|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total) |
| |
anil dahar | |
Total: 919,516 Year: 6,773/9,624 Month: 113/238 Week: 30/83 Day: 6/3 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
tell me what your Null H, is in deciding that everything is a product of itself, when you werent there to observe its beginning, or the mechanism of its origination Well if all life evolved all life should be related to each other if it isnot and we see that for example that some or none of the animals do not fit into this relationship tree then we can assume that evolution cannot be the cause of diversity of life on earth. But when we look at the tree of life we see that all life is related. Evolution is a process that adapts species to be better at surviving in a particular environment. If evolution is not true then we would also see adaptations "designs" in some animals whose SOLE purpose is to benefit another animal. In human designs a crutch would be defined like that its sole purpose is to help you walk when your leg is broken. If any animal had a design like that and "got nothing back" from the animal that is using the first animal that would go against evolution. If one would see a fully "designed" animal pop in to existence from nothing or mud or whatever other impossible substance. that would cast serius doubt on evolution. No beneficial mutations, you see those at least on a yearly basis the flue.... No speciation possible it has been observed numerous of times ..... And hundreds of more possibilities to prove evolution false none of them do or at least none has been found in the last 150 Years. What would negate design or creation??? There is a reason why science does not deal with invisible undetectable magic men you cannot disprove them applying it to a process that we do not yet understand does nothing to benefit the collective knowledge of mankind, and it has a very bad track record, whats lightning o thats Zeus farting. And to actually prove them you would have to disprove every other possibility yes invisible undetectable magic men are the last possibility for a good reason, im sorry you do not understand that / do not want to understand that/ are incapable of understanding that.
ID and creationism employ all the same methods, for the answers to these questions, yet it is rejected because it is limited in the exact same way science is No they dont Scientist:" i wonder how all this life came heare and how it got so diverse?"Creo/ider:" I wonder how i can prove god with life, or at least get the bible back in to schools" Scientist" well let me take a closer look at life"Creo/ider:" well let me take a closer look at the bible" Scientist" hmm all animals look like they are related, some have small diferences, some have larger ones but you still can see the resemblanceCreo/idist: the bible says god made all the animals well thats that let me put this in to the schools Scientist: well lets try to form a hypothesis gradual change over time produced the variety of life we see todaycreo/idist:" well lets brodcast our findings allover the country call it science and make people believe" Scientist: Well lets test the hypothesis lets dig for fossils, do experiments on speciation, compare genomes of animals, look at how mutations acure, look if the time line allows for this process, construct a " tree of life" to see if all animals actualy are related, compare that tree of life to others constructed on dna, bone, and other observations ................ ......... ......... ...... ...... ....Creationist/ider: lets invent some numbers and ideas out of the blue to give our claim credibility and debunk everything else Scientist:" well all the testing i have done and all the observations fit perfectly, doing my best i could not disprove my hypothesis now its time for other scientists to look at my idea and try to poke holes in it and see if i am wrong"Creo/ider:" i know i am right i dont need no stinking godless scientists to challenge my idea" Scientist: well that went well none of them could disprove my theory they tried as hard as they could did the experiments themselves desighned new experiments and none of the experiments disproved evolution only granted it more suport in time this theory should be widely excepted as a model that best represents reality with the data availibleCreo/idist:" scientist have to except my idea because i KNOW i am right, il broadcast it on every channel and the people will decide il sue them in court because it is only fair to teach my "theory" (word used by none scientist to describe a wild guess) besides their theory (word used by scientists for a model that accurately describes reality given the data available). Il scream evolution is only a theory millions of times, il have experts who do not know shit about evolution talk to the people of how improbable it is, il make up stuff how evolution leads to killing people, make it synonym with communism and Nazism, tell believers that if they believe in evolution they will go to HELL ...............
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
It cannot be established that ID is nothing less than a scientific investigation to begin with. We have established that ID is not science on NUMEROUS occasions, A freeing supreme court judge ruled ID IS NOT science. Sreaming in to the air ID is science will not make it so. Sorry ID is not science no mattar how many times you say it is it is still not science period.
