Quote :

"American Anthropological Association The Association respects the right of people to hold diverse religious beliefs, including those who reject evolution as matters of theology or faith. Such beliefs should not be presented as science, however.Science describes and explains the natural world: it does not prove or disprove beliefs about the supernatural. American Astronomical Society Science is not based on faith, nor does it preclude faith. Whatever personal beliefs teachers, students, parents or administrators may hold, the teaching of important scientific concepts, such as the formation and aging of planets, stars, galaxies and the Universe, should not be altered or constrained in response to demands external to the scientific disciplines. "

these for starters mention nothing about evolution, just how faith should not be in the classroom. the rest pit evolution against faith based beliefs in the classroom.

Quote :

"National Academy of Sciences: Those who oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools sometimes ask that teachers present evidence against evolution.' However, there is no debate within the scientific community over whether evolution occurred, and there is no evidence that evolution has not occurred. Some of the details of how evolution occurs are still being investigated. But scientists continue to debate only the particular mechanisms that result in evolution, not the overall accuracy of evolution as the explanation of life's history."

This essentially says we believe evolution happened, but we are still arguing over how it acutally works.

12/23/2005 1:58:18 PM

I DIDN'T REALIZE LOKKEN WAS SUCH A MORON

GOOD GRIEF

JUST BACK OUT OF THIS DEBATE WHILE YOU STILL LOOK MODERATELY RESPECTABLE

12/23/2005 2:02:00 PM

jesuth christh guys

12/23/2005 2:03:17 PM

^^^

Quote :

"Some of the details of how evolution occurs are still being investigated"

Dude, if you didnt know that most scientific theories are constantly being evaluated then I feel sorry for you. Just becuase we dont know everything about how something works doesnt mean our theory about it is wrong or not proven.


Youre saying we should only accept facts that are so valid they cannot even be challenenged? Thats impossible. Youre saying you only believe in laws/theories that currently has 100 percent of the details worked out? No such thing.



[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 2:06 PM. Reason : -]

12/23/2005 2:04:27 PM

Quote :

"But it is the Jist of ID."

not really, because its completely ignoring the fact that evolution could be part of ID, i.e. they arent mutually exclusive

12/23/2005 2:06:11 PM

Quote :

"-not testable -not falsifiable"

that doesn't mean that ID is wrong. remember, I said "prove to me that ID is patently wrong." plus, your criteria is analogous to "its not scientific." thus, its circular.

Quote :

"This kind of statement doesnt even really make sense. We're treading in philosphoical waters, not scientific ones. "

to be fair, you did object to the effective statement "biology stems from logic," so my response was quite on the mark. philosophical, yes, but I'd still say that biology is totally logical. Thus, if evolution were allegedly "random," then it wouldn't sense. Of course, evolution isn't random. I made that same "caveat" as well.

Quote :

"how are they endorsing a religion is wrong"

Genesis. Read it. Its pretty fucking obvious.

Quote :

"wouldn't the solar system have to stand still as well as the planet?"

Woodfoot, I'll be upfront here and say that I don't know about this passage about the sun standing still. I've heard many people reference it as a criticism to the scientific validity of a literal interpretation of the Bible, so I don't doubt that its in the Bible. But, having not read that part (is it after Psalms but before the New Testament? cause I can never get past Psalms in my attempts at reading the Bible all the way through) I can't really comment 100% on the specifics of "wouldn't such and such have to happen. I can say that initially all that has to happen is that the earth stop rotating about its axis. Certainly that would make the sun appear to "stand still." Now, the ecological ramifications of such a thing are obviously the next thing to question. Again, without knowing the specifics of the story, I can't comment further without relying on the old faithful "well God is all powerful, so he could handle fixing those problems easily..." cop-out

Quote :

"You have just admitted that some supernatural event is to account for fossils. You have just admitted that your theory does not meet the definition of a scientific one, which is why it does not belong in sceince class."

and you have once again engaged in the circular argument. thanks!

Quote :

"Have you ever taking biology? Physical anthropology? Been to a museum?"

yep. and those things still don't prove a thing. see the rest of what I posted over there to see why...

Quote :

"So...they are wrong becuase they are smart?"

No, not necessarily wrong. Rather, they are as biased as those who give a religious explanation for creation. And no, they aren't biased because they are smart. Rather, they are biased because they give a set of ground rules upon which they base their entire argument, but the ground rules have not been proven. And guess what? The "ground rules" of the creationist are the exact same way! Funny how both have the same type of bias, aint it?

Quote :

"So youre saying we should teach that magic probably does happen becuse we cant prove it hasnt happened?"

