Debate over evolution now allowed in Tenn. schools

[Si modo]

Perhaps, but such is a debate for a theology class. Please focus on the debate for science class.

Sure.

Why do you want non-science taught in science classes?

You are one close-minded Neanderthal, dude.

Well, that's not an answer to my question.

 

[SniperFire]

Obviously you're saying that anyone that buys in to the basic elementary level of science that says ID is not a scientific theory is a "doomed soul."

Well, no. Your logical argumentative fallacy in this instance is known as non-sequitur.

Your conclusion does not follow. Look that up.

Let me know when you begin to realize you are in way, way over your head here.


LOL

 

[Erand7899]

The claim of irreducible complexity is a nice talking point but it has zero basis in actual scientific fact.

Irreducible complexity is not a claim, it is a scientific principle that has to be ignored to allow the accidental creation theory of life to exist. The most basic cell known today has thousands of components, each of which is absolutely necessary to the function and recreation of that cell. The idea that all of these thousands of individual components created themselves in close proximity to all of the others, and then like a jigsaw puzzle, fitted themselves together perfectly to form a simple cell capable of reproduction, is not science, it is lunacy.

If you really want to have some scientific fun, try and find the source and beneficial attributes of bi-sexual reproduction.

 

[Si modo]

The claim of irreducible complexity is a nice talking point but it has zero basis in actual scientific fact.

Irreducible complexity is not a claim, it is a scientific principle that has to be ignored to allow the accidental creation theory of life to exist. The most basic cell known today has thousands of components, each of which is absolutely necessary to the function and recreation of that cell. The idea that all of these thousands of individual components created themselves in close proximity to all of the others, and then like a jigsaw puzzle, fitted themselves together perfectly to form a simple cell capable of reproduction, is not science, it is lunacy.

If you really want to have some scientific fun, try and find the source and beneficial attributes of bi-sexual reproduction.

Ummm, there is nothing scientific about "irreducible complexity" as the ID proponents use it.

 

[SniperFire]

Sure.

Why do you want non-science taught in science classes?

You are one close-minded Neanderthal, dude.

Well, that's not an answer to my question.

Your logical fallacy in this instance is known as 'petitio principii.'


Look that up.


LOL

 

[SniperFire]

The claim of irreducible complexity is a nice talking point but it has zero basis in actual scientific fact.

Irreducible complexity is not a claim, it is a scientific principle that has to be ignored to allow the accidental creation theory of life to exist. The most basic cell known today has thousands of components, each of which is absolutely necessary to the function and recreation of that cell. The idea that all of these thousands of individual components created themselves in close proximity to all of the others, and then like a jigsaw puzzle, fitted themselves together perfectly to form a simple cell capable of reproduction, is not science, it is lunacy.

If you really want to have some scientific fun, try and find the source and beneficial attributes of bi-sexual reproduction.

Ummm, there is nothing scientific about "irreducible complexity" as the ID proponents use it.

You will quickly learn, Erand, that this Si modo guy is a flat-earther incapable of thinking outside of the box. Scares him shitless to have his mythology threatened.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Obviously you're saying that anyone that buys in to the basic elementary level of science that says ID is not a scientific theory is a "doomed soul."

Well, no. Your logical argumentative fallacy in this instance is known as non-sequitur.

Your conclusion does not follow. Look that up.

Let me know when you begin to realize you are in way, way over your head here.


LOL

By all means, plz clarify what you know about Si Modo other than her knowledge of scientific theories and definitions that caused you to conclude she has a "doomed soul."

And evidence to back your claim after you make it please.

And thank you.

 

[amrchaos]

Far more rational to think God decides the outcome of sports games, or decides if you'll get a mosquito bite, or if the kid is gonna over cook your McDouble.

Perhaps, but such is a debate for a theology class. Please focus on the debate for science class.

Sure.

Why do you want non-science taught in science classes?

I don't think the bill opens the door for creationism to be taught in the classroom

What it does is open an examination of sceintific theories to students.


Of course, I do see the point of others. This can be used to introduce ID as a supposedly alternative theory. A very dangerous precident indeed, but the need for students to question outweighs the introduction of bogus theories. In fact, such theories can be useful to understand why many scientist disregads them.

 

[Si modo]

You are one close-minded Neanderthal, dude.

Well, that's not an answer to my question.

Your logical fallacy in this instance is known as 'petitio principii.'


Look that up.


LOL

You deny basic definitions of what a scientific theory is.

You dodge simple questions.

I could go on, but there really is little that is NOT a logical fallacy of your "argument". And, you resort to dishonesty.

So, let's go back to the questions I posed to you based on your denial of what a scientific theory is:

If a theory is not falsifiable, by definition, it is not a scientific theory.

Falsifiability, by definition, is a real or hypothetical data set that falsifies the theory. There must exist some data set, either real or imagined, that will make the theory false.

So, what is that real or hypothetical data set that disproves ID? It shouldn't be hard to come up with one as you simply can make one up.

