Debate over evolution now allowed in Tenn. schools

[Old Rocks]

In Tennessee, dingbats will be teaching the 'Poof' idiocy in science classes. And, when a real science teacher tries to teach real science, he or she will more than likely be dismissed by the school board at the behest of the most ignorant of parents.

 

[SniperFire]

In Tennessee, dingbats will be teaching the 'Poof' idiocy in science classes. And, when a real science teacher tries to teach real science, he or she will more than likely be dismissed by the school board at the behest of the most ignorant of parents.

You doomed-types are certainly scared shitless of a little debate amongst school kids, aren't you?


LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

Hell no. Not scared of debate at all. But science should be taught in science class, not religion. And ID is nothing but fundementalist religion in drag. The courts rightly labeled it thus.

 

[SniperFire]

Hell no. Not scared of debate at all. But science should be taught in science class, not religion. And ID is nothing but fundementalist religion in drag. The courts rightly labeled it thus.

You doomed-souls are, in fact, shitting your pants.

A modest discussion of competing theories of evolution by school kids is not teaching fundamentalist religion, no matter how many times you want to obfuscate the truth.

 

[Si modo]

Ah. By the same standard, ID has been tested implicitly.

But, by definition, ID is not scientific.

That is your opinion, certainly shared by those trying to protect their state-approved mythologies from scrutiny.

In Tennessee, they will be openly debating it in public school.

It's not an opinion; it's a DEFINITION.

 

[Old Rocks]

Which competing evolutionary theories? Lamarkism is dead, as is ID. Right now, with the evidence from geology, paleontology, and genetics, Darwin's theory in it's modern form is the only theory that explains what we see in life.

So trot out your competing evolutionary theories. And the peer reviewed articles in which they are expounded.

 

[zeke]

Well hell Snipper. Lets not wait for a few school kids to have this debate.

You go ahead and post your "proof" on the beginning of life and the earth as the Bible describes it.

Should be a piece of cake and then we can discuss your proofs vs the scientific thought process of the beginning of everything.

I got a feeling your "proof" will be coming from the Bible. Not the most scientific of books.
The Bible does not lend itself to scientific debate very well. You either believe what it says or you don't.

You think that is "science"?

 

[Old Rocks]

Hell no. Not scared of debate at all. But science should be taught in science class, not religion. And ID is nothing but fundementalist religion in drag. The courts rightly labeled it thus.

You doomed-souls are, in fact, shitting your pants.

A modest discussion of competing theories of evolution by school kids is not teaching fundamentalist religion, no matter how many times you want to obfuscate the truth.

Doomed by what, and when? Your assumption of a soul is not shared by all. And your assumptions of what supposedly dooms souls is not shared by that many that believe in that construct.

 

[Nosmo King]

Hell no. Not scared of debate at all. But science should be taught in science class, not religion. And ID is nothing but fundementalist religion in drag. The courts rightly labeled it thus.

You doomed-souls are, in fact, shitting your pants.

A modest discussion of competing theories of evolution by school kids is not teaching fundamentalist religion, no matter how many times you want to obfuscate the truth.

But Intelligent Design has been roundly refuted. There is no science attached to the Intelligent Design manifesto. It has been debunked.

Why waste time arguing something that does not rise to the threshold of science?

And if, indeed, we are shitting our pants, as you so lovely said, it is because we are incredulous that anyone would want to drag out the dead puppy that Intelligent Design truly is.

 

[konradv]

Hell no. Not scared of debate at all. But science should be taught in science class, not religion. And ID is nothing but fundementalist religion in drag. The courts rightly labeled it thus.

You doomed-souls are, in fact, shitting your pants.

A modest discussion of competing theories of evolution by school kids is not teaching fundamentalist religion, no matter how many times you want to obfuscate the truth.

They aren't competing theories of evolution, at least not in the scientific sense. For it to be so, a theory must be testable, which ID isn't.

 

[SniperFire]

But, by definition, ID is not scientific.

That is your opinion, certainly shared by those trying to protect their state-approved mythologies from scrutiny.

In Tennessee, they will be openly debating it in public school.

It's not an opinion; it's a DEFINITION.

sigh...

