Golden Sun Syndicate Forums: Golden Sun Syndicate Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Intelligent Design School and religion, church and state

Poll: Intelligent Design

Do you think intelligent design should be taught in the classroom?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#1   kate 

  • Master Adept
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
    • Group: Veterans
    • Posts: 2,900
    • Joined: 24-July 04
    • Gender:Female
    • Location:over thar
    • Interests:rpgs (duh :P), internet (my precioussss)...other things computer related...and penguins! (penguin'd)
    • AKA The Best Woman Ever.

    Posted 07 October 2005 - 09:32 PM

    Alright. I heard on the news (now keep in mind, the news I get isn't very in depth, so I don't know alot of details about the subject, but it gave me an idea) That somewhere in the USA they were teaching intelligent design (intelligent design is the idea that we were created by a more intelligent being, not by chance. Note that this doesn't simply mean the christian's theory of creation, but all theories.) Now, many parents were upset about this because it was being taught instead of evolution. Now it's going to court and all sorts of things about whether or not children should be taught intelligent design. I want to know your opinion on the matter.

    By the way, I think they've recently found flaws with the evolution theory that suggests it couldn't have happened. I'm not sure, but I think that's why this all started. Here are a few question you can think about and let us know your opinion on. Obviously you don't have to stick to them, but I thought they were important things to consider. I hate people making decisions without thinking of all the aspects.

    1. Do you think this is a violation of the seperation of church and state?
    2. Why do you think the seperation of church and state is so important?
    3. Do you think they should do away with evolution theory and only teach intelligent design, or have a mix of both?
    4. Do you think it's wrong for them to push their views on atheists, or have atheists been pushing their views on people with religious beliefs?
    5. Do you think that a church (or whatever place of worship) acts as a school for the religious side of things, or is it not enough?
    6. Does religion have enough basis in fact to be taught in such a factual subject like science?

    Personally I think church and state should be kept seperated. I mean, the parents who would want their children to learn about this have probably already taught it to them, and I think everyone's beliefs are there own, and shouldn't be forced on others. I also think that a very large part of religion is faith, and faith is just that: faith. You can be taught all about it, if you don't believe it, you don't believe it, and that is that.

    However if evolution has it's flaws, and we know only "believe" it's right, then maybe we should teach other "beliefs" also. But also is the key word there, not instead. A major flaw that I see is that many religions wouldn't be represented. If you teach one, you have to teach them all or it's discrimination (at least all the ones that have creationism theories, which are lots) and that will be very difficult.

    By the way if there's already a topic on this I'm very sorry, but I looked back a few pages and I couldn't see anything. Oh, and no flaming. I'll report you so fast your head will spin. I want an intelligent discussion, please, not a bunch of monkeys shouting that they're right :P

    And I apologize, I wrote alot. Skim it at least please n.n

    #2   Andross 

    • Disciple
    • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
      • Group: Members
      • Posts: 1,643
      • Joined: 06-February 04

      Posted 07 October 2005 - 09:45 PM

      It's Kansas.

      As for my views on intelligent design, it's something that's plausible, but cannot sustain itself on a platform by its lonesome. You simply can't state that some other intelligent being created life on Earth without falling into a religious contradiction, because only gods seem to be notioned as intelligent designers.

      It also doesn't help that some zealots claim evolution is tantamount to atheism - when it simply isn't. Evolutionism is a scientific theory aimed at how species progressed, not at assessing that there is no god who created us and that the universe came about this way, not that (otherwise, it couldn't be evolution, because then it would tackle things like the origins of the universe). Is it so hard to think that maybe god developed a set of logical laws and concepts, including evolution?

      Science aims at explanations, and science classes should be devoted to explaining things with scientific processes applied. ID theory has not shown me evidence that it has a properly formulated scientific theory backing it, save for a statement. Theories can be statements, but more often than not, they also have extensive research and hypotheses attatched.

      EDIT: Ah, just remember what I'm trying to say. Religion seems to want to get their say in the science class, but science never attempts to barge into religion and assert itself as the only viable answer. Simply put, science is not meant to decry religion, and religion should not try to debase science. If anything, they are complementary - and that is why the ID theory should not be a complete replacement of evolution.

      I think I'll answer other related questions later

      #3   kate 

      • Master Adept
      • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
        • Group: Veterans
        • Posts: 2,900
        • Joined: 24-July 04
        • Gender:Female
        • Location:over thar
        • Interests:rpgs (duh :P), internet (my precioussss)...other things computer related...and penguins! (penguin'd)
        • AKA The Best Woman Ever.

        Posted 07 October 2005 - 09:55 PM

        That, is exactly my point. And thanks for the location, I'm useless :P I never understood why some (not all) religious people would say that evolution is the opposite of ID. Personally, in my wacked up twist of religion, I believe there is a God, and that he was indeed the one who made up all the laws of this universe, and the first creatures. I mean, what better way to test your children and see if their worthy to get into Heaven then setting the game up and watching it be played out. Pretty darn smart if you ask me.

        Another thing that you mentioned that I agree with is that evolution isn't atheists creation theory. Science isn't about atheists teaching their ways of seeing things, it's about what we know about how the world works. It is completely unbiased, just giving out pure information untainted by beliefs. So why would you go and introduce biased opinions? and what about the teachers who refuse to teach it, because some will...

        #4   Luna 

        • Disciple
        • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
          • Group: Members
          • Posts: 1,647
          • Joined: 29-January 04

          Posted 08 October 2005 - 01:22 PM

          Andross said:

          Ah, just remember what I'm trying to say. Religion seems to want to get their say in the science class, but science never attempts to barge into religion and assert itself as the only viable answer. Simply put, science is not meant to decry religion, and religion should not try to debase science. If anything, they are complementary - and that is why the ID theory should not be a complete replacement of evolution.

          Again, Andross words everything perfectly.

          In the end, I don't think they should really MIX but, they should compliment each other instead of attack each other. o.o No one can be 100% sure that either of the two is 100% right but, if you blend them; they sort of make more sense.

          AND FINALLY , a passage by Ray Bradbury from The Martian Chronicles:

          Quote

          "They have a beautiful city there." The captain nodded at one of several places.

          "It's not that alone. Yes, their cities are good. They knew how to blend art into their living. It's always been a thing apart from Americans. Art was something you kept in the crazy son's room upstairs. Art was something you took in Sunday doses, mixed with religion, perhaps. Well, these Martians have art and religion and everything."

          -----

          The captain nodded. "Tell me about your civilization here," he said, waving his hand at the mountain towns.

          "They knew how to live with nature and get along with nature. They didn't try too hard to be all men and no animal. That's the mistake we made when Darwin showed up. We embraced him and Huxley and Freud, all smiles. And then we discovered that Darwin and our religions didn't mix. Or at least we didn't think they did. We were fools. We tried to budge Darwin and Huxley and Freud. They wouldn't move very well. So, like idiots, we tried knocking down religion.

          "We succeeded pretty well. We lost our faith and went around wondering what life was for. If art was no more than a frustrated out flinging of desire, if religion was no more than self-delusion, what good was life? Faith had always given us answers to all things. But it all went down the drain with Freud and Darwin. We were and still are a lost people."

          "And these Martians are a found people?" inquired the captain.

          "Yes. They knew how to combine science and religion so the two worked side by side, neither denying the other, each enriching the other."

          "That sounds ideal."


          Both should be taught. The school should take care of science. Religion is something you usually learn "at home". The school/state has no say in what you will/might believe in.
          Sorry for the long post but, that's all I had to say .


          #5   Eugine 

          • Master Adept
          • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
            • Group: Veterans
            • Posts: 8,895
            • Joined: 28-January 04
            • Gender:Male
            • AKA YouTube Dude

            Posted 09 October 2005 - 08:43 AM

            Here science and religion are connected. They always say "God design this in such a way..."

            I go to a Christian school and I'm a Christian so I don't mind it, but Americans do, always creating some stupid law and arguement :P

            So yeah, I don't mind having Intelligent Design in classroom, neither do I mind not having it.

            #6   Sea of Time 

            • Lebron James
            • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
              • Group: Veterans
              • Posts: 10,366
              • Joined: 04-October 04
              • Gender:Male
              • Location:Winnipeg, MB

              Posted 10 October 2005 - 09:44 AM

              I think Intelligent Design should not be taught in public classrooms because if the parents wanted their kids to learn about it, they would send them to a private school. However, it should be discussed as a belief to the students, even if they don't learn fully about it. I don't think Intelligent Design should be cast aside like it is right now. But that's just me.

              #7   Luna 

              • Disciple
              • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                • Group: Members
                • Posts: 1,647
                • Joined: 29-January 04

                Posted 10 October 2005 - 02:57 PM

                What do public and private schools have to do with this? o.o

                I go to a private school and it's not like they taught me about intelligent design.


                #8   Izar 

                • Master Adept
                • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                  • Group: Veterans
                  • Posts: 3,345
                  • Joined: 26-February 04
                  • Interests:Gaming, History, Christian Music, Comedy

                  Posted 10 October 2005 - 06:51 PM

                  Church and state should be SEPERATE, but with certain modifications. GOD should NOT be taken out of the Pledge, and Evolution should not be taught in school.

                  Creationism cannot be taught, neither can evolution. Basically, Religion or evolution should ONLY be taught if they are explaining it. IE, if you are in a religion section of the year, teach about Buddah, Jesus, Moses, Muhammed, Etc, or as historical figures. Darwin and evolution should only be touched if you are learning about the time in which he lived.

                  Sheba, private schools are not owned by the state/government. Public schools are. That is why they are both explained through this.

                  #9   Andross 

                  • Disciple
                  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                    • Group: Members
                    • Posts: 1,643
                    • Joined: 06-February 04

                    Posted 10 October 2005 - 06:53 PM

                    I'd like to here your reasonings on evolution not being taught.

                    edit: A few sources of my own

                    http://www.talkorigi...g/faqs/comdesc/
                    http://www.talkorigi...ms/compare.html <-- I expect you're just going to say that the skulls are fakes/fake fossils have been used to claim fact. But you're going to have to give me an actual scientific publication which states such, or at least a news report; all I've ever seen are links to creationists saying they've been proven fake.
                    edit2: And I am looking for more sources, as it is obvious, the site is heavily biased =P

                    #10   el_Sethro 

                    • Chaos Lord
                    • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                      • Group: Members
                      • Posts: 851
                      • Joined: 30-March 04

                      Posted 11 October 2005 - 04:02 PM

                      Evolution, though it's pretty much impossible to prove, works very well, and so should continue to be taught in school. don't forget, most of what we know about science is theory. if you don't teach evolution simply because it hasn't been proven, you'd have to throw out the atom theory (in other words, no one would ever study any form of chemistry again), as well as a good portion of physics. You see, the way science works, is that someone comes up with an idea that seems to work. if it's proven wrong, it's thrown out, but if it works and supports the results that we observe, it is accepted and taught until it is disproven and replaced with another theory (like I said before, we are taught the atom theory in chem class, because it seems to work so far and hasn't been disproven). Evolution works, and there is absolutely NO scientific evidence (don't forget this is SCIENCE class) AT ALL to support Creationism. anyway, the way it's taught here anyway, we are told that it is merely a theory when they teach us this, so it's not like they're brainwashing us.

                      #11   Shikonaurum 

                      • Lord
                      • PipPipPipPip
                        • Group: Members
                        • Posts: 258
                        • Joined: 28-January 04
                        • Location:Virginia
                        • Interests:Slacking, the intarweb, gaming, sleeping. The likes.

                        Posted 12 October 2005 - 03:27 PM

                        Let's face it, each idea is equally hard to prove. You approach a person on one side, and they'll beat the crap out of the other theory. Then that person's side seems justified. But if you consult with a member of the opposite side, you'll find that they nailed holes in the theories presented by the first guy.

                        It's really not a question as to which can be proved to the furthest extent.

                        My personal belief is that if intelligent design HAD to be taught in school, it should be dubbed "intelligent design," lowercase letters and all. The term "evolution" is hardly capitalized; why should we give such respect to a theory that seems to be implanted by Christians who refuse to integrate science and faith? Although I may be generalizing, I see no purpose of science being twisted to the government's, or the majority's religion's, accord.

                        By no means should these two theories be mixed; at worst, let the teachers present two theories without bias towards one or another. Intelligent design, in my perspective, seems lacking.

                        Personally, I'm against it.

                        #12   Izar 

                        • Master Adept
                        • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                          • Group: Veterans
                          • Posts: 3,345
                          • Joined: 26-February 04
                          • Interests:Gaming, History, Christian Music, Comedy

                          Posted 15 October 2005 - 01:28 PM

                          View PostAndross, on Oct 10 2005, 07:53 PM, said:

                          I'd like to here your reasonings on evolution not being taught.

