Intelligent design

That pic makes me think intelligent design might be on to something.

Then again......




out.

TheBrutalTruth said:

Interesting read.

But still doesn't give rise to life from non-life. Copying Genetic Material is quite different from actually Generating It.

Click to expand...

TBT, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, it's about the diversity of life.

The mystery does nothing to invalidate the theory of evolution. If that's your best argument... fail.

medicineman said:

So you guys want the truth then, EH? Well, about 4,000 years ago, some dudes came from "space" and planted a couple in the garden, told them to breed and then, came back and planted some others in the garden so the offspring could breed, Then they left, and come back periodically to check on our status and to keep us from destroying their experiment. I doubt they are pleased with the way we have progressed. They may have inplanted a species in the apes of the time, and allowed them to mature into the beings we have become, hence the similarities in our DNA, But from primordial goo, I have serious doubts.

Click to expand...

All people need to do is realize that heaven literally means SKY in Latin....
And that angels are E.T.'s by today's definition....
So the reality is that the preacher is saying the same as you or me just in different words!!!


Xfacts.com

I don't think evolution or intelligent design are the problems. If people weren't forced to fund Public schools they could send their kids to a school that has the curriculum they are most comfortable with or teach their kids themselves rather than argue what is the proper approach.
How frustrating it is to be forced to fund something you want no part of...THAT is the problem to me.

Rob Roy said:

I don't think evolution or intelligent design are the problems. If people weren't forced to fund Public schools they could send their kids to a school that has the curriculum they are most comfortable with or teach their kids themselves rather than argue what is the proper approach.
How frustrating it is to be forced to fund something you want no part of...THAT is the problem to me.

Click to expand...

Science isn't 'what you're most comfortable with'. The problem is one is psuedo science with no evidence to back up the claims, the other is REAL science with observational data and testable ideas. One thinks it deserves the recognition as the other. The real underlying factor in all this is the ID guys want CHRISTIANITY taught to your kids in public schools, not just ID. ID is a subversive tactic designed (no pun) to try to sneak past people and look like real science.

Someone tell me the difference between creationism and intelligent design.

Watch the movie "Expelled"

PadawanBater said:

TBT, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, it's about the diversity of life.

The mystery does nothing to invalidate the theory of evolution. If that's your best argument... fail.

Click to expand...

Actually the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the Diversity of Life, that would be Evolution by itself.

The Theory of Evolution is just a theory to explain Evolution.

So denying that the Theory of Evolution is accurate is not the same as denying Evolution.

ID is just another theory used to explain Evolution.

Though I read a random off the wall theory that states that we're looking at the entire thing backwards, that life has been going from many different species to fewer.

I don't know the accuracy of it (completely off the wall theory that obviously has no serious researchers.)

Though I don't think it'd fit with the dinosaurs and the mass extinction at the end of the Phanerozoic/Cambrian so much.

Watch the movie "Expelled"

Click to expand...

Expelled is another prime example of religious propaganda. Ben Stein spends the entire movie talking about how it's impossible that we could have come from 'mud puddles' (which the theory of evolution doesn't say anything about) while being completely oblivious to the irony that his own theory, ID, does infact say that we came from mud! lmfao! Ben Stein cracks me up...

http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth

http://skepticcat.blogspot.com/2009/04/flunked-expelled-debunked.html

Actually the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the Diversity of Life, that would be Evolution by itself.

The Theory of Evolution is just a theory to explain Evolution.

So denying that the Theory of Evolution is accurate is not the same as denying Evolution.

ID is just another theory used to explain Evolution.

Though I read a random off the wall theory that states that we're looking at the entire thing backwards, that life has been going from many different species to fewer.

I don't know the accuracy of it (completely off the wall theory that obviously has no serious researchers.)

Though I don't think it'd fit with the dinosaurs and the mass extinction at the end of the Phanerozoic/Cambrian so much.

Click to expand...

