Debate over evolution now allowed in Tenn. schools

[SniperFire]

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

You 'believe' in a Master Scientist, well, actually not just a practitioner but the freaking CREATOR of the science, but insist such a wiz has nothing to do with science.

Imagine how absurd you sound to the logical amongst us.


LOL

 

[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.

Sniper I believe you accidentally missed this post.

 

[pinqy]

God stopping the sun and making it go backwards requires it:

Rather stupid take. That God once 'stopped' the sun does not support your contention.

My contention is that the sun stopping, and the sun going backwards are not possible in a heliocentric model. Therefore a strict literalist reading would require a geocentric model. And there are still some people, a lunatic fringe, who hold to geocentrism. You claimed no one believed that. You were wrong.

And there are people out there who reject the germ theory of disease, as well: The Germ Theory of Disease Refuted by Many Researchers

 

[SniperFire]

It is quite obvious you have never studied anything in your shallowed life, other than insults.

Hmmm. Not sure how you could have drawn such a farflung conclusion, but I am indeed quite expert at insulting retarded posters.


LOL

 

[Si modo]

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

You 'believe' in a Master Scientist, well, actually not just a practitioner but the freaking CREATOR of the science, but insist such a wiz has nothing to do with science.

Imagine how absurd you sound to the logical amongst us.


LOL

Actually, I believe exactly what I wrote about a god.

And, I guarantee you that I am the foremost authority and expert on what my personal beliefs are.

What you make up in your head about my personal beliefs and your presentation of that as some sort of truth demonstrates some serious symptoms of issues far beyond anything I can assist you with.

 

[SniperFire]

My contention is that the sun stopping, and the sun going backwards are not possible in a heliocentric model.

Foolish logic. Should a science / force exist capable of willfully 'stopping' the sun momentarily, then any such notion one must entertain regarding absolutist laws concerning 'models' flies right out the window.

 

[Dr.Drock]

It is quite obvious you have never studied anything in your shallowed life, other than insults.

Hmmm. Not sure how you could have drawn such a farflung conclusion, but I am indeed quite expert at insulting retarded posters.


LOL

Sort of, you're the only person that I see "LOLing" at your own insults.

Now get other people to laugh at your stuff sometimes, hell ever, and you may have a point.

 

[Erand7899]

Then why don't kids in science class debate whether or not the Earth is the center of the solar system?

Because nobody believes that..

The Earth Is Not Moving
Guy Consolmagno Will Not Deny Geocentrism

There are some. A strictly literal reading of the Bible requires it. God stopping the sun and making it go backwards requires it:

Joshua 10:12,13
12Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

13And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Obviously not possible in a heliocentric model.

Then there's

2 Kings 20:8-11
8And Hezekiah said unto Isaiah, What shall be the sign that the LORD will heal me, and that I shall go up into the house of the LORD the third day?

9And Isaiah said, This sign shalt thou have of the LORD, that the LORD will do the thing that he hath spoken: shall the shadow go forward ten degrees, or go back ten degrees?

10And Hezekiah answered, It is a light thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees: nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees.

11And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the LORD: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz.

Also not possible in a Heliocentric model.

And there are still some people who hold to the strictly literal.

The interesting thing is that a geocentric model isn't impossible...You can construct a model with the frame of reference of the earth stationary and everything moving around it, but the math is insane. It's the equivalant of saying a car is stationary and the road is moving under its wheels. Possible to describe mathematically, but very difficult to do.

An omnipotent God can pretty well do anything he wants to, and I doubt he would seek your wisdom before he did it. How ignorant people interpret what they see and/or experience, does not mean they are in error about what they see and/or experience.

Still today, we commonly say the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, when it does neither.

 

[SniperFire]

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

You 'believe' in a Master Scientist, well, actually not just a practitioner but the freaking CREATOR of the science, but insist such a wiz has nothing to do with science.

Imagine how absurd you sound to the logical amongst us.


LOL

Actually, I believe exactly what I wrote about a god.

Nobody actually cares.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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!

They took Genesis as the factual account as to how the Earth was formed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Is there consensus in the scientific community that ID is the best explanation as to how complex living creatures could ever be formed?

 

[boilermaker55]

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

You 'believe' in a Master Scientist, well, actually not just a practitioner but the freaking CREATOR of the science, but insist such a wiz has nothing to do with science.