The outcome would have been different had it been argued accurately from an apologists position No the outcome would have been different if ID actually was science. It is not even close to what science is. and if you realy think lots of scientists reject evolutionhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM&NR=1 Edited by frako, : No reason given. Edited by frako, : No reason given. Edited by frako, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Dump this fraud law and then make your case to the people creationism should not be in science/conclusion on origins class. Sure as long you teach all the other "science", like how the stork brings new baby's to the house, how the tooth fairy buys your teeth at night, how you can cure all manner of diseases by prayer and so need no doctors ....... all this and more is the same as your ID or creationism you want to teach that then be prepared to teach this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Again for the very simple reasons , as i have stated them, ID can be nothing but Science. just as there is no such thing as reverse prejudice, there is no such thing as religious creationism, only creationism by an intelligent designer. each of the respective positions reach thier conclusions, via, reason, experimentation, applied to the natural world, conclusions being the natural resultOnly a tyro would come to another conclusion as to how such conclusions are reached. as I stated before, if the judge did not have a preconcieved idea of what Id and creo were before hand, and was not led by the nose by a bunch of simplistic lawyers, it may have seen it in its simplicty Yea its the judges fault the judge that was appointed by president bush the numskull who said the jury is still out on Evolution. The trial where most of the Experts on ID would not defend it under oath. The trial on witch ID has lost so badly that NO appeal has been filed. The trial where one of the founders of Id said that id has no theory yet only a bunch of ideas, the trial where id-ists where so happy that judge Jones was the one who was ruling before they got the verdict. If you are unhappy about it then sue the state yourself stop pestering everyone with your ideas what science is cause that kind of science only exists in your feeble little mind. The ID "theory" has the same amount of merrit ast the theory that a stork brings new baby's to a household.
I have established, with no rebuttal at all, that any investigation of the human mind against properties in the world is a scientific invwtigation. Can anyone demonstrate that that point is not reality. Why will no one touch that point. Point to the line that is counter factual to that simple point, if indeed it has been shown as you suggest I have demonstrated that an examination of the physical properties in this connection and its complexity, is not only an investigation, but that it will demonstrate an unwavering complexiity of order to definate detail and purpose. point to the line or argument that can demonstrate these points and items are not science I have demonstrated that these investigations lead inevitably to the conclusion of design, in the same way one comes to the conclusion, that the process of evolution would and might lead to lead to the conclusion of soley natural causes. both are just conclusions and both use the natural world for thier conclusions. Only sheer idiocy would assume as to most evos that the origination source is not a part of the argument Most evos try and cleverly exclude conclusion of evo (SNCs) as unnecessary, when in fact every position or argument concerning the natural world ofcourse would include one And yet evos test their theory while ID-ists do not test their "theory" yes your theory is in between quote marks because it is not a scientific theory at best it is a hypothesis. Edited by frako, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Ofcourse ID is not something different, how could it be when those are just terms. reality is a human using his brain against reality about the natural world to form conclusions, Duhhh, science damm i always thought Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world. But i guess i am wrong and all the other scientists in the world and your definition is correct. Edited by frako, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Its is science, because it is a valid observable and testable investigation. No thinking person would consider it otherwise, unless they are hell bent on keeping out some religious perspective out of the classroom, of which ID has nothing to with initially and at its base Ok so what test was used to determine the intelligent designer. Did you call to the hevans and say please design us a purely new form of life that does not fit with the "tree of life" scientists use and inscribe i did it the intelligent designer in its DNA. And puff a magic half bunny half cow pops out of nothing on your lab table? attributing things like order to a designer has the same scientific value as attributing lightning to Zeus or the intelligent lightning maker. You have to first devise an experiment that shows that if the experiment "fails" there is no designer and if the experiment does not "fail" there can be a designer. Notice the can at the end you cannot prove anything you can only grant support for it. In the case of evolution by aplying say antibiotics to every generation of "germs" after a number of generations the "germs" should be resistant to antibiotics. If this experiment fails it would cast serius doubt on evolution, if it does not fail it grants support for evolution. so what happens you start of with say 100 germs apply the antibiotic and 98 germs die, you wait for the 2 left to reproduce themselves numerous of times so you get 100 germs again you apply the same antibiotic and 80 die repeat the process and at one point none die. The germs that are immune to the antibiotic are somehow different from the germs that are not. Evolution predicts that would happen so evolution does not fail this test but it gets support from it. Can you devise an experiment or prediction that if it fails it would disprove or cast serius doubt on the intelligent design hypothesis and if it does not fail that it would grant support for the hypothesis. Yes when you are devising experiments you are actually doing science and in that case i can grant your idea of intelligent design the status hypothesis it still has a very long way to go before it becomes a theory if ever.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024