Debate over evolution now allowed in Tenn. schools

[SniperFire]

It's not an opinion; it's a DEFINITION.

sigh...

'Is Intelligent Design science? In its pure form, yes.

However most advocates and opponents do not know what the Intelligent Design hypothesis is. The Intelligent Design (ID) hypothesis states that an "intelligent designer" sometimes modifies the natural world and that these modifications can be detected (reference). ID does not contradict evolution, but claims only that evolution may be incomplete.'

politics1: Is Intelligent Design science?


Modifications can be tested, just like background radiation from the Big Bang.

You must suck at science.

Modifications don't prove design.

This is your opinion, shared by all of your doomed types except 8357, who argues that pre-existance conditions of the universe can be tested by post-existence evidence in the case of microwave radiation from the Big Bang.

The difference? You doomed-souls are scared shitless of one debate and exploration, but not the other.

 

[Si modo]

sigh...

'Is Intelligent Design science? In its pure form, yes.

However most advocates and opponents do not know what the Intelligent Design hypothesis is. The Intelligent Design (ID) hypothesis states that an "intelligent designer" sometimes modifies the natural world and that these modifications can be detected (reference). ID does not contradict evolution, but claims only that evolution may be incomplete.'

politics1: Is Intelligent Design science?


Modifications can be tested, just like background radiation from the Big Bang.

You must suck at science.

Your so called modifications have been tested, and come up short.

In the field of microbiology, the early tests to prove the theories also came up short.

...

So what if early theories "came up short"?

Ummmm, that's part of the scientific method.

Now, in addition to demonstrating that you have no knowledge of the Logic of Scientific Discovery, you also don't grasp the scientific method.

Wow.

You really should stop soiling science.

 

[Old Rocks]

Your so called modifications have been tested, and come up short.

In the field of microbiology, the early tests to prove the theories also came up short.

...

So what if early theories "came up short"?

Ummmm, that's part of the scientific method.

Now, in addition to demonstrating that you have no knowledge of the Logic of Scientific Discovery, you also don't grasp the scientific method.

Wow.

You really should stop soiling science.

Now Sis, Snippy is not soiling science. Nothing she has said has anything to do with science. She is, however, soiling religion. Painting it as anti-scientific, and ignorant. In fact, ID should be an anthema to all who respect religion as a moral guide.

 

[Si modo]

In the field of microbiology, the early tests to prove the theories also came up short.

...

So what if early theories "came up short"?

Ummmm, that's part of the scientific method.

Now, in addition to demonstrating that you have no knowledge of the Logic of Scientific Discovery, you also don't grasp the scientific method.

Wow.

You really should stop soiling science.

Now Sis, Snippy is not soiling science. Nothing she has said has anything to do with science. She is, however, soiling religion. Painting it as anti-scientific, and ignorant. In fact, ID should be an anthema to all who respect religion as a moral guide.

The poster is advocating applying non scientific principles to scientific education.

That is soiling science.

 

[SniperFire]

Your so called modifications have been tested, and come up short.

In the field of microbiology, the early tests to prove the theories also came up short.

Aren't you glad they didn't listen to the flat-earthers?

LOL. Knew it all along. It was Aphrodite that made the modifications. Along with a little help. LOL

At least you finally admit ID is subjectable to scientific test and measure, or at least attempts to do so. Even though the testing has come 'up short' in your view, that which is 'real' science shouldn't be defined by the limited ability of our test equipment.

Should it?

 

[Si modo]

In the field of microbiology, the early tests to prove the theories also came up short.

Aren't you glad they didn't listen to the flat-earthers?

LOL. Knew it all along. It was Aphrodite that made the modifications. Along with a little help. LOL

At least you finally admit ID is subjectable to scientific test and measure, or at least attempts to do so. Even though the testing has come 'up short' in your view, that which is 'real' science shouldn't be defined by the limited ability of our test equipment.

Should it?

Why would one apply the scientific method to a non-scientific theory?

 

[SniperFire]

LOL. Knew it all along. It was Aphrodite that made the modifications. Along with a little help. LOL

At least you finally admit ID is subjectable to scientific test and measure, or at least attempts to do so. Even though the testing has come 'up short' in your view, that which is 'real' science shouldn't be defined by the limited ability of our test equipment.

Should it?

Why would one apply the scientific method to a non-scientific theory?

Are you asking Old Rocks that, or 8537, both of whom belie your argument?

 

[Si modo]

At least you finally admit ID is subjectable to scientific test and measure, or at least attempts to do so. Even though the testing has come 'up short' in your view, that which is 'real' science shouldn't be defined by the limited ability of our test equipment.

Should it?

Why would one apply the scientific method to a non-scientific theory?

Are you asking Old Rocks that, or 8537, both of whom belie your argument?

Why would I ask them? They haven't done that. You have, thus my question: Why would one apply the scientific method to a non-scientific theory?

 

[SniperFire]

Why would one apply the scientific method to a non-scientific theory?

Are you asking Old Rocks that, or 8537, both of whom belie your argument?

Why would I ask them? They haven't done that.

Sure they have. 8537 said Big Bang = ID theory in scientific method as far as modifications provide evidence for a non-testable pre-existence.

And Old Rocks said the scientific method has already been applied with wanting results.