Imagine how absurd you sound to the logical amongst us.


LOL

You see you make the point very eloquently. All you can do is insult so it shows how dumb you really are and how you have nothing of value to say.
With your idiot comments about creationism and you have no idea the diversity in how others perceive the idea.
I could trade insults with someone like you and it would be like me fighting a one-armed person. So it's no fun.
Try opening a real book just once and read.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The true scientist questions everything. Even what we know as irrefutable facts are continually questioned, otherwise there would never be any scientific progress at all.

Then why don't kids in science class debate whether or not the Earth is the center of the solar system?

Because nobody believes that.

And nobody believes it now because there was heated debate on it and inquiry when it was an undecided issue.

Sort of like what they are now doing in the Tennesee classrooms as they debate the origins of evolution.

Hope that helps.

You just said that the true scientist questions everything.

 

[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!

They took Genesis as the factual account as to how the Earth was formed.

I don't know what how you would expect the explanation to read in a pre-science world of primitive people.

 

[Si modo]

You 'believe' in a Master Scientist, well, actually not just a practitioner but the freaking CREATOR of the science, but insist such a wiz has nothing to do with science.

Imagine how absurd you sound to the logical amongst us.


LOL

Actually, I believe exactly what I wrote about a god.

Nobody actually cares.

 

[SniperFire]

Then why don't kids in science class debate whether or not the Earth is the center of the solar system?

Because nobody believes that.

And nobody believes it now because there was heated debate on it and inquiry when it was an undecided issue.

Sort of like what they are now doing in the Tennesee classrooms as they debate the origins of evolution.

Hope that helps.

You just said that the true scientist questions everything.

I didn't say that. You have failed again.

 

[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.

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

The same can be said about your entire argument. Irreducible complexity is a definitive term, and it must be used as defined, or it is misused. I have serious doubts that you have spent much time learning what the proponents of ID argue, or how they use any term. When the evolutionists can get beyond irreducible complexity in their guess as to how life started, they can dismiss ID. Until then, their theory has a serious flaw.

 

[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!

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

No one is claiming Si Modo says this.

Using Si Modo argument for the need of a falsifiable data set, and the case that ID requires a designer, one could assume that this designer is the god of creation.

The problem now lies in proving or disproving this god exist. Understand, claiming something exist does not prove or disprove the theory since it could have been created or randomly assembled to its current state. So the existance of an object actually lies in both a set that proves the theory and disproves the theory. You need something that is mutually exclusive from either set.

An even stranger argument is this case of a watch maker and a watch. I have a watch, I present a watchmaker. Did the Watchmaker create this watch? It is possible that the watchmaker I present to you did not make the particular piece, another watchmaker did!

Using this realization , once one is able to concludes there is a god this does not prove that the god in question created the life form you are studying. It is possible that there is another god that created the lifeform. So a new problem arises even if you are able to prove there is a god--how many gods are there and how do you associate a particular god to a particular life form?

There are probably even more problems awaiting the ID theorists than what I just presented, and this exploration into the problem leads to some very abstract concepts that could lead to the undermining of their agenda--introducing Monotheism into the schools.

 

[g5000]

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!

What's next, astrology and alchemy classes?

I think students should freely be able to debate the merits of astrology and alchemy.

What are you afraid of?

I'm afraid of really stupid people.

"[W]hen people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong

 

[Si modo]

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.

The same can be said about your entire argument. Irreducible complexity is a definitive term, and it must be used as defined, or it is misused. I have serious doubts that you have spent much time learning what the proponents of ID argue, or how they use any term. When the evolutionists can get beyond irreducible complexity in their guess as to how life started, they can dismiss ID. Until then, their theory has a serious flaw.

If you believe the same can be said of my argument - that ID is not a scientific theory, by definition, then you are mistaken.

It doesn't mean ID is not a theory, it means that science has a specific method and a very specific logic of discovery. That makes science inappropriate subject matter for other classes just as their subject matter is inappropriate subject matter for science.

A theory MUST be falsifiable for it to be a specific type of theory - a scientific one.

Now, if I were arguning that a theory must be a scientific theory to be a scientific one, then, yes, I would have the same argument as irreducible complexity.

But, that isn't the case. Falsifiability is a separate and specific requirement for a theory.

Irreducible complexity is simple begging the question - a logical fallacy.