                          edit: A few sources of my own

                          http://www.talkorigi...g/faqs/comdesc/
                          http://www.talkorigi...ms/compare.html <-- I expect you're just going to say that the skulls are fakes/fake fossils have been used to claim fact. But you're going to have to give me an actual scientific publication which states such, or at least a news report; all I've ever seen are links to creationists saying they've been proven fake.
                          edit2: And I am looking for more sources, as it is obvious, the site is heavily biased =P


                          No, actually I don't think they are "fakes," nor is this topic here to dicuss if evolution is real or not, it's to dicuss if it is to be taught in school.

                          #13   Andross 

                          • Disciple
                          • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                            • Group: Members
                            • Posts: 1,643
                            • Joined: 06-February 04

                            Posted 15 October 2005 - 08:31 PM

                            If you're going to claim that evolution should not be taught, than it's wholly relevant as to what your reasoning is, and thus statements as to evolution's validity are relevant as well.

                            #14   Lightning Star 

                            • Master Adept
                            • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                              • Group: Veterans
                              • Posts: 2,902
                              • Joined: 21-June 04
                              • Gender:Female
                              • Location:Tucson, Arizona
                              • Interests:I've got hobby A.D.D.
                              • AKA lightningstar/Icy

                              Posted 15 October 2005 - 08:52 PM

                              kay, personally, my school teaches inteligent design...then again, thats what the whole school believes.

                              think of it this way, evolution, whether people have enough guts to admit it or not, requires JUST as much faith as inteligent design. so to turn it around, are the teachers pushing their faith about evolution on the students?

                              #15   Andross 

                              • Disciple
                              • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                • Group: Members
                                • Posts: 1,643
                                • Joined: 06-February 04

                                Posted 15 October 2005 - 09:20 PM

                                Evolution doesn't require AS much faith, because at least it provides scientific theorums to base its general claims on, and has scientists working to test macroevolution aspects of the theorum (but there is clear evidence of theories relating to adaptation, survival of the fittest, mutation, and inheritance). The only area of grey matter in evolution is people's understanding of how humans came to be. Yet despite all of its circumstantial evidence, at least it explains it with logic.

                                It's not as if evolution is trying to debunk that there is a God, but zealots and theists constantly treat it as such - and as I've said before, science and religion are meant to be very separate in their objectives, which in turn allows them to be complementary when compared (as there is no contradiction). The why and reason comes with science; the ultimate why comes with religion.

                                #16   Izar 

                                • Master Adept
                                • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                  • Group: Veterans
                                  • Posts: 3,345
                                  • Joined: 26-February 04
                                  • Interests:Gaming, History, Christian Music, Comedy

                                  Posted 18 October 2005 - 03:27 PM

                                  View PostAndross, on Oct 15 2005, 09:31 PM, said:

                                  If you're going to claim that evolution should not be taught, than it's wholly relevant as to what your reasoning is, and thus statements as to evolution's validity are relevant as well.


                                  I knew you were going to say that. But you do have a point for once. And using words you never use in actual sentences didn't help (thus). :D

                                  I don't think that evolution contridicts GOD so much, so don't say it's all zealists or anything. I consider my self faithful, but I do not consider evolution to be in the nature of God, because if it was, then God would have lied to Moses, Abraham, and many other prophets.

                                  I just think if it is a theory(evolution cannot be tested and retested, so scientists agree it is not technically a theory anyway) that tries to contridict religious belief, then there's no reason to teach it as fact.

                                  And no, science and religion are NOT seperate. If God is true, then surely he created science. Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Science is a method that we use to gain a greater understanding of the natural universe. Advances in science demonstrate the reach of human logic. A believer in GOD can have faith in God and respect for science, as long as we remember which is perfect, and which is not.

                                  Now, if you think evolution should be taught and not God, then think: God has NEVER been proven wrong. Why? Because he cannot be, neither can you disprove God. Learning more about the way God constructed our universe helps all of mankind appreciate the wonder of creationism and combat disease and so forth. The people who put science first are no different than anyone devoted to a religion – they have chosen faith in man rather than works created from a divind conscience, and can defend it.

                                  Science is meant to be a NEUTRAL discipline, seeking truth, not proof of an agenda.

                                  Now, I see Andross goes for Darwinian Evolutionism, which is the belief that God created evolution, but I have already explained that above. Many people commomly mistake Darwinian evolution as evolution with no god, but that is Special Evolution or Atheistic evolution... or something... But anyways, If you say that God created an evolutionary scenario, and that Genesis says it, then you are saying that the verses are sopposed to be in a different order. The Genesis account clearly states birds were created with sea creatures on the fifth day while land animals were not created until day six. This is in direct opposition to the Darwinian view which state the birds evolved from land animals.

                                  Both contridict. Learn about BOTH, but do not teach both as truth (now why couldn't I have just said that?).

                                  *Takes a break*

                                  #17   Andross 

                                  • Disciple
                                  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                    • Group: Members
                                    • Posts: 1,643
                                    • Joined: 06-February 04

                                    Posted 18 October 2005 - 07:48 PM

                                    I'm not saying God shouldn't be taught - it's ID. It has a much weaker base of theories and circumstantial evidence than evolution. And since evolution is all we actually have next to 'God did it in a week,' and since it's the only theory that has been attempted scientifically, it's the only one that has been used. At least there are more solid facts than the ideas behind ID. Now, I have better things to do than waste my time on this anymore - you're as obstinate as I am. GOOD DAY.

                                    #18   Izar 

                                    • Master Adept
                                    • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                      • Group: Veterans
                                      • Posts: 3,345
                                      • Joined: 26-February 04
                                      • Interests:Gaming, History, Christian Music, Comedy

                                      Posted 22 October 2005 - 05:14 PM

                                      Attempted scientifically, yes, but not tuaght as fact as some schools have tried to do.

                                      "you're as obstinate as I am. "

                                      Thank you! :silence:

                                      #19   Eugine 

                                      • Master Adept
                                      • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                        • Group: Veterans
                                        • Posts: 8,895
                                        • Joined: 28-January 04
                                        • Gender:Male
                                        • AKA YouTube Dude

                                        Posted 31 December 2007 - 06:19 PM

                                        Old topic, but recently the Intelligent design/evolution debate was brought up among my friends, so I wanted to revive it here.

                                        Maybe a moderator can reset and modify the poll? Since we have new members here, and everyone opinion can change in two years.

                                        Anyway, I believe my viewpoint contradict my previous post in this topic, because now I believe Intelligent Design should not be thought in any science lesson, or be in any science textbook because it is not testable. I personally believe in a God, but Intelligent Design is not science in all honesty, and is totally based on faith. Possibly, ID should be allowed in "History of science" courses, but that's about it imo.

                                        If anyone is interested in the debate, I strongly suggest watching Ken Miller on Intelligent Design. He's a professor at Brown University, and possibly wrote the textbook you Americans use in Biology lessons. This video can change opinions.

                                        #20   Golden Legacy 

                                        • Can't touch this.
                                        • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                          • Group: Admin
                                          • Posts: 6,607
                                          • Joined: 28-March 04
                                          • Gender:Male
                                          • Location:New York City, Boston

                                          Posted 31 December 2007 - 06:58 PM

                                          Good call Eugine. Oh, and I reset the poll, is it all right?

                                          My personal opinion on the matter of intelligent design in the classroom isn't one of how "factual" it is vs. purely faith, but a matter of ignorance. Why shouldn't our children learn that there are alternatives to evolution? Something along the lines of, the lessons proceed on the scientific basis of evolution, but round up the lesson by stating that there are many people (and by "many", I'm talking about three quarters of the world population) who subscribe to other ideas about the origin of life, most prominently religion.

                                          For me, it's about informing the students - after all, if the debate here is about what to teach surrounding humanity's origin, then shouldn't all aspects of humanity be included, including the adherents of faith?

                                          #21   Platinum Sun 

                                          • Disciple
                                          • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                            • Group: Veterans
                                            • Posts: 1,629
                                            • Joined: 04-June 04
                                            • Gender:Male
                                            • Location:Newport News, VA But not by choice.
                                            • Interests:Fire, RPGs (the playable kind too), dragon lore, computer games, political satire, watching all you puny mortal humans run around like rats in a maze.

                                              Posted 31 December 2007 - 08:20 PM

                                            The teaching of evolution isn't about getting people to believe anything. It's about informing them of the theory because it's the basis of all modern biology and anthropology. Evolution basically says "This is how we explain how life got this way." The theory fits the evidence, and has practical uses when studying biology.

                                            The explanation, "And God said, let there be Hepatitis" is of very little use when attempting to treat the disease. You can believe whatever you want on your own time. Go ahead and believe that the ocean is Thor's semen if it helps you sleep at night, but if you get into oceanography, base your conclusions on the "Large body of salinated water" theory.

                                            #22   Golden Legacy 

                                            • Can't touch this.
                                            • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                              • Group: Admin
                                              • Posts: 6,607
                                              • Joined: 28-March 04
                                              • Gender:Male
                                              • Location:New York City, Boston

                                              Posted 01 January 2008 - 12:38 PM

                                              There's a fine difference between teaching and preaching - you seem to imply the latter if intelligent design enters the classroom. It does NOT refer to explaining about different faiths and different beliefs and whatnot - that's religion/theology for you. Instead, intelligent design is simply based on the level of complexity found in the universe, both on the scale of the human body and living organisms, as well as the astounding scale of the galaxies. The basic premise of it is that this level of complexity is the result of an outside, arbitrary "intelligent" agent that is capable of dictating, at least initially, this complex arrangement of matter. It's what it is, a theory that for the record, doesn't even necessarily contradict evolution - a niche of intelligent design proponents will argue that the intelligent designer simply "set things in motion", and then sat back and allowed "natural processes" (i.e. evolution) to do its stuff.

                                              #23   Laharl 

                                              • Banned
                                              • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                • Group: Veterans
                                                • Posts: 4,301
                                                • Joined: 05-September 05
                                                • Gender:Male
                                                • Location:where horses with broken legs go =D
                                                • Interests:research it
                                                • AKA Dullahan

                                                Posted 01 January 2008 - 01:32 PM

                                                in Laharl's Britain, kids would be taught they were created by the flying spaghetti monster by order of the Jedi Council

                                                this is just another science vs. religion debate. Science always wins such debates as he has a very good friend, known as COMMON ****ING SENSE. how people can be so narrowminded as to ignore facts and credible theories and instead place belef in nonsense is beyond me.

                                                #24   kate 

                                                • Master Adept
                                                • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                  • Group: Veterans
                                                  • Posts: 2,900
                                                  • Joined: 24-July 04
                                                  • Gender:Female
                                                  • Location:over thar
                                                  • Interests:rpgs (duh :P), internet (my precioussss)...other things computer related...and penguins! (penguin'd)
                                                  • AKA The Best Woman Ever.

                                                  Posted 01 January 2008 - 03:27 PM

                                                  gl makes a very good point about evolution working with intelligent design, which is what I personally believe :)

                                                  However if you teach that theory of creation, you also have to teach every theory. Soo I'm afraid if you support intelligent design being taught but not the greek gods version or some hobo in Argentina's theory then you're a hypocrite :S such is life.

                                                  #25   Blue 

                                                  • Master Adept
                                                  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                    • Group: Veterans
                                                    • Posts: 5,429
                                                    • Joined: 18-July 05
                                                    • Gender:Male
                                                    • Location:Chandler, AZ
                                                    • Interests:Video Games and Drift Racing

                                                    Posted 01 January 2008 - 05:30 PM

                                                    I think that if evolution is being taught in school then so should intelligent design. I think that hearing both sides will make it better for children to decide by themselves what they want to believe in. Having it one sided in school is really not all that fair.

                                                    #26   Caael 

                                                    • Master Adept
                                                    • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                      • Group: Veterans
                                                      • Posts: 8,730
                                                      • Joined: 09-June 06
                                                      • Gender:Male
                                                      • Location:England
                                                      • Interests:EVERYTHING EVER

                                                      Posted 01 January 2008 - 05:44 PM

                                                      View Postlaharl the slayer, on Jan 1 2008, 08:32 PM, said:

                                                      in Laharl's Britain, kids would be taught they were created by the flying spaghetti monster by order of the Jedi Council

                                                      this is just another science vs. religion debate. Science always wins such debates as he has a very good friend, known as COMMON ****ING SENSE. how people can be so narrowminded as to ignore facts and credible theories and instead place belef in nonsense is beyond me.



                                                      Sweet meatball soup that would be awesome!