'Is Intelligent Design science? In its pure form, yes.

However most advocates and opponents do not know what the Intelligent Design hypothesis is. The Intelligent Design (ID) hypothesis states that an "intelligent designer" sometimes modifies the natural world and that these modifications can be detected (reference). ID does not contradict evolution, but claims only that evolution may be incomplete.'

politics1: Is Intelligent Design science?


Modifications can be tested, just like background radiation from the Big Bang.

You must suck at science.

 

[Si modo]

Hell no. Not scared of debate at all. But science should be taught in science class, not religion. And ID is nothing but fundementalist religion in drag. The courts rightly labeled it thus.

You doomed-souls are, in fact, shitting your pants.

A modest discussion of competing theories of evolution by school kids is not teaching fundamentalist religion, no matter how many times you want to obfuscate the truth.

They aren't competing theories of evolution, at least not in the scientific sense. For it to be so, a theory must be testable, which ID isn't.

Right. And, falsifiable, which it ALSO isn't.

ID, BY DEFINITION, is not a scientific theory.

 

[Si modo]

That is your opinion, certainly shared by those trying to protect their state-approved mythologies from scrutiny.

In Tennessee, they will be openly debating it in public school.

It's not an opinion; it's a DEFINITION.

sigh...

'Is Intelligent Design science? In its pure form, yes.

However most advocates and opponents do not know what the Intelligent Design hypothesis is. The Intelligent Design (ID) hypothesis states that an "intelligent designer" sometimes modifies the natural world and that these modifications can be detected (reference). ID does not contradict evolution, but claims only that evolution may be incomplete.'

politics1: Is Intelligent Design science?


Modifications can be tested, just like background radiation from the Big Bang.

You must suck at science.

You hate definitions, for some reason.

By DEFINITION, ID is not scientific.

The definition of what makes a theory scientific was posted for you yesterday. You obviously have no interest in knowing what the definition is.

Thus, my question asking if you are a masochist, or if you just enjoy looking like a fool.

 

[Old Rocks]

That is your opinion, certainly shared by those trying to protect their state-approved mythologies from scrutiny.

In Tennessee, they will be openly debating it in public school.

It's not an opinion; it's a DEFINITION.

sigh...

'Is Intelligent Design science? In its pure form, yes.

However most advocates and opponents do not know what the Intelligent Design hypothesis is. The Intelligent Design (ID) hypothesis states that an "intelligent designer" sometimes modifies the natural world and that these modifications can be detected (reference). ID does not contradict evolution, but claims only that evolution may be incomplete.'

politics1: Is Intelligent Design science?


Modifications can be tested, just like background radiation from the Big Bang.

You must suck at science.

Your so called modifications have been tested, and come up short. Even before Behe coined the term, many of his irrudicible examples had been reduced.

I suggest you not use blogs for scientific subjects. There are more than enough real scientific journals out there, with real peer reviewed articles, to link to if your point had any validity at all.

 

[SniperFire]

It's not an opinion; it's a DEFINITION.

sigh...

'Is Intelligent Design science? In its pure form, yes.

However most advocates and opponents do not know what the Intelligent Design hypothesis is. The Intelligent Design (ID) hypothesis states that an "intelligent designer" sometimes modifies the natural world and that these modifications can be detected (reference). ID does not contradict evolution, but claims only that evolution may be incomplete.'

politics1: Is Intelligent Design science?


Modifications can be tested, just like background radiation from the Big Bang.

You must suck at science.

You hate definitions, for some reason.

By DEFINITION, ID is not scientific.

You keep insisting that, and others disagree with you.

Stop being such a Neanderthal and dismissing things you fear and don't understand as wrong.

 

[SniperFire]

It's not an opinion; it's a DEFINITION.

sigh...

'Is Intelligent Design science? In its pure form, yes.

However most advocates and opponents do not know what the Intelligent Design hypothesis is. The Intelligent Design (ID) hypothesis states that an "intelligent designer" sometimes modifies the natural world and that these modifications can be detected (reference). ID does not contradict evolution, but claims only that evolution may be incomplete.'

politics1: Is Intelligent Design science?


