that thar' looks like cuttin' edge research!

6. Campbell. H. and Bauer. W.C., 1966
7. Gall, J.C., 1971
C.R. Acad.Sc.Paris, t. 303, Serie II, no.17, 1986
Lombard. A.. 1972

are you serious man? just gtfo

4/20/2008 11:01:25 PM

if any of that has been refuted by recent findings feel free to offer them

OMG DARWIN WAS 150 YEARS AGO YOU GUYZ LOSE ALL CREDIBILITY BECAUSE HES LYKE SO OLD

(hehe, i'm like the creationists irl. evolutionists just want them to gtfo so badly, but we just keep hanging around. because as hard as you guys try, you still can't disprove (or prove) anything.)

[Edited on April 20, 2008 at 11:09 PM. Reason : ]

4/20/2008 11:05:35 PM

You can't disprove that I didn't go back in time and jizz into a protein mix to create life on Earth.

I guess that makes it a valid theory that should be taught in a classroom.

4/20/2008 11:21:35 PM

ahhhh there you are. just on cue.

but i believe we've covered this already. refer back to a couple pages ago.

4/20/2008 11:25:17 PM

Ok ok...


Let's take the Sun, for example.


Can you prove to me that the Sun is a star?

Because I think it's a God.

Can you prove it isn't what I say it is?

4/20/2008 11:29:52 PM

a quick google search could do that for you

4/20/2008 11:32:17 PM

But that's just one interpretation of the evidence.

I have my own interpretation. How can you prove mine isn't right?

4/20/2008 11:33:06 PM

if there were millions that agreed with you, and if your claims were supported by evidence, and if there was a book written thousands of years ago that has been validated time and time again, etc, then maybe you would be on to something.

4/20/2008 11:37:44 PM

Quote :

"and if there was a book written thousands of years ago that has been validated time and time again"

lol.

Just lock this shit already.

4/20/2008 11:39:49 PM

haha yeah i knew you would get a kick out of that little gem. that's an entirely different topic. sorry i shouldn't have.

i think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on what belongs in a science classroom...strict materialism (even if it discounts any possibility of something beyond the physical) vs. the quest for ultimate truth in general

by the way...has anyone seen the movie that this thread is about yet? i was originally wanting to, thinking it was concerned primarily with presenting a case for why ID should be included in classroom discussion (as i've attempted to do so here). but the more i hear about it, it sounds like it's got a different agenda (one i don't think i agree with).

[Edited on April 20, 2008 at 11:50 PM. Reason : ]

4/20/2008 11:45:06 PM

this is exactly what we should be teaching our kids:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D8AeiAamjY

WARNING: You may want to punch your monitor while watching this video

4/21/2008 12:37:38 AM

Quote :

"Can you prove to me that the Sun is a star? Because I think it's a God."

It's funny you mention that because in Shinto the sun is a "god" or rather goddess. Her name is Amaterasu. Although I am sure followers of Shinto, including myself, agree that this is just a part of mythology and not some kind of omgfactbecauseIsayso. Yes, I know that many if not most other polytheistic religions regard the sun as sacred but I saw a hidden truth within your humor.

And if you wanted to be technical, from my understanding of Shinto the sun can be both kami and a star much like Mt. Fuji is kami yet is a mountain.

http://www.japan-101.com/culture/amaterasu_shinto_sun_goddess.htm

[Edited on April 21, 2008 at 12:55 AM. Reason : quotation context]

4/21/2008 12:54:18 AM

Quote :

"i suppose i wish science classes defined science more as "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws" instead of strictly "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation," because with the second definition any possibility of the existence of anything beyond the physical and material is not only ignored, but automatically discounted. "

First, Creationist "science" can be discounted on just philosophy alone. When you throw science in to the mix, there's no way to account for them all being completely delusional nutjobs.

Secondly, what does the quoted section above mean? Neither science nor religion deals with "facts or truths" and anyone so bold to claim either could is a complete retard, or the Devil themselves. Secondly, science requires heavily on deterring general laws, and this is really the ultimate goal. To find a general law of everything.

And I don't really see what your 2 definitions have to do with god or creationism. And finally, lets say science DID assume a type of god as a possibility, where would they put that god? In the 1800s they didn't know if anything was smaller than an atom, would it have been logical or rational to assume that was an intelligent being then that must have made the atom, and nothing else? Only to say "maybe not" when neutrons and protons were measured? Where's the rational and logical place to put god? How does god enhance the predictive ability of science?

And REALLY finally, science does not aim to or depend on the non-existence of a god (it depends on the general non-intervention of god), it does however disprove some aspects of Creationist ideology, which is why people get the idea that science/god are at odds. But this is what you get for taking a euro-centric view of the universe.