                                                      And yeah, the people who still think Adam and Eve were the first humans should be beaten to death like the inbreds they are :)

                                                      #27   Eugine 

                                                      • Master Adept
                                                      • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                        • Group: Veterans
                                                        • Posts: 8,895
                                                        • Joined: 28-January 04
                                                        • Gender:Male
                                                        • AKA YouTube Dude

                                                        Posted 01 January 2008 - 11:55 PM

                                                        View PostGolden Legacy, on Dec 31 2007, 08:58 PM, said:

                                                        For me, it's about informing the students - after all, if the debate here is about what to teach surrounding humanity's origin, then shouldn't all aspects of humanity be included, including the adherents of faith?
                                                        But GL, we can't test Intelligent Design scientifically. Like Kate said, if we include Intelligent Design in science, we'll have to include astrology, Wiccan, and the rest of the lot. Since we cannot prove any of those scientifically, I say it should not be allowed.
                                                        Intelligent design has its place in many lessons, (eg Theology and History In Science) but not in a Biology lesson. How exactly can we test it?

                                                        View PostGolden Legacy, on Jan 1 2008, 02:38 PM, said:

                                                        ... Instead, intelligent design is simply based on the level of complexity found in the universe, both on the scale of the human body and living organisms, as well as the astounding scale of the galaxies. The basic premise of it is that this level of complexity is the result of an outside, arbitrary "intelligent" agent that is capable of dictating, at least initially, this complex arrangement of matter. It's what it is, a theory that for the record, doesn't even necessarily contradict evolution - a niche of intelligent design proponents will argue that the intelligent designer simply "set things in motion", and then sat back and allowed "natural processes" (i.e. evolution) to do its stuff.
                                                        That's about what I believe ^^. Testable? Nope.

                                                        View PostEarth Dude, on Jan 1 2008, 07:44 PM, said:

                                                        And yeah, the people who still think Adam and Eve were the first humans should be beaten to death like the inbreds they are :)
                                                        haha, not beaten to death, but educated ^^.

                                                        #28   Platinum Sun 

                                                        • Disciple
                                                        • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                          • Group: Veterans
                                                          • Posts: 1,629
                                                          • Joined: 04-June 04
                                                          • Gender:Male
                                                          • Location:Newport News, VA But not by choice.
                                                          • Interests:Fire, RPGs (the playable kind too), dragon lore, computer games, political satire, watching all you puny mortal humans run around like rats in a maze.

                                                            Posted 02 January 2008 - 09:19 PM

                                                          View PostGolden Legacy, on Jan 1 2008, 01:38 PM, said:

                                                          There's a fine difference between teaching and preaching - you seem to imply the latter if intelligent design enters the classroom. It does NOT refer to explaining about different faiths and different beliefs and whatnot - that's religion/theology for you.

                                                          The connection between intelligent design and religion is something of a steretypical view, I'll give you that, but that stereotype is based in fact. The fact that religious organizations are the only ones that have anything to gain by peddling a construct with virtually no scientific basis as a "theory." (While simultaneously condemning evolution as "Just a theory" to boot.)

                                                          #29   kate 

                                                          • Master Adept
                                                          • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                            • Group: Veterans
                                                            • Posts: 2,900
                                                            • Joined: 24-July 04
                                                            • Gender:Female
                                                            • Location:over thar
                                                            • Interests:rpgs (duh :P), internet (my precioussss)...other things computer related...and penguins! (penguin'd)
                                                            • AKA The Best Woman Ever.

                                                            Posted 03 January 2008 - 05:37 PM

                                                            If you want to learn about religion or theories based on religion, go to church. If you want to learn about science, go to school. True no ones forcing you to go to chruch like they're forcing you to go to school, but how many children are never exposed to the idea of intelligent design? They're still going to learn about it. It shouldn't even be an issue.

                                                            #30   Someone Else 

                                                            • High Sheriff
                                                            • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                              • Group: Moderator
                                                              • Posts: 11,988
                                                              • Joined: 21-July 04
                                                              • Gender:Male
                                                              • Location:Sitting on a fence and drinking root beer
                                                              • AKA Wind Dude (WD)

                                                              Posted 04 January 2008 - 01:50 PM

                                                              If intelligent design is taught (preached?) in Church, I don't think it's really needed to be taught in schools. Just stating and justifying my vote here. No debating for me please.

                                                              #31   kate 

                                                              • Master Adept
                                                              • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                • Group: Veterans
                                                                • Posts: 2,900
                                                                • Joined: 24-July 04
                                                                • Gender:Female
                                                                • Location:over thar
                                                                • Interests:rpgs (duh :P), internet (my precioussss)...other things computer related...and penguins! (penguin'd)
                                                                • AKA The Best Woman Ever.

                                                                Posted 04 January 2008 - 03:33 PM

                                                                o.O Holy pop culture reference batman, I was the one that created this topic XD I did not realize that. Y'know for all the people arguing for it being taught in classrooms (which is only like 2 or 3, but still) There's only one that voted a definite yes...curious

                                                                #32   Someone Else 

                                                                • High Sheriff
                                                                • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                  • Group: Moderator
                                                                  • Posts: 11,988
                                                                  • Joined: 21-July 04
                                                                  • Gender:Male
                                                                  • Location:Sitting on a fence and drinking root beer
                                                                  • AKA Wind Dude (WD)

                                                                  Posted 04 January 2008 - 05:47 PM

                                                                  Aren't there optional classes (electives) to learning Intelligent Design, anyway?

                                                                  #33   Mathak Kraven 

                                                                  • Lord
                                                                  • PipPipPipPip
                                                                    • Group: Members
                                                                    • Posts: 288
                                                                    • Joined: 22-April 05
                                                                    • Gender:Female
                                                                    • Location:TARDIS

                                                                    Posted 05 January 2008 - 10:25 AM

                                                                    No God would intelligently design us with unnecessary organs such as a tailbone. The same white eyelid birds have is remnant in the human eye, however we cannot use it as we don't need to fly fast and quickly protect our eyes using that eyelid, we have out other ones.

                                                                    The fact remains is that the human body is full of little things that nobody could have intended to be there in the first place. It means it has to have come out of something that had use and no longer does.

                                                                    Also people who claim intelligent design is the beginning of evolution is wrong. With this statement you are discarding your other beliefs of Genesis thus contradicting yourself.

                                                                    The theories are mutually exclusive to eachother.

                                                                    As the only claims of intelligent design are made by the church, all the people who don't care about the Church shouldn't hear about it either. While the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the universe and ourselves does have hearing in a theory that has more proof then intelligent design.

                                                                    #34   kate 

                                                                    • Master Adept
                                                                    • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                      • Group: Veterans
                                                                      • Posts: 2,900
                                                                      • Joined: 24-July 04
                                                                      • Gender:Female
                                                                      • Location:over thar
                                                                      • Interests:rpgs (duh :P), internet (my precioussss)...other things computer related...and penguins! (penguin'd)
                                                                      • AKA The Best Woman Ever.

                                                                      Posted 05 January 2008 - 12:39 PM

                                                                      Woahwoah, they can work together. Just because you believe a higher being started it all off doesn't mean you can't believe in evolution. I believe in God but I don't believe Genesis, is that not allowed?

                                                                      And that's not true about people who don't care about church not having to hear about it. If you haven't heard all perspectives, how can you decide which is your own. That's exactly the reason I don't believe anyone who says they're a certain religion if they don't know all about other ones.

                                                                      Anywho, the fact that religion and science can work together doesn't have a lot to do with it being taught in classrooms. That's something about seperation of church and state, not an idea that we shouldn't know both theories.

                                                                      #35   Golden Legacy 

                                                                      • Can't touch this.
                                                                      • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                        • Group: Admin
                                                                        • Posts: 6,607
                                                                        • Joined: 28-March 04
                                                                        • Gender:Male
                                                                        • Location:New York City, Boston

                                                                        Posted 05 January 2008 - 12:52 PM

                                                                        View Post.eugine, on Jan 2 2008, 01:55 AM, said:

                                                                        But GL, we can't test Intelligent Design scientifically. Like Kate said, if we include Intelligent Design in science, we'll have to include astrology, Wiccan, and the rest of the lot. Since we cannot prove any of those scientifically, I say it should not be allowed.
                                                                        Intelligent design has its place in many lessons, (eg Theology and History In Science) but not in a Biology lesson. How exactly can we test it?


                                                                        View PostWind Dude, on Jan 4 2008, 07:47 PM, said:

                                                                        Aren't there optional classes (electives) to learning Intelligent Design, anyway?

                                                                        That actually makes solid sense, now that I think about it. Teaching it in a History of Science class as Eugine suggests probably is the better place for Intelligent Design. (For the record, I chose the "Maybe" option in the poll - there are just too few people arguing in favor of it, so I've decided to take up that position).

                                                                        View PostMathak Kraven, on Jan 5 2008, 12:25 PM, said:

                                                                        No God would intelligently design us with unnecessary organs such as a tailbone. The same white eyelid birds have is remnant in the human eye, however we cannot use it as we don't need to fly fast and quickly protect our eyes using that eyelid, we have out other ones.

                                                                        The fact remains is that the human body is full of little things that nobody could have intended to be there in the first place. It means it has to have come out of something that had use and no longer does.

                                                                        Also people who claim intelligent design is the beginning of evolution is wrong. With this statement you are discarding your other beliefs of Genesis thus contradicting yourself.

                                                                        The theories are mutually exclusive to each other.

                                                                        The story of Genesis (from what I can gather as a non-Christian), similar to all the Abrahamic faiths, is simply that the universe was created in a number of days - and what a "day" is to God could be thousands, even millions of years to us. That's to put it in layman's terms.

                                                                        However, what you've done is again associate Intelligent Design with Religion; Religion is an example of Intelligent Design, but the converse is not true - that is, Intelligent Design does NOT necessarily refer to organized faith, it simply refers to something that explains how the complexity of the universe is as it is. Think about how the structure of the atoms in our bodies are the same - the exact same - as the atoms that make up the stars. Think of the mathematical wonders of how they bond in the same ratios, how you have seemingly simple scientific concepts as bonding to fulfill the Octet rule and such that exist and apply always. There are textbooks and post-doctorate degrees justifying and explaining the nature of their complexity - do you really think this came about as "random chance"? It's infinitesimally small, the chances of EVERYTHING in the universe coming together after the Big Bang as they are now - too small a chance that the original explosion of matter condensed into the stars and galaxies, that there was a star just large enough to have planets orbiting it, that there was a planet just big enough to have its own atmosphere, that there was that same planet just far away enough so that it's neither too warm nor too cold, that it was just ideal enough to sustain water and life.

                                                                        All too unlikely.

                                                                        #36   Ironsight 

                                                                        • Loose cannon Cop with nothing to lose
                                                                        • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                          • Group: Veterans
                                                                          • Posts: 4,998
                                                                          • Joined: 22-March 07
                                                                          • Gender:Male
                                                                          • Location:Segmentum Obscurus
                                                                          • AKA Darksword

                                                                          Posted 05 January 2008 - 01:04 PM

                                                                          I personaly find it hard to beleive that the Universe is an accident of existance. At the same time, I don't beleive that some great being that has always existed created it.
                                                                          As for it being taught in schools, I think it might be a good idea, but people always associate it with some kind of religion. Which then starts some big arguament about the seperation of Church & State.

                                                                          #37   Someone Else 

                                                                          • High Sheriff
                                                                          • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                            • Group: Moderator
                                                                            • Posts: 11,988
                                                                            • Joined: 21-July 04
                                                                            • Gender:Male
                                                                            • Location:Sitting on a fence and drinking root beer
                                                                            • AKA Wind Dude (WD)

                                                                            Posted 05 January 2008 - 01:30 PM

                                                                            Well what would you think if the student was given the option of picking either or both "classes"?

                                                                            Learning either evolution or intelligent design, or he could pick to learn both. Would that work?

                                                                            #38   Mathak Kraven 

                                                                            • Lord
                                                                            • PipPipPipPip
                                                                              • Group: Members
                                                                              • Posts: 288
                                                                              • Joined: 22-April 05
                                                                              • Gender:Female
                                                                              • Location:TARDIS

                                                                              Posted 05 January 2008 - 02:40 PM

                                                                              View PostGolden Legacy, on Jan 5 2008, 07:52 PM, said:

                                                                              However, what you've done is again associate Intelligent Design with Religion; Religion is an example of Intelligent Design, but the converse is not true - that is, Intelligent Design does NOT necessarily refer to organized faith, it simply refers to something that explains how the complexity of the universe is as it is. Think about how the structure of the atoms in our bodies are the same - the exact same - as the atoms that make up the stars. Think of the mathematical wonders of how they bond in the same ratios, how you have seemingly simple scientific concepts as bonding to fulfill the Octet rule and such that exist and apply always. There are textbooks and post-doctorate degrees justifying and explaining the nature of their complexity - do you really think this came about as "random chance"? It's infinitesimally small, the chances of EVERYTHING in the universe coming together after the Big Bang as they are now - too small a chance that the original explosion of matter condensed into the stars and galaxies, that there was a star just large enough to have planets orbiting it, that there was a planet just big enough to have its own atmosphere, that there was that same planet just far away enough so that it's neither too warm nor too cold, that it was just ideal enough to sustain water and life.

