therefore. Nothing about teaching it precludes acknowledging the differences... small and vast..... between us and other animals in the animal kingdom. The fact we both fall under the definition of "Hominid" or "Animal" or "Mammal" in no way takes away from any of that.
I couldn't disagree more. There is an underlying devaluation of the human being when assigning man the status of just another animal, for which many thinking people recognize as both offensive and dangerous. And while I'm an animal lover who wholly deplores many practices routinely engaged in by the scientific community in the unethical treatment of so many animals in laboratories and testing facilities around the world, and all in the name of scientific advance, the dangers of narrowing the perceptual or philosophical gap between man and chimp has much deeper implications than might be fully realized by the public at large, and particularly as this devaluation is instilled in the malleable minds of children. The more narrow you can establish the gap between man and chimp, the closer you come to justifying similar treatment ... and that ought to raise serious concerns, as the torture of these man-like "relatives" by the scientific community is well documented and quite disgusting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
Again this is just a matter of labels. Even if "love" is just a chemical reaction in the brain.... and there is no evidence on offer (much less from you) to suggest otherwise.... then so what? That does not take away from it, the experience of it, or its importance to us. Labels are empty here. Getting caught up in a tizzy about what we call these things... or how we define them.... in no way takes away from their value to us.
Quite to the contrary .... labels can be very powerful, and as such, they are frequently used to marginalize and ridicule persons and opinions. FREQUENTLY USED for that purpose. This tactic is one of the more common weapons utilized to quell alternative opinions and theories which challenge consensus opinion, and one need look no further than this subject and the responses on this thread to see this in full swing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
Tosh. Straw man tosh at that. We of course entertain that possibility. That is in fact how science... a subject you clearly do not know much about.... works. The entire methodology of science is based around an approach called "Falsification". What that means is that we do not try to prove things true so much as we try to prove them false.

So not only are we willing to entertain the possibility evolution is wrong.... the entire enterprise of science is BASED on entertaining that possibility... about all things.... all the time. What we call "proven theory" in science is not so much things we have proven to be true in science.... but things that have resisted all attempts at falsification.

That you would espouse the above nonsense therefore shows that not only do you not understand the methodologies of science.... you actually have them EXACTLY wrong and backwards.
While I avoided using any "label" such as nonsense to define the previous passages of your post, this one requires a more definitive and direct statement, such as preposterous or absurd. But I'm sure you wont mind or be offended though, since it's just a label. But I must say that to make such an absurd declaration is a direct insult to one's intelligence, as this type of baseless tripe is the truer example of "falsification". Virtually anyone with an ounce of intelligence and an equal measure of honesty would never make such a ridiculous suggestion in the face of hundreds of years of direct experience exposing this as untrue. While the premise itself may define the philosophical ideal of scientific study, that's where it abruptly ends ... as idealism only. In general practice however, nothing could be further from the truth.

As I referenced earlier, the open letter to the scientific community at large, which was authored and signed by dozens of prominent scientists from around the world, their general indictment of mainstream science is both accurate as it pertains to cosmology and the promotion of the Big Bang Theory, as it is accurate of a significant majority of mainstream scientific consensus opinion across a variety of disciplines, which dominate the scientific landscape by means of censorship, monopoly, protectionism and ridicule of competing opinion. Evolution falls squarely in that same category as a problematic theory based mainly upon conjecture, which knows no boundaries when it comes to self promotion ... including the overt absence of scientific integrity by declaring unproven hypotheses as scientifically proven facts.

Furthermore, when it comes to "labels", evolution science has mastered the art of deception and distortion through slight of hand labeling such things as natural variation and adaptation as proof positive of evolution theory. The fraud of doing this is so overt as to deny simple ignorance as the cause. And of course, this isn't isolated to just mere embellishment and semantical gamesmanship, but extends to a long list of deliberate frauds in literally manufacturing evidence whose nature was later revealed to be deliberate fabrication ... read: PROVEN AND CAUGHT RED HANDED. And there is one inescapable truth here ... legitimate scientific fact does not need fabricated evidence to support it. So much for your idealistic "Falsification" theory .... which is false, and pure, self serving propaganda, and nothing more.

