Which is easier...?

Agonaces of Susa said:

LOL.

So you think that in each field of science only one hypothesis should be legal?

Click to expand...

there is no science involved with the idea of creationism.It is purely religion and has no place in science class. Your question is not relevant.

You say that on account of ignorance and a lack of education.

Click to expand...

ah yes. I forgot, all it takes to show evolution wrong is a bunch of quotas used fallaciously. LOL

Agonaces of Susa said:

3. If Darwinism is such a solid and sound hypothesis, why are Darwinists so afraid of alternative theories?

Click to expand...

If that what we teach about WW2 is on such solid and sound ground why are people so afraid of history teachers telling kids that t he holocaust wasn't true?

If our foundation in math is so strong why don't we allow out math teachers to each that 2+4=120?

LightHorseman said:

No one is "afraid" of alternate theories.

Click to expand...

Then why are they illegal to teach?

Best scientific practice demands that the theory that best fits the available evidence is the one taught.

Click to expand...

That is idiotic.

In other words, you just follow whatever happens to be the most popular or latest trend or fashion in science.

Science is not a popularity contest. Save the popularity contests for highschool prom and MTV.

Science is about controversy not consensus.

"You know we receive an education in the schools from books. All those books that people became educated from twenty-five years ago, are wrong now, and those that are good now, will be wrong again twenty-five years from now. So if they are wrong then, they are also wrong now, and the one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is misled. All books that are written are wrong, the one who is not educated cannot write a book and the one who is educated, is really not educated but he is misled and the one who is misled cannot write a book that is correct." -- Edward Leedskalnin, stone mason, 1936

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." -- Max Planck, physicist, 1949

"The human mind is a lot like the human egg and the human egg has a shut-off device. When one sperm gets in, it shuts down so the next one can't get in. The human mind has a big tendency of the same sort. And here again, it doesn't just catch ordinary mortals; it catches the deans of physics. According to Max Planck, the really innovative, important new physics was never really accepted by the old guard. Instead a new guard came along that was less brain-blocked by its previous conclusions. And if Max Planck's crowd had this consistency and commitment tendency that kept their old conclusions intact in spite of disconfirming evidence, you can imagine what the crowd that you and I are part of behaves like." -- Charles T. Munger, philosopher, 1995

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert." -- Arthur C. Clarke, author, 1999

"The history of science demonstrates, however, that the scientific truths of yesterday are often viewed as misconceptions, and, conversely, that ideas rejected in the past may now be considered true. History is littered with the discarded beliefs of yesteryear, and the present is populated by epistemic corrections. This realization leads us to the central problem of the history and philosophy of science: How are we to evaluate contemporary sciences's claims to truth given the perishability of past scientific knowledge? ... If the truths of today are the falsehoods of tomorrow, what does this say about the nature of scientific truth?" -- Naomi Oreskes, historian, 1999

"Science, we are told is tentative. And given the history of science, there is every reason to be tentative. No scientific theory withstands revision for long, and many are eventually superseded by theories that flatly contradict their predecessors. Scientific revolutions are common, painful, and real. New theories regularly overturn old ones, and no scientific theory is ever the final word. But if science is tentative, scientists are not. As philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn rightly noted, it takes a revolution to change scientific theories precisely because scientists do not hold their theories tentatively. Thus, in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn quotes with approval Max Planck, who wrote: 'A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing it's opponents and making them see the light, but rather because it's opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.'" -- William A. Dembski, philosopher, March 16th 2000

"Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period." -- Michael Crichton, author, January 17th 2003

"Everything I'm gonna present to you was not in my textbooks when I went to school. And most of it was not even in my college textbooks. I'm a geophysicist and (all my earth science books) when I was a student I had to give the wrong answer to get an A. We used to ridicule continental drift. It was something we laughed at." -- Robert D. Ballard, oceanographer, May 2008

That theory is evolution.

Click to expand...

I disagree and so does the majority of the world.

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert." -- Arthur C. Clarke, author, 1999

Teaching theories other than the one that best fits the available evidence is something other than science. So by all means, teach creationism all you want, just be aware that what you're doing is not teaching science. Thats all.

Until such time as a theory that better fits available evidence comes along, evolutionary theory will be taught in science classes. Complaining about how unfair this is to your prefered theory doesn't change the way science works, unfortunately.