                                                                              All too unlikely.


                                                                              Even if the chances are astronomical so that life is created, the universe is pretty infinite. So even with all those odds the chance is there, and because we have so many places where this chance could've become reality, it can happen once. Also we owe alot of our Life bearing qualities to only our planets form and the suns form, and not it's distance from the sun.

                                                                              Winter is created by the tilt of the earth, when the sun doesn't get enough time to heat up the atmosphere. So basicly if mars was still vulcanicly active, it could equally sustain life.

                                                                              The fact that infinity is already a hard to grasp concept makes it harder on alot of people. Even if something was highly unlikely to happen, if the conditions can exist and you have a large enough room for them to be created, they will.

                                                                              But maybe it's better to say this:

                                                                              If there is no-one to observe a universe, will it have existed? To me it's a bit like the Shrodingers cat paradox.

                                                                              #39   Eugine 

                                                                              • Master Adept
                                                                              • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                                • Group: Veterans
                                                                                • Posts: 8,895
                                                                                • Joined: 28-January 04
                                                                                • Gender:Male
                                                                                • AKA YouTube Dude

                                                                                Posted 05 January 2008 - 02:55 PM

                                                                                I agree kinda (I'm still trying to fully understand your point). We will never know exactly how life or the universe really started in our lifetime most likely. There are so much theories, and eventually most collapse. It's just too complicated.

                                                                                That's why I really believe in space exploration. Finding life, or atleast past life in another part of the universe will help science so much ;_;

                                                                                #40   kate 

                                                                                • Master Adept
                                                                                • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                                  • Group: Veterans
                                                                                  • Posts: 2,900
                                                                                  • Joined: 24-July 04
                                                                                  • Gender:Female
                                                                                  • Location:over thar
                                                                                  • Interests:rpgs (duh :P), internet (my precioussss)...other things computer related...and penguins! (penguin'd)
                                                                                  • AKA The Best Woman Ever.

                                                                                  Posted 05 January 2008 - 08:21 PM

                                                                                  <.< except shrodinger's cat theory had to do with quantum mechanics on the sub atomic level. Not massive planets. So sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean by that, by no means is our universe in a flux that I know of o.O

                                                                                  Question: I understand the big bang theory, but what I don't know is where the things that caused the big bang came from. Did I miss that page on wiki or do we just not have a theory for that yet?

                                                                                  #41   Mathak Kraven 

                                                                                  • Lord
                                                                                  • PipPipPipPip
                                                                                    • Group: Members
                                                                                    • Posts: 288
                                                                                    • Joined: 22-April 05
                                                                                    • Gender:Female
                                                                                    • Location:TARDIS

                                                                                    Posted 06 January 2008 - 10:34 AM

                                                                                    View Postkate, on Jan 6 2008, 03:21 AM, said:

                                                                                    <.< except shrodinger's cat theory had to do with quantum mechanics on the sub atomic level. Not massive planets. So sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean by that, by no means is our universe in a flux that I know of o.O

                                                                                    Question: I understand the big bang theory, but what I don't know is where the things that caused the big bang came from. Did I miss that page on wiki or do we just not have a theory for that yet?

                                                                                    Actually, we cannot know the condition of the cat unless we observe it, same with the universe, we can only know it's there by observing it. And how it looks like. Whatever is past the creation of the universe is unknown, there could be alternate life there, or not, but we cannot know until we observe it.

                                                                                    Off topic: Shrodinger's cat is a quantum mechanics problem which states, if you put a cat in a box and have the box be flooded with e poison gas on the activation of the radioactive decay of an atom, then that cat would be both dead and alive inside the box. Until the box is opened and somebody observes it.

                                                                                    #42   Platinum Sun 

                                                                                    • Disciple
                                                                                    • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                                      • Group: Veterans
                                                                                      • Posts: 1,629
                                                                                      • Joined: 04-June 04
                                                                                      • Gender:Male
                                                                                      • Location:Newport News, VA But not by choice.
                                                                                      • Interests:Fire, RPGs (the playable kind too), dragon lore, computer games, political satire, watching all you puny mortal humans run around like rats in a maze.

                                                                                        Posted 06 January 2008 - 11:15 AM

                                                                                      View PostGolden Legacy, on Jan 5 2008, 01:52 PM, said:

                                                                                      do you really think this came about as "random chance"? It's infinitesimally small, the chances of EVERYTHING in the universe coming together after the Big Bang as they are now - too small a chance that the original explosion of matter condensed into the stars and galaxies, that there was a star just large enough to have planets orbiting it, that there was a planet just big enough to have its own atmosphere, that there was that same planet just far away enough so that it's neither too warm nor too cold, that it was just ideal enough to sustain water and life.

                                                                                      All too unlikely.


                                                                                      To be perfectly accurate, the origin of life by spontanaety is not impossible, only extremely unlikely. And that factor of a small chance is exactly what disproves that theory. The people that say evolution is like "Having a tornado hit a junkyard and getting a 747" have never seen a tornado hitting the entire universe and staying there for 15 billion years. On that kind of scale, it's not unthinkable that the occasional Cessna might crop up here and there. The reason that Earth appears conspicuous is that it's the excetion to the rule. For Earth, there are untold septillions of planets in which one or more of these parameters failed to line up. We only have Earth to observe properly because other planets are simply too far away. The point is that Earth appears so perfect for life because we are life. If Earth wasn't perfect for the development of life then we wouldn't be here to wonder why everything is so darned perfect.

                                                                                      And, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as random chance. There are merely events that depend on variables we cannot observe. If you had a lens through which you could see the entire universe, you would be able to precisely predict the movement and actions of everything. Every electron, every atom, even all the way up to star clusters and galaxies.

                                                                                      #43   Eugine 

                                                                                      • Master Adept
                                                                                      • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                                        • Group: Veterans
                                                                                        • Posts: 8,895
                                                                                        • Joined: 28-January 04
                                                                                        • Gender:Male
                                                                                        • AKA YouTube Dude

                                                                                        Posted 06 January 2008 - 12:24 PM

                                                                                        What's wrong with believing that a higher being steared everything?

                                                                                        #44   Folcon 

                                                                                        • Master Adept
                                                                                        • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                                          • Group: Veterans
                                                                                          • Posts: 4,114
                                                                                          • Joined: 29-April 07
                                                                                          • Gender:Male
                                                                                          • Location:Sky Haven, the island in the sky
                                                                                          • Interests:video games, RPGs in particular, reading, mostly sci-fi and Graphic Novels, Kenshin is the best.<br />
                                                                                          • AKA escout

                                                                                          Posted 06 January 2008 - 12:40 PM

                                                                                          aboslutely nothing. In my opinon, both evolution and Intelligent design should be taught in school, then let the stdent choose for themselves what to beleave. Thats how it was taught in my school, durning on month of class, we spent a week studying evolution, then durring the next three weeks, we studied different theroies of intellegent design. The idea had been to broaden understanding of the different ideas so we could make our own choice on what we thought was the right one. MMy feelings lie somewhere in between the theroies, a mix of them that balences it all. Its kinda hard to explain.

                                                                                          #45   Platinum Sun 

                                                                                          • Disciple
                                                                                          • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                                            • Group: Veterans
                                                                                            • Posts: 1,629
                                                                                            • Joined: 04-June 04
                                                                                            • Gender:Male
                                                                                            • Location:Newport News, VA But not by choice.
                                                                                            • Interests:Fire, RPGs (the playable kind too), dragon lore, computer games, political satire, watching all you puny mortal humans run around like rats in a maze.

                                                                                              Posted 06 January 2008 - 01:20 PM

                                                                                            I have no problem with people believing anything. I believe I said that already.

                                                                                            View PostPlatinum Sun, on Dec 31 2007, 09:20 PM, said:

                                                                                            You can believe whatever you want on your own time. Go ahead and believe that the ocean is Thor's semen if it helps you sleep at night.


                                                                                            Yep, there it is. My problem is that Intelligent Design is being presented as a scientific fact even though it has no scientific basis whatsoever and is much more closely tied to philosophy and yes, Religion.

                                                                                            #46   Lightning Star 

                                                                                            • Master Adept
                                                                                            • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                                              • Group: Veterans
                                                                                              • Posts: 2,902
                                                                                              • Joined: 21-June 04
                                                                                              • Gender:Female
                                                                                              • Location:Tucson, Arizona
                                                                                              • Interests:I've got hobby A.D.D.
                                                                                              • AKA lightningstar/Icy

                                                                                              Posted 07 January 2008 - 11:47 PM

                                                                                              View PostGolden Legacy, on Jan 5 2008, 11:52 AM, said:

                                                                                              That actually makes solid sense, now that I think about it. Teaching it in a History of Science class as Eugine suggests probably is the better place for Intelligent Design. (For the record, I chose the "Maybe" option in the poll - there are just too few people arguing in favor of it, so I've decided to take up that position).


                                                                                              The story of Genesis (from what I can gather as a non-Christian), similar to all the Abrahamic faiths, is simply that the universe was created in a number of days - and what a "day" is to God could be thousands, even millions of years to us. That's to put it in layman's terms.

                                                                                              However, what you've done is again associate Intelligent Design with Religion; Religion is an example of Intelligent Design, but the converse is not true - that is, Intelligent Design does NOT necessarily refer to organized faith, it simply refers to something that explains how the complexity of the universe is as it is. Think about how the structure of the atoms in our bodies are the same - the exact same - as the atoms that make up the stars. Think of the mathematical wonders of how they bond in the same ratios, how you have seemingly simple scientific concepts as bonding to fulfill the Octet rule and such that exist and apply always. There are textbooks and post-doctorate degrees justifying and explaining the nature of their complexity - do you really think this came about as "random chance"? It's infinitesimally small, the chances of EVERYTHING in the universe coming together after the Big Bang as they are now - too small a chance that the original explosion of matter condensed into the stars and galaxies, that there was a star just large enough to have planets orbiting it, that there was a planet just big enough to have its own atmosphere, that there was that same planet just far away enough so that it's neither too warm nor too cold, that it was just ideal enough to sustain water and life.

                                                                                              All too unlikely.


                                                                                              Riad, marry me. o.o

                                                                                              I completely agree with EVERYTHING you said.

                                                                                              And also going along with what escout said, I think people should be given the chance to see all the options, seeing as none of them are completely scientifically proven, and then go along with what they believe. Because if no one ever teaches a kid intelligent design at home, and it's banned from being taught at schools, then the school is practically forcing them to have a closed mind on the subject of creation, when I thought the media and society wants everyone to have "broad horizons" and "open minds".

                                                                                              #47   Saiph Charon 

                                                                                              • Squire
                                                                                              • Pip
                                                                                                • Group: Members
                                                                                                • Posts: 36
                                                                                                • Joined: 11-January 08
                                                                                                • Gender:Male
                                                                                                • Location:Slovenia =D
                                                                                                • Interests:games, future, drawing, music, debating, science, drinking water, breathing.......

                                                                                                Posted 27 January 2008 - 03:50 PM

                                                                                                Either all known origin possibilities are told or none.
                                                                                                So as long as the evolution theory is thaught in classrooms, there should also be intelligent design theories mentioned. But I'd rather have school and religion separated->no origin theories, because teachers for sure wouldn't be able to present them balanced.

                                                                                                Peace & love

                                                                                                #48   Elliott 

                                                                                                • Cool
                                                                                                • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                                                  • Group: Veterans
                                                                                                  • Posts: 6,678
                                                                                                  • Joined: 07-February 04
                                                                                                  • Gender:Male
                                                                                                  • Location:Room 101
                                                                                                  • Interests:Metal, philosophy, percussion, literature, writing, theology, personal fitness, live music, tattoos.
                                                                                                  • AKA Agatio

                                                                                                  Posted 01 February 2008 - 07:13 PM

                                                                                                  I feel that secular educational facilities should leave all traces of religion and theories out of their curriculum. The only subjects that should be taught in government funded / state schools are those which can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt i.e. mathematics, science, English, history, geography etc. Those schools are meant to be Atheistic in nature and devoid of theories unless it's a class which the students can opt to take on. Teachers shouldn't be filling students heads with theories unless those students or their parents / guardians consent to them doing so.

                                                                                                  Of course, if it's a Christian, Muslim, Catholic, Jewish or any other religious denomination school, you would expect a certain level of that religion to permeate the faculty and the subjects which they teach, so perhaps one option is to found 'intelligent design' schools which present that theory to some extent in all subjects, just like any other religious school.