About magic? Of course not. About ID? No, not really. Instead, I am saying, as I always have, that based on the alleged existence of "separation of church and state" and the fact that public schools are a government entity which children are effectively forced to go to (de facto, not de jure) for a majority of their formative years and the fact that evolution directly contradicts a literal interpretation of the creation myth of 3 major world religions, then the current manner in which evolution is taught is not legal. The way in which evolution is taught and discussed is done in such a manner as to say that it is taught as fact in a de facto manner. The teacher may say "theories aren't fact," so its not de jure, but teaching only evolution and not discussing the flaws that evolution does actually have effectively promotes the notion of evolution as fact.

Quote :

"Heres a summary of your arguments:"

getting ready for the strawman...

Quote :

"I do not accept the scientific process."

first sentence, there he is!

Quote :

"I seek to change the definition of science."

OK, second sentence keeps that straw rolling.

Quote :

"I believe that supernatural events can explain our existence better then natural observations."

Third sentence keeps it up...

Quote :

"I believe my supernatural ideas should be included in science class, even though I achnowledge that the scientific community(evil pagans) does not accept my ideas."

maybe the only thing even remotely resembling my argument, yet stated in such a biased way ("evil pagans") that its farcical. Of course, lets also admit that you are neglecting a major portion of my argument as well, but thats also part of a strawman.

Four sentences (assuming the "Am I wrong?" is your rhetorical question to "here's a summary of [arronburro's] argument: ..."). Four piles of straw. Hey, one more pile and you can finish that scarecrow!

Quote :

"btw--if you actually think that God burried a bunch of dinosaur bones to test your faith, then i feel very bad for you."

Hey, I'd say the same thing about someone holding such a belief. of course, I never actually said that God burried those bones to test people's faith... Then again, that I think the postulation that God burried those bones is stupid, it still doesn't prove that God didn't burry those bones... Keep those scarecrows coming, though. I'll be happy to knock them down all the same.

Hey, nice picture. I'm so glad that those people were able to fit the evidence to the conclusion they had already drawn up, instead of fitting the conclusion to the evidence

Quote :

"Do you deny the existence of lucy, homo habilis, homo erectus, neandertals?"

the existence of the fossils? Nope, I don't deny those fossils exist. I deny your assertion that the existence of those fossils actually leads to the conclusion you want it to lead to, though.

Quote :

"Were the transitionary species from apes to humans"

WHAT TRANSITIONARY SPECIES? jeez. you haven't fucking proved that you even HAVE ANY yet. All you have proven is "this species existed at this time. that species existed at that time." and that's if you accept the premise that the fossils weren't "burried by God." To prove that B is actually a "transitionary species" from A you have to actually provide something that shows that A is actually connected to B and that B exists solely because A existed (as in, if A never existed, then B could not have, either). Put more simply, just because there is a RCA TV in front of me right now and last week there a Sony TV in front of me doesn't mean that the RCA TV is the "child" of the Sony TV.

Quote :

"Or were they all just faked by pagans?"

whew, thx for the loaded question. Were all fossils presented as evidence for evolution "faked?" Almost certainly no. Were any? Almost certainly yes. Did "pagans" do the faking? I don't know. depends on what fossil was actually "faked" and who it is that "faked" it. But then again, I'm devoting more time than I really should to a question which was ludicrous from the beginning...

Quote :

"Anyway, your whole suggestion that ID proponents are antiscience is false. We're just anti-evolution."

Actually, that suggestion is also false, mathman. ID is not "anti-evolution." ID is anti-(EVOLUTION-IS-THE-ONLY-ANSWER).

Quote :

"I dont see any muslim IDists."

maybe thats because most muslims live in countries where the muslim religion is taught in "grade school." crazy thought, I know. Oh, and those who don't live in such a country don't exist in numbers appreciable enough for the small percentage who would advocate ID to actually be noticed. Christians on the other hand...

Quote :

"Because they are all christian fundamentalists who are basing their beliefs on the bible."

thats funny. I'm not a Christian fundamentalist, and yet I do find some reasonable objections with evolution... hmmmm...

Quote :

"In the scientific community? Nope."

WRONG. mathman already explained that there are notable scientists who say the "missing link" still hasn't been found. Now, he didn't offer proof. Then again, you didn't offer proof that such people don't exist. But hey, your argument has been pretty weak from the getgo, so go figure.

12/23/2005 2:56:00 PM

Quote :

"but lets put aside the rhetoric for a second and acknowledge that it is impossible to scientifically test the theory of evolution."

wow, Josh, how is that for something interesting? Excoriator and I are on opposite sides of the "ID should be taught in schools debate" and yet we BOTH agree that its impossible to scientifically test the theory of evolution. hmmmm...