Click to expand...

That is idiotic. See above.

MoonLancer said:

there is no science involved with the idea of creationism.

Click to expand...

I agree gravitation and the Big Bang are not scientific.

"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687

"Meanwhile remote operation has just been revived in England by the admirable Mr. Newton, who maintains that it is the nature of bodies to be attracted and gravitate one towards another, in proportion to the mass of each one, and the rays of attraction it receives. Accordingly the famous Mr. Locke, in his answer to Bishop Stillingfleet, declares that having seen Mr. Newton's book he retracts what he himself said, following the opinion of the moderns, in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, to wit, that a body cannot operate immediately upon another except by touching it upon its surface and driving it by its motion. He acknowledges that God can put properties into matter which cause it to operate from a distance. Thus the theologians of the Augsburg Confession claim that God may ordain not only that a body operate immediately on divers bodies remote from one another, but that it even exist in their neighbourhood and be received by them in a way with which distances of place and dimensions of space have nothing to do. Although this effect transcends the forces of Nature, they do not think it possible to show that it surpasses the power of the Author of Nature. For him it is easy to annul the laws that he has given or to dispense with them as seems good to him, in the same way as he was able to make iron float upon water and to stay the operation of fire upon the human body." -- Gottfriend W. Leibniz, polymath, 1695

"...to establish it [gravitation] as original or primitive in certain parts of matter is to resort either to miracle or an imaginary occult quality." -- Gottfreid W. Leibniz, polymath, July 1710



"The extraordinary thing is that scientists accept the Big Bang and in the same breath deride the Creationists." -- Wallace Thornhill, physicist, date unknown

It is purely religion and has no place in science class.

Click to expand...

How do you account for all the peer-reviewed scientific literature on Intelligent Design?

Crick, F.H.C., and Orgel, L.E., Directed Panspermia, Icarus, Volume 19, Pages 341-346, 1973

Axe, D.D., Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds, Journal of Molecular Biology, Volume 341, Issue 5, Pages 1295-1315, Aug 2004

Behe, M.J., and Snoke, D.W., Simulating Evolution By Gene Duplication of Protein Features that Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues, Protein Science, Volume 13, Number 10, Pages 2651-2664, Oct 2004

Lönnig, W-E., Dynamic Genomes Morphological Stasis and the Origin of Irreducible Complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pages 101-119, 2005

Couvreur, P., and Vauthier, C., Nanotechnology; Intelligent Design to Treat Complex Diseases, Pharmaceutical Research, Volume 23, Number 7, Jul 2006

Marks, R.J., and Dembski, W.A., Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success, Systems Man and Cybernetics: Part A Systems and Humans, IEEE Transactions, Volume 39, Issue 5, Pages 1051-1061, Sep 2009

Your question is not relevant.

Click to expand...

Evolution and atheism are not relevant.

Agonaces of Susa said:

Then why are they illegal to teach?

Click to expand...

They aren't. They have to exist before they could be illegal. And if they did exist, they wouldn't be illegal.

KIYX said:

If that what we teach about WW2 is on such solid and sound ground why are people so afraid of history teachers telling kids that t he holocaust wasn't true?

Click to expand...

Good question. You have no problem denying the Bible and all of Jewish history, so why do you have a problem denying the Holocaust?

If our foundation in math is so strong why don't we allow out math teachers to each that 2+4=120?

Click to expand...

We should.

It is a matter of faith that an unit is equal to one which is why it's a Euclidean definition and not a proposition for demonstration.

"Mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we're talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true." -- Bertrand Russell, physicist/philosopher, 1901

Skaloop said:

They aren't. They have to exist before they could be illegal.

Click to expand...

In order for evolution to be a theory, it has to be falsifiable.

If a theory can be falsified, then there must be an alternative -- namely the null hypothesis.

You claim evolution cannot possibly be falsified, therefore evolution is not a scientific theory.

Furthermore, claiming creationism, directed panspermia, and intelligent design do not exist is childish and immature.

And if they did exist, they wouldn't be illegal.

Click to expand...

It is illegal to teach any hypothesis other than evolution is public school biology. That proves evolution is not scientific.

Agonaces of Susa said:

In order for evolution to be a theory it has to be falsifiable.