Quote :

"http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i4/geology.asp and for any other scientific finding that "disproves" creationism, just search that site. seems to be a pretty good consolidation of lots of research and findings that support creationism. "

AIG uses blatantly false logic to make their absurd claim, completely misrepresents studies, and even has contradicting statements for the different pillars of creationism (ironically, because they practically look at each single issue in a vacuum). For example, in the radiometric dating one, they accurately not C14 dating has a time limit it can measure (which is obvious and well known), but their concluding statement says "ALL radiometric" dating is flawed based on this problem with C14 dating, which is blatantly wrong. It's literally lying to make this claim.

[Edited on April 21, 2008 at 1:19 AM. Reason : ]

4/21/2008 1:10:52 AM

Good/Funny stuff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bRvt0InhYk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEW1oQBZu-I&feature=related

4/21/2008 1:28:39 AM

^ Nice. I almost want to bookmark that, and the last time I bookmarked anything was when I joined TWW


Anyway, the objection to that, from a Creationist standpoint, is that God of the Christian Bible created the universe as-is because that's the only way it could have supported life from the outset, without Him having to use time and evolution to create life, and to also fit with what Creationist think the Bible dictates as the timeline for Earth. Kind of like how we add chemicals and plants to an aquarium so that it can sustain fish, without letting it sit for weeks to develop a proper pH environment.

4/21/2008 1:40:31 AM

Quote :

"is that not the basis for every religion in the world? Christians think Muslims have it wrong, who think Jews have it wrong, who think Hindus have it wrong, who think Mormons have it wrong, who think Christian Scientists have it wrong, etc etc etc. the only difference between them and non-theistic scientists is that scientists try to base their beliefs in reality"

seems to me that that is PRECISELY what scientist are wanting to do in our public schools. Say that all other religions are wrong. How is that any different from any other religion? Oh right. One can be said in a public classroom. The rest can't.

4/21/2008 6:38:13 PM

Religions don't have anything to do with it. If your religion involves anything supernatural happening in the physical realm, it is by definition set apart from the physical sciences.

I CAN'T BELIEVE I ACTUALLY JUST TYPED THAT.

4/21/2008 6:57:13 PM

aaron is too thick-skulled and tragically stupid to understand that science is not religion.

He heard it once on Rush Limbaugh and thought it was super clever. I bet he smirks smugly every time he says it, and his dumb-ass conservative friends oo and aah at how perceptive and clever he is.

There's a way of discovering our world that enjoys predictive success, and there's a way of explaining our world that survives merely in the margins. As we learn more and more about how things work, people like aaron are forced into intellectual caves, only to be driven out into smaller caves time and time again as we conquer more of the natural world.

4/22/2008 8:23:20 AM

Humankind's arrogance knows no bounds.

4/22/2008 9:02:25 AM

so does its ignorance

[Edited on April 22, 2008 at 10:05 AM. Reason : es]

4/22/2008 10:05:47 AM

I don't have read anything in this thread to know it's all pointless. This is dumbfuck debate I've participated in before, so here's my two cents before I jump ship.

Schools should teach science in a way that accurately describes the best known explanations of natural phenomena in the universe. That includes everything from unanimously accepted facts to speculative theories on otherwise unexplainable events. It also should include a discussion on the strength and weaknesses of theories which are being debated by the scientific community (to the extent possible/feasible/practical.

Science is not designed to uncover the purpose of life. It is designed to help us objectively study the universe in order to understand the underlying principles behind all natural events. It is not the duty of our science education system to prove or disprove the idea that life arose on earth naturally and without the aid of a Creator.


The solution has been, and always will be, for our students to learn the best available science... which will allow them to MAKE THEIR OWN FUCKING DECISIONS ON THE TRUE ORIGINS OF LIFE.





Now... seriously... what the fuck else is there to discuss?

4/22/2008 1:17:26 PM

hay guise

4/22/2008 5:48:09 PM

people who use The Bible as a science book are one step away from this guy (the old dude with the glasses). Be sure to watch it till the end - the last 20 seconds are the best
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wppjYDj9JUc

4/24/2008 7:28:14 PM

The fact that this is even an issue pisses me off.

Are people that bereft of reason where they can't tell what is and what is not science?

I've heard these crap arguments over and over and over.

It's getting to the point where I'd prefer to get kicked in the balls than to have yet another person explain to me why the fossil record is wrong, the Earth is only 6,000 years old, that dinosaurs weren't chosen for the ark because, apparently, God didn't want them to be on it.

I suppose superstition has its place but it damn sure isn't in a public science curriculum.

The argument has been put forth before, but it bears repating: if we, the people of the United States, are to put down them mantle of world leader in science then we will probably never get it back. This is where we are headed.

I'm about as apathetic as it gets but this bs is actually pushing me toward activism.

4/25/2008 7:37:04 AM