Moreover, the list of the less overt, but no less deliberate acts of deception is even longer. The intermixing of terms like "intermediate" and "transitional" as if they were synonymous is a classic example. Even more astounding is observing how one group of evolutionist double talkers insist that the expectation of finding evidence of transitional species (as Darwin himself declared necessary to support his theory) is a misunderstanding of how evolution is now understood to work, and that new discoveries have refined the theory which suggests that there really should not be transitional fossils! On this, Darwin was incorrect, but correct on most everything else. Then of course we also have another segment of evolutionists who insist that countless examples of those transitional fossils have already been found! The truth is, there is never a shortage of "updates" to the theory of evolution which directly correlates to the volume of challenges presented it, and when need be, simply revert back ... twist, distort, lie, fabricate ... all tactics are on the table and legitimate in the eyes of the evolutionists. And when all else fails, simply attack the challenger with false claims and straw man arguments and "LABELS" of unscientific religious nonsense.

That's how it really works, and I believe the main prerequisite for membership in the Darwin Society is simply the willingness to abandon common sense and integrity. Either will suffice.
 
Old 03-20-2013, 04:42 PM
 
9,066 posts, read 5,597,399 times
Reputation: 3824
Quote:
Originally Posted by EugeneOnegin View Post
A cell nucleus is not the only place where DNA and RNA are found.

Gene expression analysis of human red blood cells
I'm fully aware of that, and I'm perplexed as to why you think this has any relevance to the claim that the nucleus of a cell is it's source of control. Now, if you are insinuating that DNA is the controller, irrespective of it being located within a nucleus, or simply floating about inside the cell, then say so ... don't beat around the bush.

If that is what you are insinuating, I would like to hear how DNA triggers it's own gene expression without outside chemical signals, which is the current understanding of how DNA works. And just so no one thinks that this is simply my opinion about how DNA or the Nucleus cannot be the brain of the cell, this is the answer provided to an 8th grade science teacher by a scientist at the Department of Energy at the Newton "ask a scientist" website ...

QUESTION: If red blood cells have no DNA, how do they know how to function?

ANSWER: I think there might be some confusion about the role DNA plays in a cell. DNA does not tell a cell how to function -- it's not like a brain or control center that directs actions. DNA is more like a blue-print. Components of the cell refer to the information coded in DNA to make new proteins, but many other activities of the cell don't require DNA. Converting sugars to energy, for instance, doesn't require DNA, assuming the rest of the machinery is already in place. If you remove the DNA from a cell, it can continue to live for some time. Without DNA, it can't make new proteins and can't reproduce -- so its life span is very limited -- but a cell can live without DNA. Red blood cells are a prime example. If you get the right parts together, they will operate on their own.


Blood Cells without DNA

Quote:
Originally Posted by EugeneOnegin View Post
Evolution is not a progressive march forward from simple to complex. Evolution moves backwards, sideways, and sometimes forward in terms of complexity. Organisms survive because they're able to fill niches and are able to effectively reproduce, a human's arbitrary opinion of "superior" or "inferior" has nothing to do with it.
This is the typical case of "Heads you win, tails I lose". It seems to be one of the favorite games you people like to play. But what is surprising is how this is so much like a child, face covered in chocolate, lid off the cookie jar, and a pile of crumbs at his feet, claiming no knowledge of who the cookie thief could be. Of course, we skeptics understand that by necessity, you are compelled to add the backwards and sideways elements of evolution along with the forward, because these backwards and sideways movements are the only evidence of changes that exist. It's the lack of evidence of that forward movement, resulting in a transition to a new species which is at the center of the debate ... so let's try to be honest for a moment, and set aside this irrelevant philosophical hubbub about the arbitrary nature of defining superior and inferior, and save it for the next episode of dancing with the stars, because I've not made a single inference to such a judgement. My claims have been constrained to the matter of complexity, which makes no such distinction regarding a superior or inferior form.

