The only issue I see is intelligent design could be just as much of a scientific theory as the big bang. There are things currently taught in science class that haven't been proven as fact but they are assumed as fact because there is evidence that fits, but just because something fits doesn't prove something as fact. If you take the definition of science nowhere in the definition does it say itelligent design must be excluded from science. That's just what the more limited definition that the courts created came up with.
YAY! To Judge Ruling Against ID Being Taught In Science Class
- Thread starter squeak9798
- Live activity
- Replies 240
- Views 1K
The only issue I see is intelligent design could be just as much of a scientific theory as the big bang. There are things currently taught in science class that haven't been proven as fact but they are assumed as fact because there is evidence that fits, but just because something fits doesn't prove something as fact. If you take the definition of science nowhere in the definition does it say itelligent design must be excluded from science. That's just what the more limited definition that the courts created came up with.
Saying life and earth can't exist without a God, is just as crazy as saying life and earth can exist without a God.
Take a philosophy class and you'll start to see that neither side can prove their case. Both sides come down to belief. Belief that there is a God or belief that there isn't a God. Believing in the idea that science can explain everything and believing in the idea that science only explains part of the story but doesn't explain everything.
We can all agree that in the end some will be right and others will be wrong.
Mark_ab
5,000+ posts
The Alpha Male
Cognitive dissonance and naive realism rule the opinions of people
In 50 years see where you all stand on the matter
In 50 years see where you all stand on the matter
SirSyko
10+ year member
Delusional Psychotic
Is it really that obvious? Show me just one piece of evidence so I can see how far out of my mind I am.
Ill give you one: Oldest living tree is under 5k years old.. Why is that?
http://www.rmtrr.org/oldlist.htm
HiAmplidude
10+ year member
CarAudio.com Elite
"Science is the light that illuminates God's work"
Scientific theory is a stage of science that has at least reached the level where there is physical evidence to support the concept.
Intelligent design is a concept based on faith transmitted through words and no physical evidence to support the concept. It can't be scientific theory.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all about God, but you can't stuff cooking theory into a car audio concepts class and hope that it educates the students.
For science teach science. For God share God.
Scientific theory is a stage of science that has at least reached the level where there is physical evidence to support the concept.
Intelligent design is a concept based on faith transmitted through words and no physical evidence to support the concept. It can't be scientific theory.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all about God, but you can't stuff cooking theory into a car audio concepts class and hope that it educates the students.
For science teach science. For God share God.
Justinw303
10+ year member
[Space for Rent]
The idea that life spontaneously evolved out of nothing is even more ridiculous than the belief that there is a supreme being that created all of us for a purpose.
Think about this:
Isn't one of the theories of evolution that a species will evolve to adapt to a new environment, or to survive? Well, why would there ever be a need for a monkey to evolve into a human? Isn't the world perfect and peaceful without us? Why would a monkey need to change into something that can talk and chop down trees and kill off other species?
Think about this:
Isn't one of the theories of evolution that a species will evolve to adapt to a new environment, or to survive? Well, why would there ever be a need for a monkey to evolve into a human? Isn't the world perfect and peaceful without us? Why would a monkey need to change into something that can talk and chop down trees and kill off other species?
Pretty much sums it up yet again.
HeatSeeker
10+ year member
Oh lawds
Except for the fact that evolution states no such thing, never has and never will.........
SirSyko
10+ year member
Delusional Psychotic
It doesnt? Even though an animal reaches its perfection towards it's environment, it still keeps changing? What kind of evolution is this? Why did we lose our tails? I think tails would be pretty handy. Why are we able to think in an evil way? These are not beneficial changes.
Rocks evolved into so many different types of species, apples, dogs, fish.
There are so many different kind of fish, different kind of fruit; yet only one kind of human.
You may think its because evolution is getting us so close to perfection...
How come we lost a cobra's reaction?
Why did we lose a Tiger's strength?
Evolution has no answers for this, ID does.
adio
5,000+ posts
THE STEREOTYPE FIGHTER!!!
i'm back
evolution= something from nothing (yu can't create life from nonlife, bacteria had to be alive for them to evolve, but how did they become alive in the first place?)
