Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
View Poll Results: Intelligent Design?
Yes, teach it along with Evolution 22 15.28%
No, teach only Evolution 121 84.03%
No, teach only Intelligent Design 1 0.69%
Voters: 144. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-24-2013, 09:41 AM
 
1,963 posts, read 1,819,645 times
Reputation: 844

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper View Post
The irony is that you're probably all wrong, cept for the one vote for Intelligent Design. We were probably seeded by aliens. We don't appear to be evolving to me.
The Earth doesnt appear to be flying gyroscopically through space at 4, 000 miles an hour either. Nor does it appear to have a mantle, core, electromagnetic field, atmosphere, or oxygen for that matter.

I guess your failure to grasp the concept of evolution just means its aliens. Sounds thorough enough to me, what do the world's smartest people know anyway...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-24-2013, 09:42 AM
 
Location: Montreal, Quebec
15,082 posts, read 14,291,533 times
Reputation: 9789
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
Comparative religion is a college course. Other than religious schools, I have never seen any public k-12 school that had a religious studies course.

Let the kids wait until college to take comparative religion, they can pay for it too.
We teach comparative religion up here in elementary and high school.

The program, which was introduced in 2008 to elementary and high schools by the provincial Education Ministry, replaced religion classes with a curriculum covering all major faiths found in Quebec culture, including Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and aboriginal beliefs.
"Exposing children to a comprehensive presentation of various religions without forcing the children to join them does not constitute an indoctrination of students that would infringe the freedom of religion of L and J [the appellants]," Madam Justice Marie Deschamps wrote in the main ruling.
Quebec students must take ethics-religion course - Canada - CBC News
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2013, 09:42 AM
 
Location: East Coast of the United States
27,427 posts, read 28,498,647 times
Reputation: 24953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Handz View Post
Big Bang Theory is NOT falsifiable..don't hold that against an Agnostic.
The big bang theory is actually a fascinating example of a falsifiable scientific theory.

You want to take a shot at it? Then all you have to do is discover a distant galaxy that is not moving away from our galaxy. That's it. If you can do this, then it would create a serious hole in the big bang theory.

So get busy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2013, 09:45 AM
 
17,842 posts, read 14,355,673 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper View Post
The irony is that you're probably all wrong, cept for the one vote for Intelligent Design. We were probably seeded by aliens. We don't appear to be evolving to me.
Seeded by aliens how? When? What happened after being 'seeded'?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2013, 09:48 AM
 
17,842 posts, read 14,355,673 times
Reputation: 4113
Intelligent Design on Trial :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei3_...FD5E27725A86D4
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2013, 09:50 AM
 
Location: Montreal, Quebec
15,082 posts, read 14,291,533 times
Reputation: 9789
Quote:
Originally Posted by avb3 View Post
I'm not sure where the funding comes or how popular the one that you short a link to is, however the one that's three blocks from my place is a fairly small Museum in the heart of the Bible Belt where I happen to live.Even though, I rarely see people go into it. I have no idea how they keep the doors open, but then again maybe that's a gods will.

Sent from my Nexus 4
Could be a front for a money-laundering operation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2013, 10:01 AM
 
17,842 posts, read 14,355,673 times
Reputation: 4113
10 Stupid questions by Creationists - 10 Intelligent answers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1xJCI9yEgw
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2013, 10:11 AM
 
Location: East Coast of the United States
27,427 posts, read 28,498,647 times
Reputation: 24953
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
Since Darwin's theory relies on genetic mutation and natural selection as it's primary mechanism of action, one must first have a replicating cell and the genes to mutate to provide for that selection process. So ... where did this complex organic data storage device called DNA originate, and perhaps even a better question is, how did this complex code originate? Since the code represents the instructions for the construction of the cell, it seems logical that the instructions must have come first. There are only two choices ... either this DNA and complex code sprung into existence by accident, in a very purposeless random mixing of inert elements ... or, as the complexity of the structure and code insists ... it was designed for the very purpose it serves.
Evolution is the science of change in life once life has already begun to exist. The origin of life and DNA is not evolution but abiogenesis.

Many of the components of RNA and DNA, such as amino acids, have been discovered in meteorites that have impacted on earth. Recently, astronomers have discovered glycolaldehyde - a sugar molecule that is required to form RNA - in a distant star.

In other words, the building blocks of life likely pre-existed in space and made their way to earth by impacts of meteorites and comets billions of years ago. If you want to learn more about this, then read up on RNA world hypothesis.