Modifications can be tested, just like background radiation from the Big Bang.

You must suck at science.

Your so called modifications have been tested, and come up short.

In the field of microbiology, the early tests to prove the theories also came up short.

Aren't you glad they didn't listen to the flat-earthers?

 

[konradv]

That is your opinion, certainly shared by those trying to protect their state-approved mythologies from scrutiny.

In Tennessee, they will be openly debating it in public school.

It's not an opinion; it's a DEFINITION.

sigh...

'Is Intelligent Design science? In its pure form, yes.

However most advocates and opponents do not know what the Intelligent Design hypothesis is. The Intelligent Design (ID) hypothesis states that an "intelligent designer" sometimes modifies the natural world and that these modifications can be detected (reference). ID does not contradict evolution, but claims only that evolution may be incomplete.'

politics1: Is Intelligent Design science?


Modifications can be tested, just like background radiation from the Big Bang.

You must suck at science.

Modifications don't prove design. Modifications have been happening for billions of years. Since the designer can't be tested, how can any such modifactions be proven to be the result of design.

One obvious situation that implies randomness rather than design is in the way DNA is coded with respect to which amino acids go with which codons. Some AAs have only one codon, while some have as many as six. Doesn't sound like design to me!

 

[Si modo]

sigh...

'Is Intelligent Design science? In its pure form, yes.

However most advocates and opponents do not know what the Intelligent Design hypothesis is. The Intelligent Design (ID) hypothesis states that an "intelligent designer" sometimes modifies the natural world and that these modifications can be detected (reference). ID does not contradict evolution, but claims only that evolution may be incomplete.'

politics1: Is Intelligent Design science?


Modifications can be tested, just like background radiation from the Big Bang.

You must suck at science.

You hate definitions, for some reason.

By DEFINITION, ID is not scientific.

You keep insisting that, and others disagree with you.

Stop being such a Neanderthal and dismissing things you fear and don't understand as wrong.

. You keep dismissing science and definitions. I don't know why you do. Maybe you're just another hack who wants to soil science, too?



Anyway, I don't give a shit if "others" disagree with me or not. Science doesn't operate by consensus.

ID, BY DEFINITION, is not scientific. I gave you a link to what makes a theory scientific. You were too lazy to read it (or maybe you did and it's over your head).

But, you keep posting like a fool.

 

[Nosmo King]

sigh...

'Is Intelligent Design science? In its pure form, yes.

However most advocates and opponents do not know what the Intelligent Design hypothesis is. The Intelligent Design (ID) hypothesis states that an "intelligent designer" sometimes modifies the natural world and that these modifications can be detected (reference). ID does not contradict evolution, but claims only that evolution may be incomplete.'

politics1: Is Intelligent Design science?


Modifications can be tested, just like background radiation from the Big Bang.

You must suck at science.

You hate definitions, for some reason.

By DEFINITION, ID is not scientific.

You keep insisting that, and others disagree with you.

Stop being such a Neanderthal and dismissing things you fear and don't understand as wrong.

Intelligent Design, aside from being scientifically repudiated, is basically a call to surrender. According to the Intelligent Design agenda, some things are just too tough to understand so we should give up and attribute the changes in the natural world to magic. This is not a scientific approach, is it?

If the religious right wants to force surrender on science, where will the armistice be signed? At the edge of our known world, or right here on the desks of under educated students?

 

[Old Rocks]

sigh...

'Is Intelligent Design science? In its pure form, yes.

However most advocates and opponents do not know what the Intelligent Design hypothesis is. The Intelligent Design (ID) hypothesis states that an "intelligent designer" sometimes modifies the natural world and that these modifications can be detected (reference). ID does not contradict evolution, but claims only that evolution may be incomplete.'

politics1: Is Intelligent Design science?


Modifications can be tested, just like background radiation from the Big Bang.

You must suck at science.

Your so called modifications have been tested, and come up short.

In the field of microbiology, the early tests to prove the theories also came up short.

Aren't you glad they didn't listen to the flat-earthers?

LOL. Knew it all along. It was Aphrodite that made the modifications. Along with a little help. LOL