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.
Have you heard about extraterrestrial seeding and panspermia? Carl Sagan entertained this. Some researchers even published a paper with Cornell a couple years ago.
This isn't intelligent design by the way.
Yes, I know about those speculations, but they are not an 'alternative' to the Theory of Evolution, which is not about origin of life on earth.
Have you heard about extraterrestrial seeding and panspermia? Carl Sagan entertained this. Some researchers even published a paper with Cornell a couple years ago.
This isn't intelligent design by the way.
Yes, panspermia is one way to explain how life began on earth - which is postulated to have its origin in naturally occurring self-replicating structures.
How those postulated naturally occurring self-replicating structures developed into something we would recognize as living cells is a question that has not been settled, so little time is spent on it in beginning biology courses. When I was getting my degree, this was a topic for grad school, not el-hi.
Edited to add - while panspermia is a fascinating topic, it just removes the question of biogenesis to a non-earth environment. Which makes it even more dubious to attribute it to the abrahamic god, whether that god was a micromanager or the instigator of the physics that eventually led to biogenesis.
Yes, I know about those speculations, but they are not an 'alternative' to the Theory of Evolution, which is not about origin of life on earth.
You're right. Those theories don't negate evolution like ID and creationism. ID proponents go extra miles in attempting to discredit evolution. The Discovery Institute hires highly intelligent creationists to push ID.
Stephen Myer is a great example of an ID guy who has the credentials. Too bad he does a poor job convincing people who understand statistics and biology.
He said creationism and intelligent design NEVER made it into Canadian schools and you would NEVER hear them discussed.
Do you believe they have NEVER been taught in Canadian schools and have NEVER been discussed in Canada like the poster claims?
Your argument is not working. We all understand that s/he said "never" and then you or someone pointed out that it was taught at least once in Canada. You received a response that it was indeed taught somewhere in Canada but it was then corrected. Now, you are stuck on him/her originally saying "never." This word "never" and the statement it made has since been updated and explained to you. Move on or have someone close to you explain it. Cheers.
Supernatural - attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
Note, it's not beyond science but beyond scientific understanding. Scientific understanding continues to evolve through time.
When I took a biology course at The University of Texas, we covered how in medieval times it was thought that physical traits of a parent, as they existed at the time of conception, would be passed on to the child. If a father lost his right arm and then conceived a child, that child had a 50% chance of not having a right arm. In fact, we were educated about many theories that were proven incorrect. Do you feel that there is no value added to science education by discussing other theories that were proven to be incorrect?
My wording should have been better. I should have clarified and said "What if what is considered supernatural now later turns out to be dark matter and/or dark energy..."
They may crack it in 20 years, but it may go another 100 years or more before it is cracked, but for now, we know hardly anything about a big chunk of the universe. Wouldn't you agree?
So you would be okay if a science class taught about all the evidence that shows 'Intelligent Design" (aka rebranded Creationism) is incorrect?
Since "evolution" is a lie, and cannot be proven (it is just a "theory" and a ridiculous one at that), it should not be taught as fact.
Evolution ("evolution by natural selection") is a scientific theory. As a scientific theory, it requires much more evidence than the simple acceptance of mythological accounts.
Evolution is supported by overwhelming evidence in biology, genetics, geology, and numerous other specific scientific disciplines. As a scientific theory, it must be falsifiable. That is to say that it must be open to the possibility of being proven scientifically incorrect. For that reason, evolution, on the macrocosmic level, cannot be empirically and irrefutably proven. There are, however, thousands of scientifically observable premises which lead to evolution as a vigorously rational conclusion. The greatest strength of scientific theory lies in the fact that additional observable evidence can, and does, refine the ultimate conclusion.
This lies in complete contrast to pseudo-sciences such as "creationism". Those who believe in some form of divine creation have exactly nothing in the way of supportive evidence. They are simply looking for a way to justify their particular form of supernatural belief. Science looks at premises, then draws a conclusion which rationally follows. Belief starts with a conclusion (i.e.-- a creator-deity exists), then attempts to mold reality into that belief system.
There are literally hundreds of different creation myths throughout the world. What they all have in common is that they originate from people who found it necessary, in the absence of modern science, to explain their existence. Most intelligent human beings in the contemporary world--even most of those who hold specific religious beliefs--have relegated those myths to the realm of fairy tales, where such stories belong.
Evolution is science. Science should be taught in schools.
Creation stories are cultural/religious myths. Unless defined explicitly as such and taught within the context of comparative religion classes, they have no place in schools.
It's time for Americans to put an end to the embarrassing anti-science, anti-intellectual fervency so prevalent in our country. We are becoming the laughing-stock of the world.
Your argument is not working. We all understand that s/he said "never" and then you or someone pointed out that it was taught at least once in Canada. You received a response that it was indeed taught somewhere in Canada but it was then corrected. Now, you are stuck on him/her originally saying "never." This word "never" and the statement it made has since been updated and explained to you. Move on or have someone close to you explain it. Cheers.
Keep rushing to defend a person who posted things that were not true. I prefer that people illustrate their propensity to do such things.
It appears as though the poster deleted his comments. I guess he even realized how wrong he was.
So you would be okay if a science class taught about all the evidence that shows 'Intelligent Design" (aka rebranded Creationism) is incorrect?
Yes. Why would I have a problem with that?
BTW, creationism and intelligent design are very different. If you don't know the difference, I'd be more than happy to explain it to you.
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.
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.