Last edited by BigCityDreamer; 08-24-2013 at 10:41 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2013, 11:17 AM
 
Location: Vermont
11,754 posts, read 14,612,870 times
Reputation: 18503
Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper View Post
Science is a big field. I don't think classes need to get into evolution of ID. Perhaps these would be classes reserved for college and higher learning.
No. If you say we should not teach evolution in public schools that means we can't teach biology in the public schools, because biology is nothing without evolution. It would be like teaching physics without talking about atoms, or astronomy without talking about the THEORY of gravity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2013, 11:49 AM
 
14,944 posts, read 8,555,251 times
Reputation: 7361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax View Post
Why do believers in the idea of Intelligent Design ignore all the Un-Intelligent designs in nature, especially in humans?
Offering you the benefit of doubt, I will assume that this simpleton view of the matter is purely rhetorical, though doubt nevertheless does persist. Of course, the many examples of unintelligent behavior ... particularly with regard to humans who are supposed to represent the highest and most evolved species, only presents a certain tongue in cheek challenge to intelligent design if you ignore the more illuminating complexity of the basic structure of biological life at the cellular level, and focus on mental disfunction instead. I could similarly argue that such unintelligent human behavior presents as much evidence against the theory of evolution, if one should error in linking complexity with intelligence as you attempt to do.

I would suggest that it might be wise of you to set aside the human example when defending evolution theory, because you will certainly not help your cause by including humans as any form of positive evidence thereof. I might also suggest that humans are the greatest argument against evolution, as we seem to be on a path of self destruction, similar to a virus that has mutated to become more virulent and pathogenic to it's host environment, which in turn threatens it's own survival and continued existence. That fact would suggest that somewhere along the way the process of natural selection must have taken a wrong turn, and began discarding those beneficial mutations in favor of selecting the negative ones. Then again, we also have examples of human behavior which demonstrates very high levels of intelligence, so both the intelligent and unintelligent examples exist. Truth is, neither provides an iota of support for or against evolution or intelligent design.

The problem here seems to be a very weak understanding of all three theories, evolution, intelligent design and creation .. which explains some but not all of the confusion and error. Upon cursory review of this thread, for example, one finds few responses that even mention "Intelligent Design" even though that is the subject and title of the thread. Instead, we find the knee-jerk reaction of immediately attacking creationism and religion as if these concepts were synonymous with ID. Like Pavlov's dogs, drooling at the ringing of the bell, we have the Darwinian Dogs barking about religion the moment evolution theory is questioned. But intelligent design, creationism and religion are not at all the same theories. The fundamental argument of Intelligent Design simply postulates that the extreme complexity of living matter at the cellular level displays all of the commonly accepted, clearly scientific characteristics of design with intent, while not even attempting to identify the designer at all. This separates it from creationism and religion on a very fundamental level. The basic premise behind Intelligent Design is simple observation and common sense, along with a certain element of mathematical probability, which concludes that the extreme complexity inherent in the cellular structure offers it's own evidence of design with purpose, similar to an onlooker viewing Mt Rushmore who immediately recognizes that it could not have been the result of natural rock erosion. Just like the Mt Rushmore analogy, the characteristics of design with intention present in the complex structure of a biological cell offers it's own evidence against this being the result of random natural processes, at face value, rendering the theory that this was a product of random processes so astronomically improbable, as to dismiss this answer as highly unreasonable and extremely unscientific.

While I am not a religious person myself, that doesn't stop the evolutionists from falsely labeling me as so, because this is again, the conditioned response to which almost all evolutionists immediately resort. Part of this is conditioned response, and perhaps for some, a deliberate diversion in order to avoid having to address inconvenient facts for which they have no reasonable rebuttal. And true to form, the tap dancing and diversion begins when the origin of the first living cell becomes the primary topic. Immediately, the evolutionists will (as you have done on previous threads) claim that this matter is not even addressed in evolution theory ... that this is an entirely separate topic covered under abiogenesis theories. But if that be the case, then evolution theory cannot possibly be used, as is repeatedly done, an argument against Intelligent Design OR Creationism, because that is the central theme of the debate ... the origin of life ... is it the product of a "creator" ... or does it exhibit characteristics of "intelligent design" or is life just a result of natural processes? You cannot ignore the origin of life in evolution theory, while simultaneously using evolution as an argument against other theories dealing specifically with the origin of life. This is maniacal levels of circular reasoning.

The truth is, no one knows the true origin of life and how life came to be. All theories are pure speculation, and contrary to the claims of the evolutionists, there is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, supporting evolution as the explanation for either the origin of life or origin of species.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:08 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top