And your answer is?

 

[SniperFire]

Perhaps, but such is a debate for a theology class. Please focus on the debate for science class.

Sure.

Why do you want non-science taught in science classes?

I don't think the bill opens the door for creationism to be taught in the classroom

What it does is open an examination of sceintific theories to students.


Of course, I do see the point of others. This can be used to introduce ID as a supposedly alternative theory. A very dangerous precident indeed, but the need for students to question outweighs the introduction of bogus theories. In fact, such theories can be useful to understand why many scientist disregads them.

A very logical and reasoned take. Skepticism is healthy.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Evolution is not taught as a fact, unless the science teacher is incompetent (which is quite possible in public school). It's taught as a scientific theory, because that's exactly what it is.

ID is not a scientific theory, by definition.

Evolution is a fact. THe theroy of evolution explains that fact

The greatest human minds once stomped their feet and insisted the world was flat. While I basically agree with you that there has been a progression of species, you should be careful on what you insist to be 'fact' in the face of our limited understanding.

But the good news is we are still debating it, especially in Tennessee!

You're the one with limited understanding, the rest of us aren't complete clueless idiots

 

[amrchaos]

(For Si Modo)

How about "There is no God?"

Oh wait, you can't prove there is or there is not a god so that flies out the window in such a data set.


Hmmm...Tough one!

 

[SniperFire]

So, let's go back to the questions I posed to you ?

You have been spanked quite enough. There seems to have been some much brighter posters attracted to the conversation at this point.


You should just sit back and read.

 

[SniperFire]

Evolution is a fact. THe theroy of evolution explains that fact

The greatest human minds once stomped their feet and insisted the world was flat. While I basically agree with you that there has been a progression of species, you should be careful on what you insist to be 'fact' in the face of our limited understanding.

But the good news is we are still debating it, especially in Tennessee!

You're the one with limited understanding, the rest of us aren't complete clueless idiots

You insist!

ROTFL

 

[Si modo]

(For Si Modo)

How about "There is no God?"

Oh wait, you can't prove there is or there is not a god so that flies out the window in such a data set.


Hmmm...Tough one!

Right.

Even trying to find a hypothetical data set that falsifies ID is quite difficult. ID, if one accepts it, applies to everything. The "God did it" theory can't be falsified.

Now personally, I believe that a god is behind everything. But, that is not science or a scientific theory.

 

[Si modo]

You deny basic definitions of what a scientific theory is.

You dodge simple questions.

I could go on, but there really is little that is NOT a logical fallacy of your "argument". And, you resort to dishonesty.

So, let's go back to the questions I posed to you based on your denial of what a scientific theory is:

If a theory is not falsifiable, by definition, it is not a scientific theory.

Falsifiability, by definition, is a real or hypothetical data set that falsifies the theory. There must exist some data set, either real or imagined, that will make the theory false.

So, what is that real or hypothetical data set that disproves ID? It shouldn't be hard to come up with one as you simply can make one up.

And your answer is?

You have been spanked quite enough. There seems to have been some much brighter posters attracted to the conversation at this point.


You should just sit back and read.

As I said, you dodge and you are dishonest. (The bolded is what you eliminated in your quote of my words.)

I understand why you cannot answer the question, though.



And, I'll neg you again for your consistent dishonesty. When you resort to that, it is obvious you KNOW you have little to offer.

 

[Erand7899]

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.

Yes, lawyers are real scientists, and if they deem intelligent design to be nothing more than religion in disguise, then it must be so. Try to recreate an immune system without intelligent design. Since the lack of one is a death sentence, how do you imagine that evolved over millions of years?

 

[Dr.Drock]

(For Si Modo)

How about "There is no God?"

Oh wait, you can't prove there is or there is not a god so that flies out the window in such a data set.


Hmmm...Tough one!

I've never seen Si Modo on this thread or any thread say science disproves the existence of a god or gods.

 

[boilermaker55]

So, let's go back to the questions I posed to you ?

You have been spanked quite enough. There seems to have been some much brighter posters attracted to the conversation at this point.


You should just sit back and read.

It is quite obvious you have never studied anything in your shallowed life, other than insults.
There is a great difference in how different religions would want "their" creationism taught, but that is beyond your comprehension.
So if all you have are insults you are not worth responding too unless you are so wrong it is sad to let you post your lies. Which is 100% of the time.

 

[BDBoop]

A victory for freedom of thought and individualism in the school, and a stinging defeat for the secular mind police. We enjoy freedom of speech, not freedom from speech you find disagreeable.



'NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- A bill that encourages classroom debate over evolution will become law in Tennessee, despite a veto campaign mounted by scientists and civil libertarians who say it will reopen a decades-old controversy over teaching creationism to the state's schoolchildren.'

Tenn. governor allows evolution debate bill to become law

Imagine the lively debate and opening of minds which can now flourish in the previously flat-earther science rooms across Tenn, and hopefully the rest of America!

LOVE it. That's how it should be.