ID= something from something
and there's 2 kinds of evolution, microevolution and macroevolution
micro= different kinds of dogs and coyotes, wolves and dogs
macro= ape to man
Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. if this is true, why isn't macroevolution happening today, since the earth and our environment are rapidly changing? some type of mutation would be beneficial to us, but usally mutations are detrimental to us.
the basic criteria necessary for a theory to qualify as scientific:
• Consistent (internally and externally)
• Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
• Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
• Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
• Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
• Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
• Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
• Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)
Can the theory of evolution be tested?
Evolution, when addressing common descent, is largely a historical science. This means that it relates to actions that are supposed to have happened in the distant past, and this makes testing the theory complicated because, unless time travel is invented, we cannot directly test the theory.
However, this does not mean that the theory is not testable at all. As with other historical investigations, you can make predictions and retrodictions (to utilize present information or ideas to infer or explain a past event or state of affairs - e.g., to "retrodict past eclipses" as opposed to predicting future eclipses) based on the theory.
What this means is that we can state that we would expect to find certain things (say, certain types of fossils) when looking at the historical record, and if those things are found, it supports the theory (if they're not found, then what??-----me). Thus, while we cannot perform the kind of direct tests like we can in physics and chemistry, the general theory of evolution is testable just as other historical theories are testable.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_evo_micro.htm
evolution= something from nothing (yu can't create life from nonlife, bacteria had to be alive for them to evolve, but how did they become alive in the first place?)
ID= something from something
and there's 2 kinds of evolution, microevolution and macroevolution
micro= different kinds of dogs and coyotes, wolves and dogs
macro= ape to man
Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. if this is true, why isn't macroevolution happening today, since the earth and our environment are rapidly changing? some type of mutation would be beneficial to us, but usally mutations are detrimental to us.
the basic criteria necessary for a theory to qualify as scientific:
• Consistent (internally and externally)
• Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
• Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
• Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
• Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
• Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
• Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
• Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)
Can the theory of evolution be tested?
Evolution, when addressing common descent, is largely a historical science. This means that it relates to actions that are supposed to have happened in the distant past, and this makes testing the theory complicated because, unless time travel is invented, we cannot directly test the theory.
However, this does not mean that the theory is not testable at all. As with other historical investigations, you can make predictions and retrodictions (to utilize present information or ideas to infer or explain a past event or state of affairs - e.g., to "retrodict past eclipses" as opposed to predicting future eclipses) based on the theory.
What this means is that we can state that we would expect to find certain things (say, certain types of fossils) when looking at the historical record, and if those things are found, it supports the theory (if they're not found, then what??-----me). Thus, while we cannot perform the kind of direct tests like we can in physics and chemistry, the general theory of evolution is testable just as other historical theories are testable.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_evo_micro.htm
adio
5,000+ posts
THE STEREOTYPE FIGHTER!!!
yeah, read it and visit the website. after that, answer this:
is there ever such a thing as effect without cause (big bang theory)?
can life come from non-life (non-living bacteria coming to life and evolving)?
if your answer to both of these is a 100% yes, regardless of what your explanation is, we are idiots to each other and we all wasted time explaining to each other all 12 -13 pages of this stuff.
is there ever such a thing as effect without cause (big bang theory)?
can life come from non-life (non-living bacteria coming to life and evolving)?
if your answer to both of these is a 100% yes, regardless of what your explanation is, we are idiots to each other and we all wasted time explaining to each other all 12 -13 pages of this stuff.
HeatSeeker
10+ year member
Oh lawds
Wow, such horrible misinformation, don't even know where to begin, brain cells dying, *** wrinkling, penis shriveling, no offense, but the stupidity in this post killed me. Thanks a lot.//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/frown.gif.a3531fa0534503350665a1e957861287.gif
SirSyko
10+ year member
Delusional Psychotic
Thats the response I expected, so negative. You have yet to show any information in any of your posts.
SirSyko
10+ year member
Delusional Psychotic
No.
adio
5,000+ posts
THE STEREOTYPE FIGHTER!!!
the 2nd and third paragraph did it for me
Activity
No one is currently typing a reply...
About this thread