Click to expand...

True.

If a theory can be falsified then there must be an alternative -- namely the null hypothesis.

Click to expand...

Yes. The null hypothesis, however, is not Creationism.

You claim evolution cannot possibly be falsified, therefore evolution is not a scientific theory.

Click to expand...

Liar. I never claimed such a thing. There are several ways in which evolution could be falsified. Yet none has yet been evidenced.

Furthermore, claiming creationism, directed panspermia, and intelligent design do not exist is childish and immature.

Click to expand...

Claiming that they do, despite a total lack of evidence, is stupid and insane.

It is illegal to teach any hypothesis other than evolution is public school biology. That proves evolution is not scientific.

Click to expand...

It might, if evolution was decided in public school, Rather, it is based on studies far beyond public school, studies open to the public and available for anyone to refute. You cannot refute evolution. You are too ignorant and uneducated to even attempt to describe it, let alone prove it wrong. Men and women with far more brainpower have attempted and failed to do it, so why do you think you could do it?

Agonaces of Susa said:

Good question. You have no problem denying the Bible and all of Jewish history

Click to expand...

And now is where you get to quote where I said that.

Skaloop said:

Yes. The null hypothesis, however, is not Creationism.

Click to expand...

What is it then?

And why is it illegal?

Liar. I never claimed such a thing. There are several ways in which evolution could be falsified.

Click to expand...

If you think evolution can be falsified, then why is it illegal to teach any evidence that contradicts evolution?

Yet none has yet been evidenced.

Click to expand...

So you claim.

Even if such evidence existed, and it would require a server farm to catalogue it all, it would still be illegal to teach it.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." -- Charles R. Darwin, naturalist, Novemer 24th 1859

It is impossible for the human brain to have been formed by numerous, successive, and slight modifications because it is irreducibly complex. Likewise the bacterial flagellum.

"...Evolution makes the strong prediction that if a single fossil turned up in the wrong geological stratum, the theory would be blown out of the water. When challenged by a zealous Popperian to say how evolution could ever be falsified, J.B.S. Haldane famously growled: 'Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.'" -- Richard Dawkins, biologist, 2006

We now have a single fossil in the wrong geological stratum, namely modern octopuses in the Cretaceous.

Claiming that they do, despite a total lack of evidence, is stupid and insane.

Click to expand...

Believing in evolution is stupid and insane.

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert." -- Arthur C. Clarke, author, 1999

It might, if evolution was decided in public school, Rather, it is based on studies far beyond public school, studies open to the public and available for anyone to refute. You cannot refute evolution. You are too ignorant and uneducated to even attempt to describe it, let alone prove it wrong. Men and women with far more brainpower have attempted and failed to do it, so why do you think you could do it?

Click to expand...

You cannot refute creationism because you are "too ignorant and uneducated to even attempt to describe it, let alone prove it wrong."

KIYX said:

And now is where you get to quote where I said that.

Click to expand...

If you don't deny the Bible and all of Jewish history then I suggest you change your religion.

Atheism specifically denies the Bible and all of Jewish history.

Observe the following atheist claims:

"... judging from the account of the Exodus of the Jews, which they have written themselves, we cannot credit it. The narrative is full of contradictions, and is so absurd and incredible, and even impossible, that we must regard it as a huge myth. There may have been an Exodus from Egypt, of which this account is an exaggeration, but it bears so many evidences of the fabulous that we cast it aside and are led to doubt whether the Jews were ever in Egypt except as tramps and vagabonds ...." -- Richard B. Westbrook, scientist, 1892

"The Jews have no history -- or what may be termed real history ...." -- Jonathan M. Roberts, scientist, 1894

"Jews have no history, the Bible is nothing else than an account of fables." -- Moise Rahmani, revisionist historian, April 2004

Produce your evidence that evolution is wrong and it will be taught, however, just saying evolution is wrong IS NOT EVIDENCE you will need to show it not just say it.

I have no idea why people say creationists are ignorant, do you?

hydro jen said:

Produce your evidence that evolution is wrong and it will be taught

Click to expand...

This is absurd.

It is illegal to teach any evidence that contradicts evolution.

