jimshiz Posted August 10, 2005 Posted August 10, 2005 If you accept his argument for not teaching "creationism" or "intelligent design" in a science classroom: Science = the study of repeatable, observable, natural phenomena. Then why doesn't he use the same argument to keep Darwin's Theory of Evolution out of the science classroom?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 10, 2005 Posted August 10, 2005 If you accept his argument for not teaching "creationism" or "intelligent design" in a science classroom:Then why doesn't he use the same argument to keep Darwin's Theory of Evolution out of the science classroom? 403658[/snapback] Uh, because evolution is a repeatable, observable, natural phenomenon? Ask anyone who's ever cultured E. Coli.
RuntheDamnBall Posted August 10, 2005 Author Posted August 10, 2005 If you accept his argument for not teaching "creationism" or "intelligent design" in a science classroom:Then why doesn't he use the same argument to keep Darwin's Theory of Evolution out of the science classroom? 403658[/snapback] Because he isn't arguing for not teaching ID. He's arguing for teaching it along with another ID theory. The argument, outside of the joke, is over a basis in science vs. a basis in religion, as the foundation for science classes.
Reuben Gant Posted August 10, 2005 Posted August 10, 2005 Intelligent Design vs. Evolution Fun with False Dichotomy
RuntheDamnBall Posted August 10, 2005 Author Posted August 10, 2005 Intelligent Design vs. Evolution Fun with False Dichotomy 403674[/snapback] True enough.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted August 10, 2005 Posted August 10, 2005 Uh, because evolution is a repeatable, observable, natural phenomenon? Ask anyone who's ever cultured E. Coli. 403663[/snapback] Context. They aren't teaching Darwin's Theory on Evolution with an empathis on E. Coli, they are teaching it regarding human beings. And teaching it as fact for the most part. One has to wonder though, if we evolved from monkeys and apes, why are there still monkeys and apes? Care to post evidence on Human evolution that is a repeatable, observable, natural phenomenon?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 10, 2005 Posted August 10, 2005 Context. They aren't teaching Darwin's Theory on Evolution with an empathis on E. Coli, they are teaching it regarding human beings. And teaching it as fact for the most part. One has to wonder though, if we evolved from monkeys and apes, why are there still monkeys and apes? Care to post evidence on Human evolution that is a repeatable, observable, natural phenomenon? 403677[/snapback] Variation in the simian genome from species to species good enough for you? Probably not...that would require actual understanding, whereas it's much easier to whitewash it with "God did it". "If humans evolved from apes, then why are there apes?" Christ, that's so !@#$ing stupid you shouldn't even need it explained.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted August 10, 2005 Posted August 10, 2005 Variation in the simian genome from species to species good enough for you? Probably not...that would require actual understanding, whereas it's much easier to whitewash it with "God did it". "If humans evolved from apes, then why are there apes?" Christ, that's so !@#$ing stupid you shouldn't even need it explained. 403686[/snapback] Where did I say anything about God? Were you too !@#$ing stupid to pass your reading comprehension class? Variation in the simian genome = proof positive of human evolution. Got it. Thank "God" you're here to break all this down for us incapable of actual understanding...
sweet baboo Posted August 10, 2005 Posted August 10, 2005 One has to wonder though, if we evolved from monkeys and apes, why are there still monkeys and apes? Care to post evidence on Human evolution that is a repeatable, observable, natural phenomenon? 403677[/snapback] Think of them as our retarded cousins. We're cousins to the chimps because we descended from a common ancestor. We didn't descend from any living primate. It's easier to understand the mechanism of evolution if you think about how languages evolve. People get seperated by a little distance, a mountain or body of water, and the language within a few generations begins to diverge. That's how speciation occurs too -- gene pools get cut off from each other, and eventually begin to diverge. It's not like one day a monkey gives birth to a human. It should also be noted that evolution does not require that one species that leads to another necessarily become extinct. It is possible for one species to "evolve" from another, with the original species still surviving in its own niche elsewhere. It's not as likely as what usually happens, but it's still possible.