Evolution = the genetic changes in a species over time. That's what evolution talks about, it doesn't say anything about the beginning of life, the first living organisms, how life began, the beginning of the universe, the big bang, none of that. It's only about genetic changes over time in living organisms. I hear a lot of creationist claims about totally different theories, I read through the fist 10 pages of this thread and that same claim was already made. Someone said something about how evolution is false because it can't explain what the first chemical reactions were like that started life, I was pointing out it doesn't have anything to do with that.

ID says 'magic man did it'. That is not a scientific theory, that's creationism.

PadawanBater said:

Science isn't 'what you're most comfortable with'. The problem is one is psuedo science with no evidence to back up the claims, the other is REAL science with observational data and testable ideas. One thinks it deserves the recognition as the other. The real underlying factor in all this is the ID guys want CHRISTIANITY taught to your kids in public schools, not just ID. ID is a subversive tactic designed (no pun) to try to sneak past people and look like real science.

Someone tell me the difference between creationism and intelligent design.

Click to expand...

I agree with your definition of science and your assertion that those who believe in one over the other would love to teach your kids the "truth".
My personal belief is evolution makes alot of sense, but I'd never deny anyone the right to teach their kids something else despite my conviction they are indulging in wishful thinking.

Rob Roy said:

I agree with your definition of science and your assertion that those who believe in one over the other would love to teach your kids the "truth".
My personal belief is evolution makes alot of sense, but I'd never deny anyone the right to teach their kids something else despite my conviction they are indulging in wishful thinking.

Click to expand...

I pretty much agree. I don't think other people should have the right to teach my kids instead of me if I chose to. The problem is everyone pays for the public education system through taxes, there's a legal issue with that as the US gov. isn't allowed to promote one religion over another, ID clearly promotes Christianity and the Aberhamic God of the Bible as the 'intelligent designer'. But the other issue I have with it is, what if my kid went to a school that was promoting ID? I wouldn't want them to be essentially brainwashed into believing something that doesn't have any evidence... How would you teach it?

The problem comes down to choice...we often don't have any. If public schools were not force funded you'd be able to send your kids to a school in line with your beliefs. If you didn't agree with their dogma...get a new dog.

yeah, arguing against funding public schools, good.
that's a sure way to a weaker america.
science is malleable to a certain degree. things change.
usualy they change because powers of observation have been altered or augmented
by some insrtument or another (radar, telescopes, x-ray, electron microscope, etc.).
Historicaly, science has been villified and confounded by religion. Which is kind of strange,
considering that the beauty and harmony in the universe as we observe it almost consitantly
leads to the conclusion that there is a creator of some sort. everything just works too well.
too many similar structures are present in too many disparate places.
an easy example is the fibonacci sequence.

http://www.mathacademy.com/pr/prime/articles/fibonac/index.asp

i believe in evolution.
i also believe in creation.
i don't claim to know where the two meet, i am ok with not knowing.

Tiny Turtle being against "force funded" is not being against education.

Rob Roy said:

The problem comes down to choice...we often don't have any. If public schools were not force funded you'd be able to send your kids to a school in line with your beliefs. If you didn't agree with their dogma...get a new dog.

Click to expand...

Public schools are funded by our taxes. Obviously, it should teach whats scientifically proven and not archaic beliefs that have no basis in reality. While what you've said might sound great it would be impossible to do because beliefs often evolve (no pun intended) and vary greatly by region/culture. For example, would you want to pay for a school where we taught school children about a magic Gnome who created the world sixty years ago and everything we're being told is a vast conspiracy? I didn't think so. Furthermore, with the thousands of different beliefs and the numerous ones being invented daily how would we be able to afford public schools for each and every belief system? What if I'm the only one who believes in Vishnu in a large area? Should we have one public school specifically for my children? This is exactly why we've got private school and home schooling. If you want to teach your kids about a magical Gnome no problem; you're going to have to do it yourself however.