Quote :

"In this case, though, ID clearly meant creationism."

wow, Excoriator and I agree again! the world is coming to an end!

Quote :

"Is it the government's business to decide which religions' points of view are valid and which ones are not?"

nope, it isn't. oh wait. isn't evolution saying that one religious view is wrong? oh, and isn't evolution basically taught as immutable fact by the government? oh yeah, it is! hmmm...

Quote :

"Plenty of high schools have psychology classes."

thats great. remind me again, how does psychology say that is 100% right again? Cause I swear, I don't see it. Oh, and remind me again, how many schools have a psychology class as a mandatory class for students to take every year from 3rd grade on up?

Quote :

"There is no disclaimer in AP History books saying that "One point of view is that the native americans were dying from smallpox. Another is that they had a bunch of body thetans omg!!!""

Hmmm. remind me again where history says it is 100% right about everything it says, and remind me again where one might imply such a thing even if it is not explicitly stated... Oh, and remind me again where this evidence is for the existence of these thetans is. Remind me again that the originator of this "religion" never said "religion is a great way to make a lot of money." And remind me again that this religion doesn't look like one gigantic pyramid scheme.

Quote :

"But it is the Jist of ID."

only, its not.

Quote :

"youre saying that because you dont understand evolution, it shouldnt be accepted."

seriously. all this straw HAS to be a fire hazard.

Quote :

"^another christian who interprets the bible literaly."

wait, did you just call SandSanta a Christian? Cause I'm fairly certain he is not.

Quote :

"Thats a fact."

no its not.

Quote :

"Thats also what the judge said."

no its not. He said ID is not scientific and that the argument presented was wrong (evolution is anti-god). there's a huge fucking difference.

Quote :

"A very conservative bush appointed judge."

so-fucking-what. the only difference between an ignorant democrat and an ignorant republican is the party that said person is affiliated with. It says nothing about the quality or veracity of that person's argument.

Quote :

"btw how old is the earth?"

I don't know. do you?

Quote :

"the judge's descision was based on the presentations of lawyers who proved that the sceintific community overwhelmingly believes evolution is correct"

NO IT FUCKING WASN'T! the judge's opinion was based on the lawyers' refution of the ID's lawyers claims. thats all the "evolution lawyers" had to do. they didn't have to prove ID unscientific or even "wrong." They had to prove the ID lawyers' arguments were invalid with respect to current law. But seriously, if a JUDGE can now tell me what is and isn't "science," then we are really fucked.

Quote :

"show me one scientific commuity, like those listed above, who doubts evolution? "

clearly because dubya was elected as the president of the US, every single person in the US likes dubya, and every single person in the US who voted voted for dubya.

Quote :

"The point is, the core of the claim of evolution has withstood 150 years of scrutiny and is not in contention."

The idea of the spontaneous creation of life also withstood many years of scrutiny before Pasteur came along and kicked its ass. Newtonian physics also "withstood scrutiny" for many years before Einstein dealt it its death blow. Summation? Just because something has withstood many years of scrutiny does not mean that it will always withstand scrutiny.

Quote :

"Youve been proven wrong. All the big communities just listed clearly say youre full of shit."

nope, he hasn't been proven wrong. unless you are again telling me that everyone in the USA loves dubya.

Quote :

"Just becuase we dont know everything about how something works doesnt mean our theory about it is wrong or not proven."

only if your theory about it isn't postulating HOW THE FUCKING THING HAPPENS! you know, like evolution does...

Quote :

"Youre saying we should only accept facts that are so valid they cannot even be challenenged?"

nope, he's not saying that.

Quote :

"Youre saying you only believe in laws/theories that currently has 100 percent of the details worked out?"

nope, he's not saying that

Quote :

"Thats impossible."

yep, you are right.

12/23/2005 2:56:27 PM

could someone please end this debate and point us to documentation of a controlled laboratory experiment demonstrating macro-evolution with speciation?

no? ok then lets all just stfu.

12/23/2005 3:08:24 PM

Quote :

"WHAT TRANSITIONARY SPECIES? jeez. you haven't fucking proved that you even HAVE ANY yet."

Proof:

Lucy
Homo Habilis
Homo Erectus
Neandertals
Homo Afarensis
the dozen of other bipedal homonid species that have a mixture of ape or human features.


That is proof.

