Debate over evolution now allowed in Tenn. schools

[8537]

Do science classes discuss 'The Big Bang'?

The Big Bang is supported by evidence and is falsifiable. As it turns out, no one has found the evidence to falsify it.

Big Bang, of course is not falsifiable.

What? Of course it is.

 

[SniperFire]

People did not question the Flat Earth theory with theories for which there is zero evidence, or with so-called theories that had already been categorized as myths.

Spontaneous irreducible complexity is perfect evidence of the ID theory.

It's also a lie made up to support ID theory

That is your opinion, which you are afraid of permitting being discussed.

 

[Si modo]

Do science classes discuss 'The Big Bang'?

The Big Bang is supported by evidence and is falsifiable. As it turns out, no one has found the evidence to falsify it.

Big Bang, of course is not falsifiable.

LOL. Of course it is.

 

[Katzndogz]

You want our high school students trying to figure out what force drives a hypothesis that is untestable and has no evidence?

And is not falsifiable. Thus, nothing scientific about the theory of ID.

Do science classes discuss 'The Big Bang'?

Right up to the unexplained anomaly thingy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If it was wrong to ask the question about whether or not the earth is flat then, it is wrong to question the theory of evolution today.

A true scientist welcomes questions. Men of faith do not.

People did not question the Flat Earth theory with theories for which there is zero evidence, or with so-called theories that had already been categorized as myths.

Spontaneous irreducible complexity is perfect evidence of the ID theory.

Is God complex?

 

[SniperFire]

Then present one piece of evidence for the existence of that intelligent unseen force.

DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”
― Bill Gates, The Road Ahead

That is not evidence.

That is begging the question.

That is framing the debate of the question of whether or not something complex has to be designed by someone or something

Incorrect. Irreducible complexity, by definition, is proof something MUST have had an Intelligent Design. Else, it would not be irreducibly complex.

 

[SniperFire]

People did not question the Flat Earth theory with theories for which there is zero evidence, or with so-called theories that had already been categorized as myths.

Spontaneous irreducible complexity is perfect evidence of the ID theory.

Is God complex?

Very.

 

[jillian]

This is an excellent topic for discussion and debate in our institutions of learning.

Then present one piece of evidence for the existence of that intelligent unseen force.

DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”
― Bill Gates, The Road Ahead

and?

 

[8537]

DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”
― Bill Gates, The Road Ahead

That is not evidence.

That is begging the question.

That is framing the debate of the question of whether or not something complex has to be designed by someone or something

Incorrect. Irreducible complexity, by definition, is proof something MUST have had an Intelligent Design. Else, it would not be irreducibly complex.

Oh, how convenient. The ID folks have created a tautology and use it to defend their claims.

Irreducible complexity is defined as proof for ID...and ID is used as proof for irreducible complexity.

How could anyone question such solid logic!

 

[SniperFire]

The Big Bang is supported by evidence and is falsifiable. As it turns out, no one has found the evidence to falsify it.

Big Bang, of course is not falsifiable.

LOL. Of course it is.

Prove it never happened.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is an excellent topic for discussion and debate in our institutions of learning.

Then present one piece of evidence for the existence of that intelligent unseen force.

DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”
― Bill Gates, The Road Ahead

If Bill Gates had to have been designed in order to be able to design a computer,

then Bill Gates's designer had to have been designed in order to design Bill Gates.

That is the Intelligent Design theory taken one logical step further.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I see. You want to pre-define the parameters of debate to exclude examination of tenets you accept on pure faith, as having them questioned would rock your world.

Evolution is not accepted on pure faith.

Sure it is. Spontaneous irreducible complexity is much less believable than a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

But, hey. Let's debate it and not try to hush things up based on our fears and insecurities.

.....Especially when those fears and insecurities revolve around doubts of World Domination, right??

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHLeWIE-It0]GOD hates Health Care but LOVES WAR! The crazy fundamentalist view of Bush vs Obama and the media - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Si modo]

DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”
― Bill Gates, The Road Ahead

That is not evidence.

That is begging the question.

That is framing the debate of the question of whether or not something complex has to be designed by someone or something

Incorrect. Irreducible complexity, by definition, is proof something MUST have had an Intelligent Design. Else, it would not be irreducibly complex.

More demonstration that there is nothing falsifiable about ID.

Thus, nothing scientific about it.

 

[8537]

Big Bang, of course is not falsifiable.

LOL. Of course it is.

Prove it never happened.

You don't understand your own words. falsifiability is not the same as proving something never happened.

 

[SniperFire]

That is not evidence.

That is begging the question.

That is framing the debate of the question of whether or not something complex has to be designed by someone or something

Incorrect. Irreducible complexity, by definition, is proof something MUST have had an Intelligent Design. Else, it would not be irreducibly complex.

Oh, how convenient. The ID folks have created a tautology and use it to defend their claims.

!

It is not a tautology. It is the definition.

Either something is irreducibly complex and could not have happened by random collision, or it isn't.

 

[SniperFire]

LOL. Of course it is.

Prove it never happened.

You don't understand your own words. falsifiability is not the same as proving something never happened.

Prove it happened.

 

[Si modo]

Big Bang, of course is not falsifiable.

LOL. Of course it is.

Prove it never happened.

I don't have to prove that to demonstrate falsifiability. All that has to exist is a data set, either real or hypothetical, that falsifies the theory.

So, for one (there are several real or hypothetical data sets that falsify the theory/model), there is no apparent velocity of distant astrological entities. There actually IS an apparent velocity, but if that apparent velocity did not exist (the hypothetical data set), the theory is falsifiable.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Spontaneous irreducible complexity is perfect evidence of the ID theory.

Is God complex?

Very.

Then by applying your own theory of ID, God had to have been designed. An entity that complex has to have been designed, you said so yourself.

 

[8537]

Prove it never happened.

You don't understand your own words. falsifiability is not the same as proving something never happened.

Prove it happened.

Now I understand why you don't accept science. Let's try this:

Find an alternative explanation with more evidence than the Big Bang for background radiation, a black night sky, the development of galaxies, red shift and the expansion of the known universe.

Or, if you can locate a star, galaxy or quasar that's 25B years old. While not completing disproving the Big Bang, it would certainly put the theory into question.

 

[SniperFire]

Is God complex?

Very.

Then by applying your own theory of ID, God had to have been designed.

I'm not sure. It is worthy of discussion, of course.