                                                                                                  #49   Golden Legacy 

                                                                                                  • Can't touch this.
                                                                                                  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                                                    • Group: Admin
                                                                                                    • Posts: 6,607
                                                                                                    • Joined: 28-March 04
                                                                                                    • Gender:Male
                                                                                                    • Location:New York City, Boston

                                                                                                    Posted 05 February 2008 - 08:42 PM

                                                                                                    Well written and well said, Agatio, I agree with you. To play Devil's Advocate, however, should we perhaps have the option for Intelligent Design classes in schools (even secular, government-funded schools), i.e. in the form of electives? You're not forcing it on everyone, it would be available for those who were simply curious about it.

                                                                                                    #50   Toasty 

                                                                                                    • The toast in your toaster
                                                                                                    • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                                                      • Group: Veterans
                                                                                                      • Posts: 12,421
                                                                                                      • Joined: 04-April 06
                                                                                                      • Gender:Male
                                                                                                      • Location:The toaster in your kitchen.
                                                                                                      • Interests:Parkour, Martial Arts, Music, Network Administration,
                                                                                                      • AKA The toast in the toaster in your kitchen.

                                                                                                      Posted 05 February 2008 - 09:35 PM

                                                                                                      The Mormons at our highschool have a seminary class, though it's considered a free period (as in you don't have to be in the school), and they take the class at their church. Seeing as the Mormons here have that option, something similar should be available for everyone, as in a class based on theories/beliefs that isn't technically a class at the school, but counts as an ellective credit.

                                                                                                      Being a christian myself, I believe in Intelligent Design, and not evolution. However, I don't believe either should be taught in manditory science classes, or any other manditory class. They should be optional.

                                                                                                      #51   Elliott 

                                                                                                      • Cool
                                                                                                      • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                                                        • Group: Veterans
                                                                                                        • Posts: 6,678
                                                                                                        • Joined: 07-February 04
                                                                                                        • Gender:Male
                                                                                                        • Location:Room 101
                                                                                                        • Interests:Metal, philosophy, percussion, literature, writing, theology, personal fitness, live music, tattoos.
                                                                                                        • AKA Agatio

                                                                                                        Posted 06 February 2008 - 01:43 AM

                                                                                                        View PostAgatio, on Feb 2 2008, 12:13 PM, said:

                                                                                                        Those schools are meant to be Atheistic in nature and devoid of theories unless it's a class which the students can opt to take on.



                                                                                                        View PostGolden Legacy, on Feb 6 2008, 01:42 PM, said:

                                                                                                        To play Devil's Advocate, however, should we perhaps have the option for Intelligent Design classes in schools (even secular, government-funded schools), i.e. in the form of electives?


                                                                                                        I covered all the bases ;)

                                                                                                        #52   Eugine 

                                                                                                        • Master Adept
                                                                                                        • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                                                          • Group: Veterans
                                                                                                          • Posts: 8,895
                                                                                                          • Joined: 28-January 04
                                                                                                          • Gender:Male
                                                                                                          • AKA YouTube Dude

                                                                                                          Posted 06 February 2008 - 04:57 AM

                                                                                                          Yeah. I believe it should taught through electives.

                                                                                                          And I believe Evolution is the center piece of modern biology. It should be compulsary in Biology class.

                                                                                                          #53   Saiph Charon 

                                                                                                          • Squire
                                                                                                          • Pip
                                                                                                            • Group: Members
                                                                                                            • Posts: 36
                                                                                                            • Joined: 11-January 08
                                                                                                            • Gender:Male
                                                                                                            • Location:Slovenia =D
                                                                                                            • Interests:games, future, drawing, music, debating, science, drinking water, breathing.......

                                                                                                            Posted 07 February 2008 - 03:24 PM

                                                                                                            View Post.eugine, on Feb 6 2008, 11:57 AM, said:

                                                                                                            Yeah. I believe it should taught through electives.

                                                                                                            And I believe Evolution is the center piece of modern biology. It should be compulsary in Biology class.


                                                                                                            Why should one theory get thaught and all the others not?
                                                                                                            Don't get me wrong, I think the best would be to teach NO origin theory at all in school.

                                                                                                            I mean the theory of evolution is an unproven theory, just as any other one... does it really have priority because it is accepted by the majority of scientists?


                                                                                                            Peace & Love
                                                                                                            SC

                                                                                                            #54   Eugine 

                                                                                                            • Master Adept
                                                                                                            • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                                                              • Group: Veterans
                                                                                                              • Posts: 8,895
                                                                                                              • Joined: 28-January 04
                                                                                                              • Gender:Male
                                                                                                              • AKA YouTube Dude

                                                                                                              Posted 07 February 2008 - 03:31 PM

                                                                                                              Because Intelligent Design IS NOT science, while Evolution IS science. I will really like to see someone prove ID scientifically, it only requires is FAITH.

                                                                                                              Mind you, like I said before... I believe God 'directed' Evolution.

                                                                                                              #55   Toasty 

                                                                                                              • The toast in your toaster
                                                                                                              • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                                                                • Group: Veterans
                                                                                                                • Posts: 12,421
                                                                                                                • Joined: 04-April 06
                                                                                                                • Gender:Male
                                                                                                                • Location:The toaster in your kitchen.
                                                                                                                • Interests:Parkour, Martial Arts, Music, Network Administration,
                                                                                                                • AKA The toast in the toaster in your kitchen.

                                                                                                                Posted 08 February 2008 - 01:04 AM

                                                                                                                True, it may be based on science, and even though it is a theory, other scientific theories are taught in classrooms.

                                                                                                                However Eugine, those other theories are the only ones of their kind, or if there ARE any others, there's only a handful who believe them. Evolution however, is a theory which has another competitor, ID. Both have many believers. On top of that, it's like forcing religion on students. At SOME point, Science takes faith as well. And I don't mean scientology. When it comes to other scientific theories, there's just no other way to explain it.

                                                                                                                #56   Saiph Charon 

                                                                                                                • Squire
                                                                                                                • Pip
                                                                                                                  • Group: Members
                                                                                                                  • Posts: 36
                                                                                                                  • Joined: 11-January 08
                                                                                                                  • Gender:Male
                                                                                                                  • Location:Slovenia =D
                                                                                                                  • Interests:games, future, drawing, music, debating, science, drinking water, breathing.......

                                                                                                                  Posted 08 February 2008 - 02:53 AM

                                                                                                                  View Post.eugine, on Feb 7 2008, 10:31 PM, said:

                                                                                                                  Because Intelligent Design IS NOT science, while Evolution IS science. I will really like to see someone prove ID scientifically, it only requires is FAITH.

                                                                                                                  Mind you, like I said before... I believe God 'directed' Evolution.


                                                                                                                  Believeing that we came here by chance has absolutely nothing to do with science. It's religion disguised as science.

                                                                                                                  #57   Elliott 

                                                                                                                  • Cool
                                                                                                                  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                                                                    • Group: Veterans
                                                                                                                    • Posts: 6,678
                                                                                                                    • Joined: 07-February 04
                                                                                                                    • Gender:Male
                                                                                                                    • Location:Room 101
                                                                                                                    • Interests:Metal, philosophy, percussion, literature, writing, theology, personal fitness, live music, tattoos.
                                                                                                                    • AKA Agatio

                                                                                                                    Posted 08 February 2008 - 03:50 AM

                                                                                                                    View PostSaiph Charon, on Feb 8 2008, 07:53 PM, said:

                                                                                                                    Believeing that we came here by chance has absolutely nothing to do with science. It's religion disguised as science.

                                                                                                                    Care to elaborate on that? It seems as though you're calling Nihilism a religion.

                                                                                                                    #58   Saiph Charon 

                                                                                                                    • Squire
                                                                                                                    • Pip
                                                                                                                      • Group: Members
                                                                                                                      • Posts: 36
                                                                                                                      • Joined: 11-January 08
                                                                                                                      • Gender:Male
                                                                                                                      • Location:Slovenia =D
                                                                                                                      • Interests:games, future, drawing, music, debating, science, drinking water, breathing.......

                                                                                                                      Posted 08 February 2008 - 12:27 PM

                                                                                                                      View PostAgatio, on Feb 8 2008, 10:50 AM, said:

                                                                                                                      Care to elaborate on that? It seems as though you're calling Nihilism a religion.


                                                                                                                      With saying "it's a religion" I wanted to say that you need faith for it just like for an intelligent design theory, nothing more =o

                                                                                                                      #59   Elliott 

                                                                                                                      • Cool
                                                                                                                      • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                                                                        • Group: Veterans
                                                                                                                        • Posts: 6,678
                                                                                                                        • Joined: 07-February 04
                                                                                                                        • Gender:Male
                                                                                                                        • Location:Room 101
                                                                                                                        • Interests:Metal, philosophy, percussion, literature, writing, theology, personal fitness, live music, tattoos.
                                                                                                                        • AKA Agatio

                                                                                                                        Posted 08 February 2008 - 11:14 PM

                                                                                                                        I wouldn't call it faith, merely an awareness of the physical and psychological correlations between humans and other animals and how they tie into the theory of evolution. Faith refers more to believing in something and putting trust in that which cannot be physically detected / proved (for want of a better word).

                                                                                                                        #60   kate 

                                                                                                                        • Master Adept
                                                                                                                        • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                                                                          • Group: Veterans
                                                                                                                          • Posts: 2,900
                                                                                                                          • Joined: 24-July 04
                                                                                                                          • Gender:Female
                                                                                                                          • Location:over thar
                                                                                                                          • Interests:rpgs (duh :P), internet (my precioussss)...other things computer related...and penguins! (penguin'd)
                                                                                                                          • AKA The Best Woman Ever.

                                                                                                                          Posted 08 February 2008 - 11:43 PM

                                                                                                                          Agatio's right, and I find it weird you're all talking about evolution like it has no proof to back it up. It has far more than intelligent design, at least science wise. Ever heard of a guy named Darwin? Yeah, he kinda wrote a book on it, using actually data collected from those pretty little galapogos islands. go finches.

                                                                                                                          Anywho, that's not the point, technically with most sciences you can say it's a matter of faith according to your reasoning, since many are based on unprovable theories (string theory anyone?) However no one's saying that shouldn't be taught. Really the only science that isn't based on unproven theories is math (damn you theory of knowledge >.<) so if that's what your basing the idea of teaching ID in the classrooms on, you're in deeper than you think.

                                                                                                                          It is true no one's really coming up with other theories to combat the theories studied in chem physics or most of bio, but then again, neither is id. It's a theory that's not based on fact (I say that loosely, I do know there's reasoning behind that), and therefore not acceptable in the classroom. If we let it in, then I could just say there's no such thing as atoms or gravity and really there's just invisible fairies pulling things to the ground with an accleration of 9.81 m/s^2 and then that would have to be taught as well, because it is a theory.

                                                                                                                          #61   Saiph Charon 

                                                                                                                          • Squire
                                                                                                                          • Pip
                                                                                                                            • Group: Members
                                                                                                                            • Posts: 36
                                                                                                                            • Joined: 11-January 08
                                                                                                                            • Gender:Male
                                                                                                                            • Location:Slovenia =D
                                                                                                                            • Interests:games, future, drawing, music, debating, science, drinking water, breathing.......

                                                                                                                            Posted 09 February 2008 - 03:25 AM

                                                                                                                            View Postkate, on Feb 9 2008, 06:43 AM, said:

                                                                                                                            Agatio's right, and I find it weird you're all talking about evolution like it has no proof to back it up. It has far more than intelligent design, at least science wise. Ever heard of a guy named Darwin? Yeah, he kinda wrote a book on it, using actually data collected from those pretty little galapogos islands. go finches.


                                                                                                                            I'd really like to read some of the proof you're talking about. =D

                                                                                                                            I heard of Darwin of course... and his finches story.
                                                                                                                            He looked at the finches on the Galapagos islands and noticed variations in beak size (PS: he couldn't know alot about genetics back then =P).

                                                                                                                            What he noticed was actually micro-evolution, which doesn't have to do anything with macro-evolution (animals turning into different animals).
                                                                                                                            Micro-evolution is what created different breeds of cats for example.
                                                                                                                            There are many different cats, but they're still cats. Their genome didn't change. It already contained information for all the breeds of cats you see today, when the 1st one appeared.
                                                                                                                            That's variation, not transformation.
                                                                                                                            That's what's happening to the Galapagos finches.
                                                                                                                            What's happening is that natural selection with a long term drought in the islands was causing their seed cases to harden, how? The heavier beaked finch allele in the genome was favored->it became more dominant because it passed on the heavy beak alleles. It was not a mutation, but an allele already in the genome and was just brought out as a result of the environment. When the rains came back the lighter beak became the more efficient beak and the number of heavy beaks reduced....