"Our work at Hueyatlaco has been rejected by most archaeologists because it contradicts that theory [evolution], period." -- Virginia Steen-McIntyre, tephrochronologist, March 30th 1981

"The problem as I see it is much bigger than Hueyatlaco. It concerns the manipulation of scientific thought and the suppression of 'Enigmatic Data,' data that challenges the prevailing mode of thinking. Hueyatlaco certainly does that! Not being an anthropologist, I didn't realize the full significance of our dates back in 1973, nor how deeply woven into our thought the current theory of human evolution had become. Our work at Hueyatlaco has been rejected by most archaeologists because it contradicts that theory [evolution], period. Their reasoning is circular. H. sapiens sapiens evolved ca. 30,000-50,000 years ago in Eurasia. Therefore any H.s.s. tools 250,000 years old found in Mexico are impossible because H.s.s. evolved ca. 30,000- ... etc. Such thinking makes for self-satisfied archaeologists but lousy science!" -- Virginia Steen-McIntyre, tephrochronologist, March 30th 1981

Steen-McIntyre, V., et al., Geologic Evidence for Age Deposits at Hueyatlaco Archaeological Site Valsequillo Mexico, Quaternary Research, Number 16, Pages 1-17, 1981

however, just saying evolution is wrong IS NOT EVIDENCE you will need to show it not just say it.

Click to expand...

It is illegal to show it in public school so that's irrelevant.

I have no idea why people say creationists are ignorant, do you?

Click to expand...

No.

Agonaces of Susa said:

This is absurd.

It is illegal to teach any evidence that contradicts evolution.

Click to expand...

That sir is a lie. If you cannot debate honestly, do not expect people to take what you with any gravity or seriousness.

Agonaces of Susa said:

It is illegal to show it in public school so that's irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Where did you get this idea from?? it is not illegal to produce evidence against anything providing you do have evidence and not just rubbish.

Teaching creationism in a science class is illegal because creationism is masquerading as something it's not, science, creationism is a belief not a science.

No one objects to people teaching creationism just as long as it's taught in the right class, it's a belief so it should be taught in the same place as all of the other beliefs, in the religious knowledge or education class.

MoonLancer said:

That sir is a lie. If you cannot debate honestly, do not expect people to take what you with any gravity or seriousness.

Click to expand...

What country do you live in?

I live in the United States where it is illegal to teach any evidence that contradicts evolution in public school.

hydro jen said:

Where did you get this idea from?? it is not illegal to produce evidence against anything providing you do have evidence and not just rubbish.

Click to expand...

What country do you live in?

I live in the United States where it is illegal to teach any evidence that contradicts evolution in public school.

Teaching creationism in a science class is illegal because creationism is masquerading as something it's not, science, creationism is a belief not a science.

Click to expand...

Evolution is a belief not science.

No one objects to people teaching creationism just as long as it's taught in the right class, it's a belief so it should be taught in the same place as all of the other beliefs, in the religious knowledge or education class.

Click to expand...

Creationism should be taught in mathematics or history class and evolution should be taught in theology or pseudoscience class where it belongs.

Can any one enlighten me, please?
Agonaces has claimed many times here that it is illegal to teach anything except evolution. As far as I know - but my knowledge on this is limited - the onlmy thing that has been ruled is that the teaching of creationism and Intelligent Design have been ruled out.

So there are some options
- my information is incomplete
- Agonaces is creating a false dychomtomy (evolution or creationism)
- Agonaces is stretching the court decisions beyond its boundaries.
- any option I didn't think about.

Agonaces of Susa said:

I live in the United States where it is illegal to teach any evidence that contradicts evolution in public school.

Click to expand...

Really? Can you produce the legal texts supporting that claim?

Agonaces of Susa said:

Then why are they illegal to teach?

Click to expand...

They're not.

That is idiotic.

Click to expand...

No, its the scientific method.

In other words, you just follow whatever happens to be the most popular or latest trend or fashion in science.

Science is not a popularity contest. Save the popularity contests for highschool prom and MTV.

Click to expand...

Nothing to do with being popular or trendy. Again, it is to do with the theory that BEST FIT THE EVIDENCE.

Science is about controversy not consensus.

Click to expand...

Actually, no, science is about evidence.

I disagree and so does the majority of the world.

Click to expand...

Weren't you just saying that its not about popularity? scientific accuracy is not determined by consensus.