The fundamental absence of ONE piece of evidence that shows ONE SINGLE genetic mutation as adding additional information to the genome of an organism is really the heart of the matter. And that would be required to provide added complexity, to include the most basic insinuation that it all started out as a random mixing of inorganic elements which formed the first biologically living cell, which then mutated over and over again to result in more complex, multicellular life forms from that single cell organism, which had no nucleus (bacteria), then successive mutations over vast amounts of time resulted in Billions of different and extremely more complex life forms. Of course, if you assume that evolution is already the answer right from the beginning, that makes it far easier to pinpoint and dismiss evidence contrary to that theory, as you evolutionists have become so expert at doing.
 
Old 03-20-2013, 05:13 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,316 posts, read 28,130,488 times
Reputation: 28805
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
The fundamental absence of ONE piece of evidence that shows ONE SINGLE genetic mutation as adding additional information to the genome of an organism is really the heart of the matter.
If that is the heart of the matter, then you need to give up your arguments completely. The evidence you claim is fundamentally absent does exist.

A common way for information to be added to a genome is by a mutation that duplicates a gene:

CB102: Mutations adding information

"A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references."

The increase in complexity can also be measured:

Evolution of biological complexity
 
Old 03-21-2013, 02:38 AM
 
7,811 posts, read 5,262,688 times
Reputation: 2973
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
I couldn't disagree more.
Or well it seems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
There is an underlying devaluation of the human being when assigning man the status of just another animal
In your head maybe, but not in mine or any other biologist I have ever met. We need words and labels to identify what we are talking about at any given time. Fact: We are a mammal. The set of mammals incorporates us and many other creatures. When a biologist needs to refer to this set he uses the word "mammal". So what? Just because two things fit in a defined set that in no way makes them equivalent nor does it make any value judgement about them at all.

If YOU want to make value judgement based on that word then that is your business... and your choice... so do not blame the word for it. It is all on you. Putting them in a set based on a useful criteria in no way devalues anything, nor does it dismiss the important differences between them. Putting a voikswagen beatle in the same set as a banana under the criteria "yellow" in no way makes them equivalent. No one is going to try and eat a car, or drive a banana, because of this "defined set".

If YOU feel devalued by recognizing your animal origins then so be it... that is your problem.... and choice.... not ours. I see no use in making that choice, nor any useful reason for ignoring facts about who AND what we are. If your self worth and respect for our species is predicated on ignoring facts about who and what we are then I would heartily recommend re-evaulating that world view as it is based at it's core on a systematic self deception and ignoring of the real world. My own respect for the animal kingdom... our own species included... is not predicated on fantasy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
The more narrow you can establish the gap between man and chimp, the closer you come to justifying similar treatment ...
I would say the opposite actually. I think putting us apart from the animals is what brings this danger. By pretending we are something we are not... that we are separate... above... better... different from the animals and that we have some right of dominion over them we there by ignore and brush under the carpet the arguments against inhumane treatment of them. By recognizing that we are not as "special" as we think we are but that the animal kingdom are our kin and origins we realize we have a duty to them and we do not have some "special privilege" to abuse them how we wish.

By realizing we have no special elevation but that we are on a shared plane with these creatures we would lose these notions that they are here for our abuse and entertainment and whims. Biblical notions do not help when the Bible tells us that we are something special and that god put the animals here and we have dominion over them to do as we will. We have no more (or less) right to live, breath, survive and autonomy and freedom than they do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
But I'm sure you wont mind or be offended though, since it's just a label.
Of course not. You do not have the ability to offend me. That is not a comment about you either... but about me. I know what is required to offend me and it simply is not present here. For example I would have to know you and your opinion would have to matter to me... before you could offend me. Neither of these criteria is present here. So fear not about offending me.

What I will say however is that applying a label does not change the attributes of the target. Calling something X does into change it into X. Calling an argument absurd does not make it so... you have to then explain how and why it is absurd. Something you have abjectly and entirely failed to do.

So your label is not offensive at all. It is just vacuous, empty and in error. Just because you do not understand the scientific process or methodology does not in any way make anything I have said false.

To repeat: The scientific process is about falsification. That is the core of the process. For example we do not prove that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant.... for all we know on the "other" side of the universe it travels at a different speed. No... what we do is try to falsify the claim that it is constant. We test it, test it and test it again to try and prove it is not a constant.... and after we fail at all these attempts to concede that all the data we have suggests it is constant and we proceed on that premise until some new data shows otherwise.