                                                                                                                            No mutation, no change in the genome, no new species arising. Finch remains finch. Micro-evolution at it's best. =)

                                                                                                                            I hope this text is understandable.

                                                                                                                            View Postkate, on Feb 9 2008, 06:43 AM, said:

                                                                                                                            Anywho, that's not the point, technically with most sciences you can say it's a matter of faith according to your reasoning, since many are based on unprovable theories (string theory anyone?) However no one's saying that shouldn't be taught. Really the only science that isn't based on unproven theories is math (damn you theory of knowledge >.<) so if that's what your basing the idea of teaching ID in the classrooms on, you're in deeper than you think.

                                                                                                                            It is true no one's really coming up with other theories to combat the theories studied in chem physics or most of bio, but then again, neither is id. It's a theory that's not based on fact (I say that loosely, I do know there's reasoning behind that), and therefore not acceptable in the classroom. If we let it in, then I could just say there's no such thing as atoms or gravity and really there's just invisible fairies pulling things to the ground with an accleration of 9.81 m/s^2 and then that would have to be taught as well, because it is a theory.


                                                                                                                            I get what you mean, but that wasn't my point (aka i don't see atoms->they don't exist lol).
                                                                                                                            What I meant are things which actually need faith, like mathematical miracles (life coming from nowhere by incredible odds), genomes changing with time->producing new species, the faith to believe something like 4 billion years is enough for all the species to emerge (lol) from lifeless material. As i said before, you can show me some valid proof to make it clear to me that there is no faith involved.
                                                                                                                            PS: it being talked about everywhere as fact doesn't count as proof obviously.

                                                                                                                            Have a nice day =)

                                                                                                                            #62   Toasty 

                                                                                                                            • The toast in your toaster
                                                                                                                            • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                                                                              • Group: Veterans
                                                                                                                              • Posts: 12,421
                                                                                                                              • Joined: 04-April 06
                                                                                                                              • Gender:Male
                                                                                                                              • Location:The toaster in your kitchen.
                                                                                                                              • Interests:Parkour, Martial Arts, Music, Network Administration,
                                                                                                                              • AKA The toast in the toaster in your kitchen.

                                                                                                                              Posted 09 February 2008 - 04:01 AM

                                                                                                                              Looks liek someone payed attention in sciece class. <_<

                                                                                                                              For us to have come from single celed organisms, the DNA of those organisms would have to have been completely reworked over the 4 billion years to get a human being. That is simply not possible.

                                                                                                                              Besides, when the engineers that worked on the Apollo mission designed the moon lander, they based it upon there being 4 billion years worth of dust on the surface of the moon. Turns out they were off by a few billion years.

                                                                                                                              View PostAgatio, on Feb 8 2008, 09:14 PM, said:

                                                                                                                              I wouldn't call it faith, merely an awareness of the physical and psychological correlations between humans and other animals and how they tie into the theory of evolution. Faith refers more to believing in something and putting trust in that which cannot be physically detected / proved (for want of a better word).


                                                                                                                              Ah, but they haven't been able to prove evolution OR the big bang yet, so therefore, it still takes faith to believe that they're the truth. :blink: Just like it takes faith to believe the ID is true.

                                                                                                                              #63   Split Infinity 

                                                                                                                              • Nebuchadnezzar
                                                                                                                              • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                                                                                • Group: Veterans
                                                                                                                                • Posts: 11,279
                                                                                                                                • Joined: 16-December 05
                                                                                                                                • Gender:Male
                                                                                                                                • Location:37°48′S, 144°57′E.
                                                                                                                                • Interests:.5% per annum.
                                                                                                                                • AKA Spam King

                                                                                                                                Posted 09 February 2008 - 04:03 AM

                                                                                                                                They haven't proved it, but there's a crapload of evidence to support the idea. Whereas religions just have texts, relics and such.

                                                                                                                                #64   Toasty 

                                                                                                                                • The toast in your toaster
                                                                                                                                • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                                                                                  • Group: Veterans
                                                                                                                                  • Posts: 12,421
                                                                                                                                  • Joined: 04-April 06
                                                                                                                                  • Gender:Male
                                                                                                                                  • Location:The toaster in your kitchen.
                                                                                                                                  • Interests:Parkour, Martial Arts, Music, Network Administration,
                                                                                                                                  • AKA The toast in the toaster in your kitchen.

                                                                                                                                  Posted 09 February 2008 - 04:18 AM

                                                                                                                                  Evidence that ALSO hasn't been proven. Most of which was also found illigitimately, or was fabricated.

                                                                                                                                  One scientist who was trying to prove evolution took a monkey's skull and a pig's jaw he found lying nearly a half mile apart, and claimed that he had found the "missing link."

                                                                                                                                  #65   Eugine 

                                                                                                                                  • Master Adept
                                                                                                                                  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                                                                                    • Group: Veterans
                                                                                                                                    • Posts: 8,895
                                                                                                                                    • Joined: 28-January 04
                                                                                                                                    • Gender:Male
                                                                                                                                    • AKA YouTube Dude

                                                                                                                                    Posted 09 February 2008 - 12:16 PM

                                                                                                                                    Science, specifically Evolution doesn't need faith. It needs only facts and observations.

                                                                                                                                    Charon, you are right, but Darwin observations give more reasons to believe Evolution than to believe Intelligent Design.

                                                                                                                                    Quote

                                                                                                                                    For us to have come from single celed organisms, the DNA of those organisms would have to have been completely reworked over the 4 billion years to get a human being. That is simply not possible.
                                                                                                                                    ?
                                                                                                                                    http://www.youtube.c...h?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
                                                                                                                                    This is just one of the many examples to show your statement is inaccurate x.x

                                                                                                                                    In any case,
                                                                                                                                    http://en.wikipedia...._moth_evolution
                                                                                                                                    http://en.wikipedia....iki/Ambulocetus

                                                                                                                                    lalala, anyway I can't really prove Evolution is true cuz I don't really know much about it unfortunately.

                                                                                                                                    #66   kate 

                                                                                                                                    • Master Adept
                                                                                                                                    • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                                                                                      • Group: Veterans
                                                                                                                                      • Posts: 2,900
                                                                                                                                      • Joined: 24-July 04
                                                                                                                                      • Gender:Female
                                                                                                                                      • Location:over thar
                                                                                                                                      • Interests:rpgs (duh :P), internet (my precioussss)...other things computer related...and penguins! (penguin'd)
                                                                                                                                      • AKA The Best Woman Ever.

                                                                                                                                      Posted 09 February 2008 - 12:34 PM

                                                                                                                                      oh mai gawd the twisted science makes my brain hurt >.<

                                                                                                                                      MICRO EVOLUTION LEADS TO MACRO EVOLUTION *hauls out ib bio course companion and opens to evolution chapter*

                                                                                                                                      now I can see how you wouldn't believe me since I only spent a year studying this subject hardcore, so let's consult this handy dandy textbook with facts accepted across the world!

                                                                                                                                      holy pop culture reference batman! there appears to be many sections talking about the different types of evidence to support evolution, but that can't be right, they must be just kidding, let's read on.

                                                                                                                                      evidence for evolution: domesticated animals
                                                                                                                                      evidence for evolution: fossils
                                                                                                                                      evidence for evolution: homologous structures
                                                                                                                                      evidence for evolution: the process of natural selection
                                                                                                                                      galapagos finces: evolution in action (but surely microevolution has nothing to do with macroevolution!)
                                                                                                                                      anitbiotic resistance in bacteria: evolution in action (but bacteria has nothing to do with monkeys lolol this must be written by crack addicts)

                                                                                                                                      Now if anyone actually wants me to go into detail on any one of those sections, I'd be more than happy to as I have it all sitting right in front of me. It's just the SHEER VOLUME OF EVIDENCE is too much to write down at any given time, so instead of not doing the subject justice, I'll let you choose which section you'd like to whole heartedly contend to be based on false logic.

                                                                                                                                      for a short little summary of how evolution works though, skipping the beginning of life (rna being converted into dna and then prokaryotes consuming smaller prokaryotes to create eukaryotes, and then those cells dividing into different simple organisms to suit the environment, and over the BILLIONS OF YEARS those diverging into more and more species through MICROEVOLUTION) I'll just discuss it on a gentic level, because HAY I have those chapters right here too. Now I'm sure I don't have to prove that mutations exist, seeing how we have all sorts of people with different genetic disabilities based on a large scale version of mutation, so I'll skip that too and move on to how evolution works SLOOOOOWLY. Pour exemple, manymanymany coniferous trees are born in a forest. However, due to mutations on some of the genes, some trees are born resistant to a certain type of disease that the others are not. Lo and behold, said disease comes along and kicks the trees butts. However, some of them remain alive because of their mutations (o noes!) The ones that are left alive are able to reproduce (because dead things aren't so good at the reproduction) meaning that their offspring will be born with the same mutation (and maybe some other mutations! who knows! only time will tell). Thus after a looooong period of time, only trees with those mutations are left. Wellwellwell, another disease comes along and kills off many trees, except the ones with the mutation that's resistant to that disease. I think we all know what happens! those guys reproduce and now only ones with those two mutations are left. Well golly gee whiz, we're starting to see some change. Hardly a new species though, I'll agree. If only they had BILLIONS OF YEARS to keep this up, eventually they'd be nothing like the original trees. Well, they'd still share some of the same characteristics, kinda like how humans share some with those cute little apes at the zoos. Basically what I just described is natural selection, more or less, and is not only entirely possible, but has been seen time and time again, one prime example being the galapogos finces. Now Darwin was awesome, but unfortunately not immortal, so he couldn't hang around for the amount of time it would take for completely new species to evolve, so he could only record microevolution. Thank jiminy that microevolution is a stepping stone to macroevolution, or else I'd really be up the creek!

                                                                                                                                      And OMFG I'm sorry that there's a couple of missing links in our ancestory, good gosh considering the amount of time we've had to study it, it's pretty darn impressive we have as much of a timeline as we do. Not to mention that despite the missing links it's a pretty huge coincidence that the rest fit so nicely in line.

                                                                                                                                      phew, well that's my bio summary with only the slightest hint of patronizing sarcasm :blink: I would be more than thrilled to hear the "evidence" you have to support id, other than "the chances are too astronomical". Hmm...chances are astronomical?? Good thing we have a whole universe for them to take place in! By the way I believe in God creating the universe and then setting evolution in motion, it just reeeeally bugs me when people say there's no evidence to support something just because they don't know enough about the subject.

                                                                                                                                      Oh and as I said, anything you'd like me to elaborate on, I've got a whole textbook worth of evidence. But I think I'd like to hear your evidence now, I think you owe it to everyone who's spent their lives trying to give the evidence you skeptics need.

                                                                                                                                      EDIT: I'd also like to point out that while I'm extremely hot headed and angsty about the subject, scientists follow a code that dictates they must always be open to the idea that their theories might be wrong, and should forever be looking for a way to disprove them. Religious leaders on the other hand (and I know you don't have to be religious to believe in id, it's just a generalization) believe solely in their idea and try only to prove it, not disprove it. So science is not really all that cult like as some have been proposing. I totally would join a science cult if I could, but that's just me <_<

                                                                                                                                      Also it's interesting to note that over time, whereas science as gotten more and more popular as the accepted norm (ie when darwin first published his work, no one really believed it, same with galileo when he said the world wasn't flat and revolved around the sun), meanwhile the idea of id has gotten less and less popular (entire countries were based on a certain religion and followed the idea of God creating the earth, yet now there's a seperation of church and state). I'm just sezzing, why would it be that as we learn more about our universe we believe science more and religion less if id is really the right theory? It was sorta the most popular back in the time when they believed spontaneous generation and that if a stick fell in a pond, a duck would appear.

                                                                                                                                      #67   Saiph Charon 

                                                                                                                                      • Squire
                                                                                                                                      • Pip
                                                                                                                                        • Group: Members
                                                                                                                                        • Posts: 36
                                                                                                                                        • Joined: 11-January 08
                                                                                                                                        • Gender:Male
                                                                                                                                        • Location:Slovenia =D
                                                                                                                                        • Interests:games, future, drawing, music, debating, science, drinking water, breathing.......

                                                                                                                                        Posted 09 February 2008 - 05:13 PM

                                                                                                                                        Oh man... that's alot of bull**** to talk about xD

                                                                                                                                        I'll make a real answer on kate's post some other day, as I'm too sleepy now.

