Intelligent Design

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 01:00 AM pete5 said this in Post #99

For all intents and purposes we can continue to treat them as big burning balls of gas so long as that continues to produce the expected results, but what about when someone discovers a new way of measuring something we haven't even heard of, and they turn out to be somehting else?

Then that person would probably get a Nobel prize.

New discoveries displacing old theories, while not frequent, does happen. That's the beauty of scientific theories. They change or are replaced when newer and better data comes into view.

 

[Arikay]

Um, yeah, what Pete said.

Thats what happend with creationism. It Was a theory a long time ago, and new information displaced it, and we now have evolution. So far, evidence keeps supporting evolution.

 

[pete5]

um.... creationism is not a science, it has many forms, and often people try to get science to tag along (and it never works very well)

Creationism comes from a belief in the existance of a creating God.

I know God created the world. I don't know how. Science will not tell me how, but it *may* give me some idea of what happened... but the further back into history you go the less accurate your theories are (because they are founded on observations made outside the actual conditions)



ps. What was the proof of macro evolution (and it better not be that stupid moth)

 

[Cantuar]

You sure do want your cake and to eat it to. You want evolution taught, but only the evolution theory that you subscribe to. You only want your version of evolution theory taught. You do not want anyone else's evolution theory taught.

I'd be perfectly happy to see all theories taught. At present thre's onkly one theory, so it makes it hard to teach the others, since they don't exist. "Goddidit" is not a theory.

You are in violation of the law, the law requires that evolution theory be taught in the schools. If your version of evolution is required to be taught, than my version of the evolution theory should be taught also.[quote/]

Your version isn't science. Science teachers are under no obigation to teach stuff that isn't science.

Go ahead, "falsify" theist evolution. If you can not "falsify" it, then it must be true, and it should be tought. Forget intelligent design vs. Evoluion. It's now my version of evolution theory, vs your version of evolution theory.

You've got that one precisely backwards. If something can't be falsified, it isn't science. There's no way to falsify "Goddidit" because there's no way to test it by the scientific method. When something can't be tested by the scientific method, it isn't science.

 

[Cantuar]

That is your theory of evolution, not our theory of evolution. What makes you think your so special that your theory should be given preferance over our theory?

You don't have a theory. "God did it by using unspecified miraculous methods as set forth in scripture" is not a theory. You've been told the definition of a scientific theory often enough that you ought to know that by now.

Everyone is to get equal representation in America.

No, everyone isn't. We don't teach discredited theories in science class and we don't teach religion in science class.

God is the driving force behind Science. Evolution just shows HOW God created what He created.

God is the driving force behind science if you happen to be a theist. There is no supernatural driving force behind science if you don't. If you believe in God and accept evolution, then evolution is the method used by God to create lifeforms. Science class discusses the method, it doesn't discuss philosophical or theological opinions about whether there was a supernatural force behind the method.

Evolution is just another creation theory.

 

[Cantuar]

If you can not "falsify" it, then it must be true. Why is something that must be true, not science?

You can't falsify the statement that the invisible pink unicorn did it all last Thursday and made everything appear old and created us with our memories intact either. Does that make it true? Statements like that can't be falsified scientifically because they can't be tested scientifically. Which means that tehy don't count as science.

 

[Cantuar]

When God is not a part of the education of our young people. Then drugs, guns and illicit sex is going to take over. It is only a question of time, before people destroy themselves.

The United States has a higher proportion of Christians and a higher proportion of gun-related homicides than any western European country, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or Japan. Somehow I don't think that believing in God is correlated with being nonviolent.

 

[Arikay]

Nope, that stupid moth was a micro evolution, based on survival of the fittest.

Here is an article about macro evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

The Most recent evidence for Macro evolution is a weed in england (I believe) that evolved into a new species.

Today at 10:46 PM pete5 said this in Post #103

um.... creationism is not a science, it has many forms, and often people try to get science to tag along (and it never works very well)

Creationism comes from a belief in the existance of a creating God.

I know God created the world. I don't know how. Science will not tell me how, but it *may* give me some idea of what happened... but the further back into history you go the less accurate your theories are (because they are founded on observations made outside the actual conditions)



ps. What was the proof of macro evolution (and it better not be that stupid moth)

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 02:42 AM Cantuar said this in Post #107

The United States has a higher proportion of Christians and a higher proportion of gun-related homicides than any western European country, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or Japan. Somehow I don't think that believing in God is correlated with being nonviolent.

Maybe Americans are a better shot if the rates are higher.