Obviously, you flat-earth guys need to get on the same page and decide which arguments you are scared shitless to permit people explore and which are permissible.

Rolling on the floor, laughing my considerable ass off!!

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, yes, you have proven yourself to be a considerable ass.

 

[Si modo]

Are you asking Old Rocks that, or 8537, both of whom belie your argument?

Why would I ask them? They haven't done that. You have, thus my question: Why would one apply the scientific method to a non-scientific theory?

Sure they have. 8537 said Big Bang = ID theory in scientific method as far as modifications provide evidence for a non-testable pre-existence.

And Old Rocks said the scientific method has already been applied with wanting results.

Obviously, you flat-earth guys need to get on the same page and decide which arguments you are scared shitless to permit people explore and which are permissible.

Rolling on the floor, laughing my considerable ass off!!

You do know that ID is not, BY DEFINITION, a scientific theory, right? I gave you the link as to what makes a scientific theory.

Either you are willfully ignorant as to what defines a scientific theory, or it is over your head. Both are a shame, but the latter is really a shame as it's not a difficult definition.

 

[Old Rocks]

Snippy, Behe stated that there were a number of biological constructs that could not have evolved. That they had to be formed complete. The flagelum was one of them. It, and most of the others, had already been shown to have evolved in evolutionary steps, even before his book came out. So what he claimed to be prime evidences of his hypothesis were nonexistant.

 

[SniperFire]

Why would I ask them? They haven't done that.

Sure they have. 8537 said Big Bang = ID theory in scientific method as far as modifications provide evidence for a non-testable pre-existence.

And Old Rocks said the scientific method has already been applied with wanting results.

Obviously, you flat-earth guys need to get on the same page and decide which arguments you are scared shitless to permit people explore and which are permissible.

Rolling on the floor, laughing my considerable ass off!!

You do know that ID is not, BY DEFINITION, a scientific theory, right? I gave you the link as to what makes a scientific theory.

That is your opinion, certainly shared by all of you doomed souls. I gave you a link as to why your butt-buddies Old Rocks and 8537 disagree with you on that.

But it will certainly be a topic of debate in Tennesee schools, and probably many other states in the very near future.

 

[Si modo]

Snippy, Behe stated that there were a number of biological constructs that could not have evolved. That they had to be formed complete. The flagelum was one of them. It, and most of the others, had already been shown to have evolved in evolutionary steps, even before his book came out. So what he claimed to be prime evidences of his hypothesis were nonexistant.

Yet, he sold many books to the willfully ignorant and the confirmation-bias afflicted.

He profits on willful ignorance. What a surprise, huh?

 

[Si modo]

Sure they have. 8537 said Big Bang = ID theory in scientific method as far as modifications provide evidence for a non-testable pre-existence.

And Old Rocks said the scientific method has already been applied with wanting results.

Obviously, you flat-earth guys need to get on the same page and decide which arguments you are scared shitless to permit people explore and which are permissible.

Rolling on the floor, laughing my considerable ass off!!

You do know that ID is not, BY DEFINITION, a scientific theory, right? I gave you the link as to what makes a scientific theory.

That is your opinion, certainly shared by all of you doomed souls. I gave you a link as to why your butt-buddies Old Rocks and 8537 disagree with you on that.

But it will certainly be a topic of debate in Tennesee schools, and probably many other states in the very near future.

Definitions are not opinions.

 

[SniperFire]

Did I mention this was a freaking duck shoot?


LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, Snippy, on most issues Sis and I go head to head. But of all the scientific theories, Evolution is the most robust.

As for more states adapting this nonsense, there may be a few, and they will all certainly be in the states that are, like Tennessee, ranked very low on the educational scale. And, with this kind of attitude, will rank even further down the scale in coming years. Willfull ignorance is ugly.

 

[Nosmo King]

Conservatives fear science. Why? Because science flies in the face of their most cherished philosophical tenets. First, science shows that mankind was not placed, fully formed on this planet as described in the Genesis myth. That insults their very being! Why, if mankind is just as susceptible to the forces of evolution as any other life form, our status as most favored by God is in jeopardy. They forget that we are endowed with the greatest mental capacity and are capable of ferreting out the answers to questions about the natural world.

Science tells Conservatives that yes, indeed, mankind is fully capable of damaging his ecology by pollution and over development. How can someone earn a profit if he has to clean up after himself or, at least, develop means of not polluting in the first place?

Science tells us that some materials we have used are not healthy for humans or other animals or plants or our environment. When Conservatives hear that, they are quick to dismiss that science as 'junk' science. See how easy it can be if you neither understand nor respect science? If you don't like the results, just call it 'junk' and move on.

 

[SniperFire]

You do know that ID is not, BY DEFINITION, a scientific theory, right? I gave you the link as to what makes a scientific theory.

That is your opinion, certainly shared by all of you doomed souls. I gave you a link as to why your butt-buddies Old Rocks and 8537 disagree with you on that.

But it will certainly be a topic of debate in Tennesee schools, and probably many other states in the very near future.

Definitions are not opinions.

Definitions are certainly opinions, and evolve constantly.

Your desperation has turned to absurdity.

 

[konradv]

Did I mention this was a freaking duck shoot?

Thing are easier when you refuse to answer substantive questions, like why some amino acids have one DNA codon and some as many as 6. How does that not imply randomness, rather than design?