                                                                                                                                        But gonna try to make a reply to eugine's post at least:
                                                                                                                                        1st it's just there are not more facts and observations of MACRO-evolution then there are of any ID (when i talk about the evolution theory, I always talk about macro-e., if otherwise i state it)

                                                                                                                                        It's interesting that almost all people asked about proof for evolution, point to Kettlewell's experiment (peppered moth). This experiment is again just variation of already existing species and again doesn't prove anything regarding macro-evolution. Dark peppered moths existed already long before the industrial pollution-> no new species, as no acquired physical trait was transmitted to subsequent generations.

                                                                                                                                        But that's not everything regarding this...
                                                                                                                                        Almost none of the dark peppered moths rest on tree trunks. Kettlewell forced moths to act unnaturally to obtain favourable results.
                                                                                                                                        For the pictures, he actually glued dead dark peppered moths on tree trunks...

                                                                                                                                        I'm off to bed for now lol.

                                                                                                                                        Peace and Love everyone

                                                                                                                                        #68   Saiph Charon 

                                                                                                                                        • Squire
                                                                                                                                        • Pip
                                                                                                                                          • Group: Members
                                                                                                                                          • Posts: 36
                                                                                                                                          • Joined: 11-January 08
                                                                                                                                          • Gender:Male
                                                                                                                                          • Location:Slovenia =D
                                                                                                                                          • Interests:games, future, drawing, music, debating, science, drinking water, breathing.......

                                                                                                                                          Posted 10 February 2008 - 04:55 AM

                                                                                                                                          View Postkate, on Feb 9 2008, 07:34 PM, said:

                                                                                                                                          MICRO EVOLUTION LEADS TO MACRO EVOLUTION *hauls out ib bio course companion and opens to evolution chapter*
                                                                                                                                          i hope you don't mean this seriously
                                                                                                                                          micro-evolution is variation of already existing information->a labrador and a pitbull have a common ancestor (a dog obviously)
                                                                                                                                          macro-evolution is animals transforming into different species by information added and changed in their DNA->a labrador and a strawberry have a common ancestor.... rofl

                                                                                                                                          it's clear that microevolution cannot and will never cause macroevolution. if it's stated otherwise in your textbook, it's one more textbook that's telling lies.
                                                                                                                                          PS: let me remind you what hitler said at one point: "let me control the textbooks and ill control the world!"

                                                                                                                                          now I can see how you wouldn't believe me since I only spent a year studying this subject hardcore, so let's consult this handy dandy textbook with facts accepted across the world!
                                                                                                                                          didn't i already say that "it being talked about everywhere as fact doesn't count as proof"?
                                                                                                                                          in the evolution chapter, textbooks really have lies in. for example, in most of them there is still that picture showing how similar the embryos are in their primary stage...
                                                                                                                                          1. it was proven fake 20 years ago
                                                                                                                                          2. it's not their primary stage, the author just took out the most similar ones and "made them even more similar". in the stages before the 1st shown most of them are much less similar than in those... so how does this prove that embryos of different species are similar at start...


                                                                                                                                          and like that matters! i mean, if species share similarities it's no more proof they evolved, than it is proof they have the same designer!

                                                                                                                                          evidence for evolution: domesticated animals
                                                                                                                                          huh? are they?
                                                                                                                                          evidence for evolution: fossils
                                                                                                                                          there are no transitions between very different types of animals, not in the living world, neither in the fossil record. Lining up three objects by size or shape does not prove that one turned into the other.
                                                                                                                                          evidence for evolution: homologous structures
                                                                                                                                          if i am right, this is about vestigial structures.
                                                                                                                                          1. at on time there was a big number of human organs listed as vestigial, but till now most have been shown to have important functions.
                                                                                                                                          2. if some organs really lost their function over time, this doesn't prove evolution. to prove it, you have to show development of completelly new structures, not degeneration/loss of previous characteristics.
                                                                                                                                          evidence for evolution: the process of natural selection
                                                                                                                                          the powerful ability of natural selection lets an organism adapt to its environment. but how does this explain the development of completelly different types of animals? like in the peppered moth example, we started with light and dark moths and ended up with...light and dark moths. nothing new developed

                                                                                                                                          natural selection is jsut that - selection o_O"
                                                                                                                                          it cannot cause new info getting added to DNA
                                                                                                                                          galapagos finces: evolution in action (but surely microevolution has nothing to do with macroevolution!)
                                                                                                                                          http://www.goldensun...ndpost&p=377891
                                                                                                                                          anitbiotic resistance in bacteria: evolution in action (but bacteria has nothing to do with monkeys lolol this must be written by crack addicts)
                                                                                                                                          if we face a group of certain bacteria with antibiotics, the ones that survive, will indeed pass their genetic material to subsequent generations. but as antibiotic resistant bacteria already existed in their population, no new species arised there-->no evolution

                                                                                                                                          for a short little summary of how evolution works though, skipping the beginning of life (rna being converted into dna and then prokaryotes consuming smaller prokaryotes to create eukaryotes, and then those cells dividing into different simple organisms to suit the environment, and over the BILLIONS OF YEARS those diverging into more and more species through MICROEVOLUTION) I'll just discuss it on a gentic level, because HAY I have those chapters right here too. Now I'm sure I don't have to prove that (bad) mutations exist, seeing how we have all sorts of people with different genetic disabilities based on a large scale version of mutation (but we have to prove that good mutations exist =D), so I'll skip that too and move on to how evolution works SLOOOOOWLY. Pour exemple, manymanymany coniferous trees are born in a forest. However, due to mutations on some of the genes, some trees are born resistant to a certain type of disease that the others are not. Lo and behold, said disease comes along and kicks the trees butts. However, some of them remain alive because of their mutations (o noes!) The ones that are left alive are able to reproduce (because dead things aren't so good at the reproduction) meaning that their offspring will be born with the same mutation (and maybe some other mutations! who knows! only time will tell). Thus after a looooong period of time, only trees with those mutations are left. Wellwellwell, another disease comes along and kills off many trees, except the ones with the mutation that's resistant to that disease. I think we all know what happens! those guys reproduce and now only ones with those two mutations are left. Well golly gee whiz, we're starting to see some change. Hardly a new species though, I'll agree. If only they had BILLIONS OF YEARS to keep this up, eventually they'd be nothing like the original trees. Well, they'd still share some of the same characteristics, kinda like how humans share some with those cute little apes at the zoos. Basically what I just described is natural selection, more or less, and is not only entirely possible, but has been seen time and time again, one prime example being the galapogos finces. Now Darwin was awesome, but unfortunately not immortal, so he couldn't hang around for the amount of time it would take for completely new species to evolve, so he could only record microevolution. Thank jiminy that microevolution is a stepping stone to macroevolution, or else I'd really be up the creek!
                                                                                                                                          great story with the trees and all =P
                                                                                                                                          but still,
                                                                                                                                          microevolution doesn't cause macroevolution!
                                                                                                                                          i explained the finches above
                                                                                                                                          PS: if you use many o's in the word slowly/long and repeat the word "many" more times, it doesn't really make it more believable or something, it just makes you look dumb =(

                                                                                                                                          And OMFG I'm sorry that there's a couple of missing links in our ancestory, good gosh considering the amount of time we've had to study it, it's pretty darn impressive we have as much of a timeline as we do. Not to mention that despite the missing links it's a pretty huge coincidence that the rest fit so nicely in line.
                                                                                                                                          are you kidding me? there are like um NO transitional forms.
                                                                                                                                          excavations have clearly showed that living beings always apear fully formed in distinct structures... there is not even one transitional form between species and groups as darwin imagined. but there were fossils of animals, evolutionists claimed they are transitional forms, which later turned out be no such thing at all =/
                                                                                                                                          like the coelacanth!
                                                                                                                                          it was claimed it had characteristics of land animals and that it died out like 200mio years ago
                                                                                                                                          guess what....it's alive =O
                                                                                                                                          http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZQMm5HN1Ums
                                                                                                                                          what was the reaction of evolutionists when they heard that?
                                                                                                                                          "wow, it survived for so long..." XDDDDDd
                                                                                                                                          don't let me start to talk about archeopterix...

                                                                                                                                          phew, well that's my bio summary with only the slightest hint of patronizing sarcasm :) I would be more than thrilled to hear the "evidence" you have to support id, other than "the chances are too astronomical". this debate is about if evolution is fact or theory, not about evidence for some other theory Hmm...chances are astronomical?? Good thing we have a whole universe for them to take place in! By the way I believe in God creating the universe and then setting evolution in motion, it just reeeeally bugs me when people say there's no evidence to support something just because they don't know enough about the subject.

                                                                                                                                          Oh and as I said, anything you'd like me to elaborate on, I've got a whole textbook worth of evidence. But I think I'd like to hear your evidence now, I think you owe it to everyone who's spent their lives trying to give the evidence you skeptics need. i dont need evidence to prove evolution is false, evolutionists have to show evidence that it's true

                                                                                                                                          EDIT: I'd also like to point out that while I'm extremely hot headed and angsty about the subject, scientists follow a code that dictates they must always be open to the idea that their theories might be wrong, and should forever be looking for a way to disprove them. Religious leaders on the other hand (and I know you don't have to be religious to believe in id, it's just a generalization) believe solely in their idea and try only to prove it, not disprove it. So science is not really all that cult like as some have been proposing.
                                                                                                                                          i agree totally =D
                                                                                                                                          it's just that the evolution theory has nothing to do with science
                                                                                                                                          evolution has been mixed with science for the last 30 years, but that doesnt mean it's the same as science.

                                                                                                                                          I totally would join a science cult if I could, but that's just me ;)

                                                                                                                                          Also it's interesting to note that over time, whereas science as gotten more and more popular as the accepted norm (ie when darwin first published his work, no one really believed it, same with galileo when he said the world wasn't flat and revolved around the sun), meanwhile the idea of id has gotten less and less popular (entire countries were based on a certain religion and followed the idea of God creating the earth, yet now there's a seperation of church and state). I'm just sezzing, why would it be that as we learn more about our universe we believe science more and religion less if id is really the right theory? It was sorta the most popular back in the time when they believed spontaneous generation and that if a stick fell in a pond, a duck would appear.


                                                                                                                                          To make it clear, I'm absolutely pro science and that's why I also agree with your last chunk of text.

                                                                                                                                          This is not about which of many theories is the right one, its about evolution(macro evolution of course) being true or not. Nothing more.


                                                                                                                                          Have a nice day =)
                                                                                                                                          SC

                                                                                                                                          EDIT:
                                                                                                                                          How do I delete a post?
                                                                                                                                          Because I forgot, that no one posted after my last post.
                                                                                                                                          I want to edit this post into my previous one, but first I'd need to delete this one.

                                                                                                                                          #69   Eugine 

                                                                                                                                          • Master Adept
                                                                                                                                          • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                                                                                            • Group: Veterans
                                                                                                                                            • Posts: 8,895
                                                                                                                                            • Joined: 28-January 04
                                                                                                                                            • Gender:Male
                                                                                                                                            • AKA YouTube Dude

                                                                                                                                            Posted 10 February 2008 - 10:03 AM

                                                                                                                                            If you are pro science, why are you arguing against it?
                                                                                                                                            Let me ask you some questions.

                                                                                                                                            Do you believe Evolution is science?
                                                                                                                                            Do you believe Intelligent Design is science?
                                                                                                                                            (yes/no answers plz!)

                                                                                                                                            #70   Saiph Charon 

                                                                                                                                            • Squire
                                                                                                                                            • Pip
                                                                                                                                              • Group: Members
                                                                                                                                              • Posts: 36
                                                                                                                                              • Joined: 11-January 08
                                                                                                                                              • Gender:Male
                                                                                                                                              • Location:Slovenia =D
                                                                                                                                              • Interests:games, future, drawing, music, debating, science, drinking water, breathing.......

                                                                                                                                              Posted 10 February 2008 - 10:49 AM

                                                                                                                                              View Post.eugine, on Feb 10 2008, 05:03 PM, said:

                                                                                                                                              If you are pro science, why are you arguing against it?
                                                                                                                                              Let me ask you some questions.

                                                                                                                                              Do you believe Evolution is science?
                                                                                                                                              Do you believe Intelligent Design is science?
                                                                                                                                              (yes/no answers plz!)


                                                                                                                                              I'm arguing against it, because at one point in my life I found out there are numerous flaws in this nice theory and that it's unable to explain the origin of life scientifically (no theory we know at the moment does, of those that I'm aware of).
                                                                                                                                              Evolution is actually antiscience, as science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable...of which qualities evolution has none.
                                                                                                                                              To call evolution science, is to confuse fairytales with facts. =/

                                                                                                                                              No, obviously.
                                                                                                                                              No.