Quote :

"could someone please end this debate and point us to documentation of a controlled laboratory experiment demonstrating macro-evolution with speciation? "

Its been done. With fruit flys, moths ect. It didnt end this debate.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 3:15 PM. Reason : -]

12/23/2005 3:10:59 PM

that's hillarious that you just posted artist's renderings as proof of evolution....

here's proof of creation, mothafucka



but seriously, could someone please end this debate and point us to documentation of a controlled laboratory experiment demonstrating macro-evolution with speciation?

no? ok then lets all just stfu.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 3:15 PM. Reason : s]

12/23/2005 3:15:06 PM

You dont understand science. The appearance of that hominid is based on the bones that were found.

Did you know that?






These skulls are proof of the existence of the transitionary species between humans and 'apes'.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 3:17 PM. Reason : -]

12/23/2005 3:16:34 PM

AHAHAHA I DON'T UNDERSTAND SCIENCE

OK IF YOU'RE SUCH A SCIENCE EXPERT....

could you please end this debate and point us to documentation of a controlled laboratory experiment demonstrating macro-evolution with speciation? (YOU KNOW, THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD YOU ASSHOLE)

no? ok then lets all just stfu.

12/23/2005 3:18:36 PM

something doesnt have to be proven to be science
and aaronburro, ID is not the story in genesis

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 3:19 PM. Reason : hence why its a theory]

12/23/2005 3:18:42 PM

you're right, JonHGuth, but it does have to be proven in order to become a proved theory like all these dumbass motherfuckers are trying to claim.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 3:20 PM. Reason : s]

12/23/2005 3:19:52 PM

well a few million years from now when the experiment is over we can consider it proven

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 3:21 PM. Reason : unless you got a time machine or something to speed things up]

12/23/2005 3:20:32 PM

cool, and in the meantime we can continue teaching it because its the best explanation for our observations, but we should never claim it to be fact or proven. and as such, it should always be viewed skeptically.

(contrasted to ID/creationism, which shouldn't be viewed at all and if they must be viewed, then viewed with scorn and derision)

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 3:23 PM. Reason : s]

12/23/2005 3:21:53 PM

Quote :

"could you please end this debate and point us to documentation of a controlled laboratory experiment demonstrating macro-evolution with speciation?"

Can you please show me a photograph of an atom so I know it exists?

Show me a video documentary of the big bang so I know it happened?

12/23/2005 3:22:35 PM

Quote :

"but we should never claim it to be fact or proven."

good thing all the textbooks call it the theory of evolution

12/23/2005 3:23:16 PM

ok so everyone can agree that evolution is only a theory and has not been proven? great. wtf are we arguing about then?

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 3:24 PM. Reason : s]

12/23/2005 3:24:11 PM

The same way that gravity/relativity is ONLY a theory.

12/23/2005 3:25:12 PM

Quote :

"Evolution is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory. Evolution is a fact in the sense that life has changed through time. In nature today, the characteristics of species are changing, and new species are arising. The fossil record is the primary factual evidence for evolution in times past, and evolution is well documented by further evidence from other scientific disciplines, including comparative anatomy, biogeography, genetics, molecular biology, and studies of viral and bacterial diseases. Evolution is also a theory – an explanation for the observed changes in life through Earth history that has been tested numerous times and repeatedly confirmed. Evolution is an elegant theory that explains the history of life through geologic time; the diversity of living organisms, including their genetic, molecular, and physical similarities and differences; and the geographic distribution of organisms. Evolutionary principles are the foundation of all basic and applied biology and paleontology, from biodiversity studies to studies on the control of emerging diseases."

12/23/2005 3:25:42 PM

a scientific theory is more concrete than you are implying
i know you know that and are just trying to troll, but i dont really care

12/23/2005 3:25:42 PM

I dont need to see the big bang, I only need to see that all of the universe is expanding and the background radiation which points to a huge explosition.

I dont need to see a species evolve. I see dozens of intermediate species leading from ape to human and a well studied genetic mechanism that does this.

Quote :

"could you please end this debate and point us to documentation of a controlled laboratory experiment demonstrating macro-evolution with speciation?"

So I assume youll admit there is no way creationism/ID could ever be proved without use of a time machine? That is the standard youre asking for? Again, you dont understand science. Most people outside the physical sciences do not.

Quote :

"we can continue teaching it because its the best explanation for our observations, but we should never claim it to be fact "

Summary of your argument:

I dont understand science.

Definition of scientific fact: OUR BEST EXPLANATION FOR OUR OBSERVATIONS

It shocks me that you didnt know that.



[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 3:38 PM. Reason : -]

12/23/2005 3:27:44 PM

THOSE BONES ARE FAKE!!!

12/23/2005 3:38:52 PM

These are called homonids...all are extinct...they have larger brains then apes...teeth like humans...varying brain sizes...and they walk on two feet

How does one explain all these transitionary species?
God burried them, right?