Lastly, anyone who believes in ID never provides any evidence for it. Instead, they attack evolution. You'll often hear an ID'er claim evolution is simply a theory; similar to ID. Inevitability, this pretty much sums up all they know about scientific theory. I've yet to have one ID'er provide any evidence for it. (Sorry, the bible isn't a credible source. It'd be like me writing a sci-fi novel then listing it as a source for prooving pigs fly)

Sorry if I sounded blunt above but it's the truth. I feel strongly when it comes to people attempting to retard our children. It's funny, an ID'er will bash science when it contradicts his beliefs and yet he's got no problem with it when he's using his Iphone or PC.

sgr42o - I think you may have misunderstood my post. I am not advocating a public funding of the all the various curriculums, religious schools, garden gnomeology etc.
In an earlier post I said I am opposed to "forced funding" of public schools. The present controversy over what will be taught illustrates my point, ...one person wants this form of education, another wants that.

YOU don't want to pay for something that conflicts with your belief, neither do I, I simply extend that principle to others even those I don't agree with. It's not "obvious" to them that evolution is correct, so why should they be forced to pay for it? Yet that is what public schools do, force you to pay for something you may not want. I'm suggesting that maybe there shouldn't BE public schools or at least those that wish not to participate (garden gnomologists?) have the freedom to put their kids and their money elsewhere. To insist people pay for something that they don't want to participate in or have religious objections to is what? Freedom? I think not.

Rob Roy said:

sgr42o - I think you may have misunderstood my post. I am not advocating a public funding of the all the various curriculums, religious schools, garden gnomeology etc.
In an earlier post I said I am opposed to "forced funding" of public schools. The present controversy over what will be taught illustrates my point, ...one person wants this form of education, another wants that.

YOU don't want to pay for something that conflicts with your belief, neither do I, I simply extend that principle to others even those I don't agree with. It's not "obvious" to them that evolution is correct, so why should they be forced to pay for it? Yet that is what public schools do, force you to pay for something you may not want. I'm suggesting that maybe there shouldn't BE public schools or at least those that wish not to participate (garden gnomologists?) have the freedom to put their kids and their money elsewhere. To insist people pay for something that they don't want to participate in or have religious objections to is what? Freedom? I think not.

Click to expand...

That's nice but what if a the folks in Montana don't think Calculus is "obvious" enough?

No, whether private or public, the "best" available theorems and proofs need to be taught. It's not about assuaging ppl's perceptions, it's about getting the best and most current education possible.

Does Publik do this better than Private?....certainly not. But it's not the ciricuulum that's the problem, it's the quality of the delivery system.

CrackerJax said:

That's nice but what if a the folks in Montana don't think Calculus is "obvious" enough?

No, whether private or public, the "best" available theorems and proofs need to be taught. It's not about assuaging ppl's perceptions, it's about getting the best and most current education possible.

Does Publik do this better than Private?....certainly not. But it's not the ciricuulum that's the problem, it's the quality of the delivery system.

Click to expand...

I'm not debating which curriculum is best. I'm stating it's wrong to use government force to insist a person participate and pay for a system that their belief system rejects.

I don't believe 'the people of Montana" march in lockstep as to whether calculus is relevant. If I had to guess I'd say most probably think calculus is relevant and should be free to study it at a school of their choice...those that don't should be free to pick their ass if that's what they want to do. YOU should not fund their ass picking, THEY should not fund your calculus. If somebody can pick their ass while doing calculus...and they pay for it, cool. Who knows, maybe they can accomplish a dual major or become dental floss tycoons ?

I agree with many people that have posted here that science over superstition makes the most sense, it's what I want for MY kids. Do you agree that using force to make people believe the same things as you and I do is acceptable? I don't.

I guess it comes down to this, if I disagree with a person, I can "know" they are wrong, but if they are not harming me what gives me the right to force them to do anything or pay for my idea of which is the best system for them?

Public schools are force funded at the point of a gun, they do not offer an opt
out, in my belief system that is wrong. People should pay for what they use, do what makes sense to them and harm nobody. Public schools do not follow that philosophy, nor do they enlighten children from whence or how the funding is derived. That is dishonest.