                                                                                                                                              Be happy for no reason everyone, it works =D
                                                                                                                                              SC

                                                                                                                                              #71   Eugine 

                                                                                                                                              • Master Adept
                                                                                                                                              • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                                                                                                • Group: Veterans
                                                                                                                                                • Posts: 8,895
                                                                                                                                                • Joined: 28-January 04
                                                                                                                                                • Gender:Male
                                                                                                                                                • AKA YouTube Dude

                                                                                                                                                Posted 10 February 2008 - 11:08 AM

                                                                                                                                                Rather than just say it is anti-science, care to elaborate? There are so many proof of Evolution -

                                                                                                                                                http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/3790531.stm
                                                                                                                                                http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...26/MN172778.DTL
                                                                                                                                                http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/1123973.stm

                                                                                                                                                And if I can find evidence (someone who is still trying to fully understand Evolution), I hope someone who studied Evolution in detail doesn't encounter you x.x

                                                                                                                                                #72   Saiph Charon 

                                                                                                                                                • Squire
                                                                                                                                                • Pip
                                                                                                                                                  • Group: Members
                                                                                                                                                  • Posts: 36
                                                                                                                                                  • Joined: 11-January 08
                                                                                                                                                  • Gender:Male
                                                                                                                                                  • Location:Slovenia =D
                                                                                                                                                  • Interests:games, future, drawing, music, debating, science, drinking water, breathing.......

                                                                                                                                                  Posted 10 February 2008 - 11:54 AM

                                                                                                                                                  View Post.eugine, on Feb 10 2008, 06:08 PM, said:

                                                                                                                                                  Rather than just say it is anti-science, care to elaborate? There are so many proof of Evolution -

                                                                                                                                                  http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/3790531.stm
                                                                                                                                                  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...26/MN172778.DTL
                                                                                                                                                  http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/1123973.stm

                                                                                                                                                  And if I can find evidence (someone who is still trying to fully understand Evolution), I hope someone who studied Evolution in detail doesn't encounter you x.x


                                                                                                                                                  This debate (not just being off-topic here anyway) won't end.
                                                                                                                                                  Even if I refute and explain every "3link posts proving evolution", you will still post another 3 links...

                                                                                                                                                  There is sooo much proof for evolution! That's what everyone says, but then, where is it?
                                                                                                                                                  In the latest 3 links?
                                                                                                                                                  Let me see...
                                                                                                                                                  1. A speculation of how 1 species turns into 2.
                                                                                                                                                  It reminds me alot of ligers and tigons.
                                                                                                                                                  Tigers and lions also produce sterile offspring because they're enough different species to be on the verge of not being able to interbreed.
                                                                                                                                                  But why did you post this? It's a speculation for which you need to believe in evolution, not proof for it.
                                                                                                                                                  2. ..gosh...again this stupid finches example that's used everywhere....XD
                                                                                                                                                  WTF... they found 2 slightly different species of birds. What does this tell us? Does it prove evolution?
                                                                                                                                                  It tells us that there are those 2 slightly different species of birds existing somewhere.
                                                                                                                                                  That doesn't mean they have evolved from the same bird species. If you believe in evolution first, then you can speculate they evolved from the same bird. If not, they're just existing....nothing more.
                                                                                                                                                  To explain more clearly:
                                                                                                                                                  There exist lions and tigers.
                                                                                                                                                  They're a different species with many similarities.
                                                                                                                                                  How the hell does this prove they had a common ancestor?
                                                                                                                                                  3. That's the same story...

                                                                                                                                                  Maybe we should end this "debate" or move it in it's own thread...

                                                                                                                                                  #73   Folcon 

                                                                                                                                                  • Master Adept
                                                                                                                                                  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                                                                                                    • Group: Veterans
                                                                                                                                                    • Posts: 4,114
                                                                                                                                                    • Joined: 29-April 07
                                                                                                                                                    • Gender:Male
                                                                                                                                                    • Location:Sky Haven, the island in the sky
                                                                                                                                                    • Interests:video games, RPGs in particular, reading, mostly sci-fi and Graphic Novels, Kenshin is the best.<br />
                                                                                                                                                    • AKA escout

                                                                                                                                                    Posted 10 February 2008 - 11:58 AM

                                                                                                                                                    View PostSaiph Charon, on Feb 10 2008, 11:49 AM, said:

                                                                                                                                                    I'm arguing against it, because at one point in my life I found out there are numerous flaws in this nice theory and that it's unable to explain the origin of life scientifically (no theory we know at the moment does, of those that I'm aware of).
                                                                                                                                                    Evolution is actually antiscience, as science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable...of which qualities evolution has none.
                                                                                                                                                    To call evolution science, is to confuse fairytales with facts. =/



                                                                                                                                                    I recall in one of my classes that the origin of life on Earth came from astroids and metiors that hit the Earth and carried organic copmounds. The same coumpounds and chimicals that make up our DNA. They have also been found in metorites that have been dug up. It is thought that this space junk is what brought these compounds to Earth and that they evolved over hundreds of millions of years.

                                                                                                                                                    #74   Eugine 

                                                                                                                                                    • Master Adept
                                                                                                                                                    • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                                                                                                      • Group: Veterans
                                                                                                                                                      • Posts: 8,895
                                                                                                                                                      • Joined: 28-January 04
                                                                                                                                                      • Gender:Male
                                                                                                                                                      • AKA YouTube Dude

                                                                                                                                                      Posted 10 February 2008 - 12:08 PM

                                                                                                                                                      ^^.
                                                                                                                                                      What point are you trying to make anyway Charon? You just seem skeptical, rather than giving proof to show that those observations are inaccurate. If Evolution, no matter how minute it is, happened in this small time frame. Imagine what millions of years will produce.
                                                                                                                                                      But then, you seem to be the kind of people who believe the world began with Adam and Eve...

                                                                                                                                                      Also, you need to remember Endegenous retrovirus. This is a key evidence of Evolution.

                                                                                                                                                      #75   Toasty 

                                                                                                                                                      • The toast in your toaster
                                                                                                                                                      • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                                                                                                        • Group: Veterans
                                                                                                                                                        • Posts: 12,421
                                                                                                                                                        • Joined: 04-April 06
                                                                                                                                                        • Gender:Male
                                                                                                                                                        • Location:The toaster in your kitchen.
                                                                                                                                                        • Interests:Parkour, Martial Arts, Music, Network Administration,
                                                                                                                                                        • AKA The toast in the toaster in your kitchen.

                                                                                                                                                        Posted 10 February 2008 - 04:28 PM

                                                                                                                                                        View Post.eugine, on Feb 9 2008, 10:16 AM, said:

                                                                                                                                                        Science, specifically Evolution doesn't need faith. It needs only facts and observations.

                                                                                                                                                        http://www.youtube.c...h?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
                                                                                                                                                        This is just one of the many examples to show your statement is inaccurate x.x

                                                                                                                                                        In any case,
                                                                                                                                                        http://en.wikipedia...._moth_evolution
                                                                                                                                                        http://en.wikipedia....iki/Ambulocetus

                                                                                                                                                        lalala, anyway I can't really prove Evolution is true cuz I don't really know much about it unfortunately.


                                                                                                                                                        Not everything about evolution can be scientifically proven, so it takes faith to believe that it's true.

                                                                                                                                                        If evolution is true, then why didn't ALL of the primeapes evolve? The theory of evolution states that species evolve to fit a niche, to improve so that they can live in their environment more efficiently. So, why haven't monkeys gorillas, or orangutangs (sp?) evolved? It doesn't mean that they had to evolve into humans, but they haven't really changed.

                                                                                                                                                        And also, if evolution is true, where's the "missing link"?

                                                                                                                                                        #76   Eugine 

                                                                                                                                                        • Master Adept
                                                                                                                                                        • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                                                                                                          • Group: Veterans
                                                                                                                                                          • Posts: 8,895
                                                                                                                                                          • Joined: 28-January 04
                                                                                                                                                          • Gender:Male
                                                                                                                                                          • AKA YouTube Dude

                                                                                                                                                          Posted 10 February 2008 - 06:08 PM

                                                                                                                                                          http://karmatics.com/docs/evolution-still-...re-monkeys.html

                                                                                                                                                          This is why there are still monkeys, and this link vaguely explains why the monkeys in Africa are have not evolved.

                                                                                                                                                          And what missing link? http://en.wikipedia....iki/Ambulocetus ?

                                                                                                                                                          #77   kate 

                                                                                                                                                          • Master Adept
                                                                                                                                                          • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                                                                                                            • Group: Veterans
                                                                                                                                                            • Posts: 2,900
                                                                                                                                                            • Joined: 24-July 04
                                                                                                                                                            • Gender:Female
                                                                                                                                                            • Location:over thar
                                                                                                                                                            • Interests:rpgs (duh :P), internet (my precioussss)...other things computer related...and penguins! (penguin'd)
                                                                                                                                                            • AKA The Best Woman Ever.

                                                                                                                                                            Posted 10 February 2008 - 07:55 PM

                                                                                                                                                            Charon is allowed to be skeptical without supporting a different postion, that's the whole idea of devil's advocate. I just wish he would refute my points with actual backable evidence rather than just stating something and giving no reason. This will lead to a very sort of "he said she said" arguement. I'll respond more later when I'm able to process exactly what logic you believe you're basing these things on, since now it seems to just be you saying "no it isn't". First of all, I'd like you to show me the article or reference that you are getting this "homologous structures as embryos is false" idea from so that I can check what source it came from and do some investigation. Heck, if that's true, I could sue the education system for millions. And don't tell me you can't find it. This is the internet, everything's available. Secondly I find the idea that you're suggesting my textbook to be lying to be extremely unjust. On what basis are you deciding this? And don't tell me because Hitler wants us to believe in evolution, we live in a society of free speech, but when it comes to textbooks there are screenings in place to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen. However I won't stress that too much since there have been cases in the past where information has been skewed, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one. I don't need it anyways, I have science on my side. You say microevolution doesn't lead to macroevolution, and you say no good mutations exist. All very interesting points and I can see why you're confused about the idea, as micro evolution and macroevolution seem very different. However just because you say they aren't the same unfortunately doesn't make it so. I'll comment more on this later. For now I suggest just doing more research on how natural selection (working on micro evol. levels) leads to macro evolution. I think you'll be able to find some very reputable sources on the matter, and maybe once you're better informed you'll be able to make more intelligent arguements.

                                                                                                                                                            By the way, my nice little tree story? It really happened. Also I'd like to point out the main reason we say there's so much evidence to support evolution yet we don't show you much is because there's too much to write at one time. Plus it's very frustrating when all you do is read it a then refute it using reasoning not based on actual principles, or logic that has been twisted to suit your means.

                                                                                                                                                            All in all I think you just have to do more research before debating with me, or any of us, about this. You obviously aren't informed enough. Don't get me wrong, you know more than most people that I've had this debate with, but you've unfortunately learned only enough to make you think you know everything, while not seeing the bigger picture. If only you delved deeper perhaps you could raise some actual counterarguements instead of just, as I said, half points that aren't complete in their basis. Probably because if you actually researched into the basis of many of the points you're making you'd realize that it is only partly true, and in the end actually supports evolution.

                                                                                                                                                            However I doubt you're actually going to do that, seeing how you obviously think I'm the misinformed one, so if you like I can continue to point out the errors in your arguements. Honestly though you seem stubborn as a mule and I appreciate that, since I am too, so I think we should just agree to disagree. I do like a lively debate but I wouldn't like it to become heated (such as nitpicking at the way I write things when obviously I was doing it to add a comical aspect to a very long and boring post. if that makes me seem stupid, then I can rest assured in the fact that my reasoning is at least logical and can stand alone without any embellishment by me).

                                                                                                                                                            All in all, I can see what you're getting at, but you're just missing a few main ideas that would show you what I'm talking about. I'll make sure I address the issues of your post tomorrow, as I obviously need to get more specific in order for you to understand that many of your counterarguements have already been explained by science.

                                                                                                                                                            #78   Toasty 

                                                                                                                                                            • The toast in your toaster
                                                                                                                                                            • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
                                                                                                                                                              • Group: Veterans
                                                                                                                                                              • Posts: 12,421
                                                                                                                                                              • Joined: 04-April 06
                                                                                                                                                              • Gender:Male
                                                                                                                                                              • Location:The toaster in your kitchen.
                                                                                                                                                              • Interests:Parkour, Martial Arts, Music, Network Administration,
                                                                                                                                                              • AKA The toast in the toaster in your kitchen.

                                                                                                                                                              Posted 10 February 2008 - 08:13 PM

                                                                                                                                                              View Post.eugine, on Feb 10 2008, 04:08 PM, said:



                                                                                                                                                              I meant the one between humans and monkeys. Scientists have only been able to fake it so far. No one's found the "missing link" yet.


                                                                                                                                                              Page 1 of 1
                                                                                                                                                              • You cannot start a new topic
                                                                                                                                                              • You cannot reply to this topic