Reuben Gant Posted August 10, 2005 Posted August 10, 2005 There are cavemen in those Geico commercials. That is good enough for me.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 10, 2005 Posted August 10, 2005 Where did I say anything about God? Were you too !@#$ing stupid to pass your reading comprehension class? Variation in the simian genome = proof positive of human evolution. Got it. Thank "God" you're here to break all this down for us incapable of actual understanding... 403696[/snapback] Then whitewash it with whatever term you chose to use. "The Intelligent Designer did it." And thank God I didn't simplify it any further. You misunderstood me so badly with what I DID present, I shudder to think of how confused you'd be if I really tried to explain things to you. Apparently, some of us have not evolved as far from monkeys as others have...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted August 10, 2005 Posted August 10, 2005 Then whitewash it with whatever term you chose to use. "The Intelligent Designer did it." And thank God I didn't simplify it any further. You misunderstood me so badly with what I DID present, I shudder to think of how confused you'd be if I really tried to explain things to you. Apparently, some of us have not evolved as far from monkeys as others have... 403729[/snapback] While I'm still not sure that we've evolved from monkeys, you're starting to make me think that some of us have evolved from a monkey's ****. Why don't you explain to me how I misunderstood you, or you could just keep up with the ad hominem attacks. They seem to suit you. All that (apparent) intelligence and here you are wasting away on a message board instead of curing cancer or inventing the flying car. What a waste...
Lemur King Posted August 10, 2005 Posted August 10, 2005 Context. They aren't teaching Darwin's Theory on Evolution with an empathis on E. Coli, they are teaching it regarding human beings. And teaching it as fact for the most part. One has to wonder though, if we evolved from monkeys and apes, why are there still monkeys and apes? Care to post evidence on Human evolution that is a repeatable, observable, natural phenomenon? 403677[/snapback] Of course evolution is a theory. At the moment, it's the best scientific predictor of what has been observed at a macro (monkeys through all their more upright varieties towards humans) level, as well as a micro (gene based) level. It's not perfect because it can't explain everything, but it's science... not religion. As to why we coexist with apes, lots of species that evolved from each other coexist, or coexisted. Many of the Homobillinnyceous tree overlapped for thousands of years. See Wiki chart on overlaps of homo species
N.Y. Orangeman Posted August 10, 2005 Posted August 10, 2005 Can we just address the point at hand: what role did the flying spaghetti monster play in the extinciton of the pirates?
Gavin in Va Beach Posted August 10, 2005 Posted August 10, 2005 Of course evolution is a theory. At the moment, it's the best scientific predictor of what has been observed at a macro (monkeys through all their more upright varieties towards humans) level, as well as a micro (gene based) level. It's not perfect because it can't explain everything, but it's science... not religion. As to why we coexist with apes, lots of species that evolved from each other coexist, or coexisted. Many of the Homobillinnyceous tree overlapped for thousands of years. See Wiki chart on overlaps of homo species 403770[/snapback] Thanks. Interesting stuff. Question: Does 'Intelligent Design' necessarily HAVE to be equated with religion/labeled as 'quasi-religious', or is it possible that it could be true without any religious connotations?
Reuben Gant Posted August 10, 2005 Posted August 10, 2005 Thanks. Interesting stuff. Question: Does 'Intelligent Design' necessarily HAVE to be equated with religion or be even be labeled as 'quasi-religious', or is it possible that it could be true without any religious connotations? 403778[/snapback] The trouble with intelligent design is that it postulates a missing set, i.e an intelligence outside of the data; if you have a theory that postulates that there is something outside the data that is creating [/i]all the data, then it is non-falsifiable. Anything that is non-falsifiable outside of a data set is something other than science as it is modernly understood.
OnTheRocks Posted August 10, 2005 Posted August 10, 2005 i have always believed it takes more faith to belive in evolution than it does to believe "In the beginning God created".
RuntheDamnBall Posted August 10, 2005 Author Posted August 10, 2005 i have always believed it takes more faith to belive in evolution than it does to believe "In the beginning God created". 403790[/snapback] But the latter is a non-scientific theory that cannot be investigated in a science classroom any further than it already has.
Lemur King Posted August 10, 2005 Posted August 10, 2005 Question: Does 'Intelligent Design' necessarily HAVE to be equated with religion/labeled as 'quasi-religious', or is it possible that it could be true without any religious connotations? 403778[/snapback] It can be true, I guess, and I have no problem with discussing ID in a metaphysical perspective. Aristotle speculated on ID, as have many since. ID is just the end game that says all things originate with god. That's not science. It's philosophy. You can't test ID (yet?). You can't predict using ID. These are two pretty big failings of ID as science.
Recommended Posts