[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 3:45 PM. Reason : -]

12/23/2005 3:44:17 PM

12/23/2005 3:46:11 PM

its sad that you people think that evolution can be compared to gravity.... its rhetoric like that which implies your belief in evolution is far closer to a personal religion than to scientific reasoning.

a much better comparison for evolution is to something like string theory.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 3:48 PM. Reason : s]

12/23/2005 3:47:35 PM

aaronburro his point was that isnt proof
its evidence

your point has been made, you can stop posting pictures

12/23/2005 3:47:47 PM

MAOW

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 3:48 PM. Reason : I mean I believe those bones are real and all...]

12/23/2005 3:47:56 PM

The fossil evidence pwns you.

Quote :

"ts rhetoric like that which implies your belief in evolution is far closer to a personal religion"

exept that my beliefs are based on physical evidence.




Do you see?



[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 3:51 PM. Reason : - ]

12/23/2005 3:48:13 PM

Quote :

"a much better comparison for evolution is to something like string theory."

12/23/2005 3:50:43 PM

^what was/is your major?

12/23/2005 3:51:59 PM

^^ I dunno about that. There is quite a bit of evidence (that you can clearly see and hold in your hand) that supports evolution.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 3:52 PM. Reason : ]

12/23/2005 3:52:03 PM

Im waiting for an explanation better then evolution.

12/23/2005 3:53:18 PM

digging up bones is no substitute for a laboratory experiment. gravity can be demonstrated through experiment.

if you want to compare evolution to gravity, then SHOW ME A FUCKING EXPERIMENT


again, i'm a strong supporter of evolution, but goddamn people. you're just as dogmatic as creationists sometimes.

12/23/2005 3:53:39 PM

the time scale makes taht really difficult

12/23/2005 3:54:50 PM

Quote :

"SHOW ME A FUCKING EXPERIMENT"

How about testing ape and human DNA? Wonder if we will see redundant similarities?

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 3:55 PM. Reason : ( we do ) you lost]

12/23/2005 3:54:51 PM

no, you compared evolution to gravity. SHOW ME AN EXPERIMENT DEMONSTRATING MACRO EVOLUTION WITH SPECIATION

if not, stfu about how the theory of evolution has just as much scientific credibility as the theory of gravity.

12/23/2005 3:56:32 PM

^ you are asking me to accelerate time or build a time machine.

Show me a video of God creating humans in there present form? If you cannot build a time machine, STFU.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 3:57 PM. Reason : -]

12/23/2005 3:57:16 PM

Some people don't want to believe that they're just another animal.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 3:59 PM. Reason : They want to believe that they're special and have a reason for existing even though they may not.]

12/23/2005 3:58:38 PM

i'm not defending creationism. i believe in evolution. i just have the goddamn good sense to admit that its not as strong a theory as gravity and that its more akin to the string theory than to the laws of thermodynamics, etc.

but look - you've got your religion - i'll acknowledge that. i can't fucking stand such blind faith, personally, but to each his own.

12/23/2005 3:59:03 PM

Explain how this happened without evolution?

12/23/2005 3:59:20 PM

that doesnt have to be from evolution

12/23/2005 4:00:13 PM

evolution is the best explanation for how that happened.

12/23/2005 4:00:35 PM

GOD WAS TESTING PROTOTYPE HUMANS AND HE HAD TO KEEP KILLING THEM BECAUSE THEY WERE SO FUCKING STUPID

12/23/2005 4:00:46 PM

Evolution is the best explanation, and the one held by the entire sceintfiic community.

Gravity is probably a weaker theory then evolution. There isnt really proof that mass causes a force...I mean, I cant SEE it, so how do i know its not due to something else?

right?

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 4:02 PM. Reason : -]

12/23/2005 4:01:53 PM

wrong. gravity can be demonstrated in a lab. as can the laws of thermodynamics.

macro evolution with speciation can not be demonstrated in a lab. therefore it is a weaker theory. its the best theory for now, but still weaker than thermodynamics/gravity. nothing personal against your religion, that's just science.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 4:04 PM. Reason : s]

12/23/2005 4:03:04 PM

We need to just stop teaching physics and biology altogether.

12/23/2005 4:03:11 PM

Quote :

"wrong. gravity can be demonstrated in a lab. as can the laws of thermodynamics."

No it cant. Show me someone actually proving that MASS causes a force. You cant see it. All you can do is see the effects of it. Which youve been saying as with evolution, is not proof of anything.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 4:04 PM. Reason : -]

12/23/2005 4:04:10 PM

IDGDIF

12/23/2005 4:06:16 PM