The other tool of science is prediction. A Theory in science has to make predictions which are then shown to hold true.

Evolution is no more or less problematic than any other theory therefore. It has stood up to all attempts at falsification... it fits the data and evidence.... and it has made massive predictions which have come true. It is just as valid in science as any other theory and I see no reason for singling it out for special treatment or removal from school curriculum. Any arguments for doing so would apply to ALL science so what we would end up doing is not teaching science at all.
 
Old 03-21-2013, 06:06 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
152 posts, read 253,125 times
Reputation: 384
I believe that evolution is the best scientific explanation we have and strongly encourage it to be taught in schools. Though I am religious, I am terrified by the thought of Creationism or Intelligent Design being taught in public schools. I think it is impossible to keep religious influences out of government institutions since it is the basis of many people's ideologies, but that does not mean I think it is acceptable for the government to institutionalize religious beliefs. However, I am also strongly opposed to teaching evolution as an undeniable, proven fact because it is still a developing science.

The truth is that in science we can never undeniably, 100% "prove" anything. What we can say is: "To our knowledge, given the available data analyzed within this margin of error, this is true." Stating that any science is a "fact" is somewhat misleading because, though numbers don't lie, the method of interpretation of said numbers varies considerably depending on the scientist or methodology of their study. One of the most exciting things about any science is that it's a living, constantly changing and developing field where at any moment someone could stumble across an anomaly which revolutionizes everything we think we know! It is my opinion that we sell students short when we treat a subject as interesting as evolution like it is an unquestionable and "proven" law of nature. I am always depressed by people who treat evolution like it is their religion and, therefore, must never be doubted and anyone who questions its doctrine is a "science atheist." It will be a dark day when people's evolution religiosity diminishes it from a thriving science to a dead pseudoscience...
 
Old 03-21-2013, 08:22 AM
 
810 posts, read 562,847 times
Reputation: 778
I'm curious as to how intelligent design should be built into a curriculum if people want it. With evolution, you can cover that topic for weeks and do projects, experiments, etc. With intelligent design, how you teach it without pushing one religion over the other. You'd have to stay generic and say there's an almighty being somewhere that created everything. You'd mention it and the lesson would be over in 5 minutes. You'd have to stay away from mentioning the Bible since other religions have their own books. Do you include scientology then too? If you aren't familiar with what they believe then read up...it's amazing.

I think, feelings and beliefs aside, that bringing intelligent design and religion into a SCIENCE curriculum is off-base. Intelligent design and religion is more of a cultural and family teaching and it probably should be left that way.
 
Old 03-21-2013, 08:34 AM
 
83 posts, read 70,182 times
Reputation: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by EugeneOnegin View Post
So we should not teach children the truth because some people aren't comfortable with it? Should we not teach about the Mai Lai massacre as well?

Humans are a species of animal. No amount of wishful thinking can ever change that fact.
Wishful thinking isn't needed. Observation clearly shows that humans are different from animals. Humans are the only living beings with the ability to speak and articulate. Care to explain why evolution only gave us that ability? hmmm Human beings operations are based mainly on emotional states rather than instinctive behavior. Human beings are the only species who feel the need to wear clothing, and feel naked otherwise. Other animals have no problem letting it all hang out. Also, if evolution is true then we should still be evolving. I don't see any evidence of this. Human beings continue to struggle with the same physical limitations and ailments that plagued our ancestors. Our immune systems are not getting stronger, our bodies are not improving through natural selection either. Oh that's right, it's suppose to happen in another million years. How convenient that you can claim a theory is true when there is no way to observe it in action on a grand scale. Let's face it, evolution is a lie.
 
Old 03-21-2013, 08:41 AM
 
83 posts, read 70,182 times
Reputation: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post

By realizing we have no special elevation but that we are on a shared plane with these creatures we would lose these notions that they are here for our abuse and entertainment and whims. Biblical notions do not help when the Bible tells us that we are something special and that god put the animals here and we have dominion over them to do as we will. We have no more (or less) right to live, breath, survive and autonomy and freedom than they do.
If you truly hold to this notion then you are a mass murderer anytime you kill incests. After all, they are living creatures too and we have no special elevation over them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top