29 Dec 05
Originally posted by flyUnityYou can't spell.
I dont think one should teach ID unless they have the proper education in it. (Unless its Creation in a religious class) But seriously, theres allot more "science" in ID then most people make out to be. Its not just "God created the earth, THE END" I dont think schools should be limited at what they teach. I wouldnt make it a mandatory class, just an extra ...[text shortened]... homeschool mail program, and I the knowlege I gained from both classes are benaficial to me.
Case closed.
There is no God.
Next!
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzI glanced at the article and failed to see why it would be called a "creationist article". Can you elaborate?
I'm led to believe that this is what you're looking for - I'm not sure I never followed it up at the times but the headline was lodged in my brain.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/100/20/11216
Of course, you may also wish to purchase (of download a free pdf) PNAS' own Science and Creationism booklet.
http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungMy apologies - I pulled that one off a creatist website and assumed that must be it - but i can't see it as being terribly anti-evolutionist.
I glanced at the article and failed to see why it would be called a "creationist article". Can you elaborate?
I did some more searching, this time leaving aout PNAS and found the article I was looking for in quite a different 'proceedings'! I wasn't able to get the original article - it's not published online as far as i can see. here is an article, published by 'The Scientist'.
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20040903/04
You'll note that one of the editors tries to defend his decision by claiming that the 'thought police' are out to get them. An argument often used by IDers and creationists. I'd say yes, the thought police are out there - but only if you can't justify your position.
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightYou seem to be saying that your opinions of things make you believe
Maybe Old Nick put that stuff there to trick us, just like he did with the dinosaur bones, the myth of continental drift, making it look EXACTLY like it took the Grand Canyon a real long time to form and so on.
He's a tricky bugger, Old Nick is.
the univese is very old. Example: the Grand Canyon taking a long
time to form, simply by the it looks? Now, if I'm not mistaken, that
is the same thing that ID'ers do when they look at DNA and say that
is it way to functionally complex to just occur, it had to be designed.
Dinosaur bones are just dinosaur bones, you have processes that
says they are very old, just looking at them you wouldn't know, so
that is almost understandable, I believe your process are in error,
but that is me. Continental drift, again is that a "this is what it looks
like" so it must be true, and that is different than ID how?
Kelly
29 Dec 05
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzIt is a connect the dots process that takes millions or billions of years.
I accept evolution because (based on the knowledge I have of paleoclimate / fossil record etc) I can see how it has led to the organisms that are in the world currently. Scientists accept the theory because it can be used to make testable predictions, such as reptiles evolving into birds that was later shown to be correct by the discovery of archaeopte o occur when someone has a vested (normally financial) interest in promoting their viewpoint.
I can make up stories make a claim that it takes millions or billions
of years to complete, can I be proven wrong if I mix in just a little
bit of truth in the moment to back up my claims? Testable predictions
such as reptiles evolving into birds, you believe you can test that?
You believe the discovery of archaeoptery is some how proof? Could
that also be just another life form too, with nothing to do with the
ever slow process of evolution taking one life form and changing it
into a completely different one over time? You can tell just by looking
at it, much like the ID people do with DNA?
Kelly
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by KellyJayContinental Drift:
You seem to be saying that your opinions of things make you believe
the univese is very old. Example: the Grand Canyon taking a long
time to form, simply by the it looks? Now, if I'm not mistaken, that
is the same thing that ID'ers do when they look at DNA and say that
is it way to functionally complex to just occur, it had to be designed.
Dinosaur bon ...[text shortened]... "this is what it looks
like" so it must be true, and that is different than ID how?
Kelly
If you see India crashing into Asia and producing the Himalayas, you might thing that at some time ago India was not crashing into Asia. You can measure the speed and conclude that at some time in the past, millions of years ago, India was a seperate piece of land.
You can look at a map and see that South America looks like it would fit neatly into Africa. You could observe that the two continents are moving apart and conclude that at one time, they were joined. You could observe the speed at which they are moving apart and calculate at which time they were joined. You could have your results corraborated by the fossil record of animal life.
And so forth.
Believe it or not.
None of this needs a "designer" but it doesn't absolutely rule one out either.
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightWhy thank you, you see it, it fits, it must be true, ID is alive and
Continental Drift:
If you see India crashing into Asia and producing the Himalayas, you might thing that at some time ago India was not crashing into Asia. You can measure the speed and conclude that at some time in the past, millions of years ago, India was a seperate piece of land.
You can look at a map and see that South America looks like it would ...[text shortened]... ve it or not.
None of this needs a "designer" but it doesn't absolutely rule one out either.
well. ID as I look at that movement is, "I regonize what is before
me," since that seems to be the bottom line of that movement.
Kelly
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by KellyJayI give up.
Why thank you, you see it, it fits, it must be true, ID is alive and
well. ID as I look at that movement is, "I regonize what is before
me," since that seems to be the bottom line of that movement.
Kelly
Believe what you want.
Continental drift can be measured. If you can't or won't see the difference it's no concern of mine.
29 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by teleriona) it's not a matter of little issues, it's a matter of fundamental issues that can only be answered with speculation
No Col, it was an explaination for why I will not waste my time repeating myself or searching for hours for my posts in which I pointed these things out. Use your fine noodle. I'm sure you can come up with cases where empirical facts would have severely weakened the TOE but did not. Your problem, and that of other creationists, is that if a little issue end light. Fortunately, we did not, and Newtonian physics is still very useful for us today.
b) rather than casting TOE aside, I'd like it given an objective hearing, without any other plausible answers being ignored or ridiculed
c) TOE has been successful at very very little, unless you count popular opinion as success. Santa is also very popular.
d) Then a bright scientist will come up with a better theory that can match all the data that the TOE did and also account for the new conflicting discoveries. Which works perfectly because TOE is not falsifiable. It's too broad in scope. All one needs to do is come up with new speculative answers to connect the dots until a new dot comes along that doesn't fit. And it's not like there is a mathematical formula for TOE - it's pure speculation. There's not even a way to measure any degree of error.
By your method, we should have tossed all of Newton's ideas in the garbage heap as soon as we saw the moon bend light.
Actually, what we did was say the Newtons solution does not apply to light. So it is useless for dealing with light. But it works for larger particles and speeds slower than the speed of light. It's useful, but we recognize it's limitations. TOE believers can not test TOE for failure. Unlike Newtonian physics, TOE is bad science. Most scientist don't even address it, they just assume the fairy tail and carry on. It has no practical impact on anything.