Debate over evolution now allowed in Tenn. schools

[SniperFire]

So, you advocate the teaching of one religion's mythology in a science class. There is zero evidence for creationism, and huge volumes of evidence against it. And that idea affects the disciplines of geology, biology, and astronomy. Essentially, creationism denies the whole of modern science.

Evolution covers a broad range of theories, some well documented with evidence, and others pure conjecture. Discussion of the topics in the schools is neither affecting science, or leading students away from science. It is simply returning the learning environment back to free expression.

Creationism is a belief and not a theory. Intelligent design, on the other hand, is a theory that should be explored.

You just made a lot of Neanderthal 'scientists' poop themselves in fear.

 

[Si modo]

So, you advocate the teaching of one religion's mythology in a science class. There is zero evidence for creationism, and huge volumes of evidence against it. And that idea affects the disciplines of geology, biology, and astronomy. Essentially, creationism denies the whole of modern science.

Evolution covers a broad range of theories, some well documented with evidence, and others pure conjecture. Discussion of the topics in the schools is neither affecting science, or leading students away from science. It is simply returning the learning environment back to free expression.

Creationism is a belief and not a theory. Intelligent design, on the other hand, is a theory that should be explored.

I totally agree ID should be explored. But, as it is not BY DEFINITION, a scientific theory, it should be explored outside the science class.

We already don't have enough time to properly teach science in the schools (as evidenced by this thread and others - many, many others, sadly).

 

[Si modo]

But I did not say asking questions was illogical. In fact, this entire thread has been about the need to ask questions, and you have spent the entire thread telling us why you flat-earthers fears inquiry and debate.

Too freaking funny..

He asked a question, you said that was not very logical.

Would you like to change that somehow now?

I said the question was not logical, not that asking questions was illogical.

You double-digit IQ types are starting to bore me.


Up your game.

I can understand why you would also think that a question is illogical.

 

[SniperFire]

So, you advocate the teaching of one religion's mythology in a science class. There is zero evidence for creationism, and huge volumes of evidence against it. And that idea affects the disciplines of geology, biology, and astronomy. Essentially, creationism denies the whole of modern science.

Evolution covers a broad range of theories, some well documented with evidence, and others pure conjecture. Discussion of the topics in the schools is neither affecting science, or leading students away from science. It is simply returning the learning environment back to free expression.

Creationism is a belief and not a theory. Intelligent design, on the other hand, is a theory that should be explored.

I totally agree ID should be explored. But, as it is not BY DEFINITION, a scientific theory

This is your opinion, not shared by everyone. Open your mind.

 

[Si modo]

Evolution covers a broad range of theories, some well documented with evidence, and others pure conjecture. Discussion of the topics in the schools is neither affecting science, or leading students away from science. It is simply returning the learning environment back to free expression.

Creationism is a belief and not a theory. Intelligent design, on the other hand, is a theory that should be explored.

I totally agree ID should be explored. But, as it is not BY DEFINITION, a scientific theory

This is your opinion, not shared by everyone. Open your mind.

Definitions are not opinions.

 

[SniperFire]

He asked a question, you said that was not very logical.

Would you like to change that somehow now?

I said the question was not logical, not that asking questions was illogical.

You double-digit IQ types are starting to bore me.


Up your game.

I can understand why you would also think that a question is illogical.

As long as you are retreating from your initial dumbassed take, we good!

 

[konradv]

Not very logical. I hope you aren't a scientific type.

Would a landscape painter paint the same landscape each and every time?

Now God is a painter?

hmmm. I'll make a mental note to dumb down the metaphors for you next time.

Oh God, please don't get any dumber!

 

[SniperFire]

I totally agree ID should be explored. But, as it is not BY DEFINITION, a scientific theory

This is your opinion, not shared by everyone. Open your mind.

Definitions are not opinions.

They most certainly are.

Go to any two or three encyclopedia, and compare their definitions on any topic.

Did I mention you suck at logic and reason?

 

[Dr.Drock]

So, you advocate the teaching of one religion's mythology in a science class. There is zero evidence for creationism, and huge volumes of evidence against it. And that idea affects the disciplines of geology, biology, and astronomy. Essentially, creationism denies the whole of modern science.

Evolution covers a broad range of theories, some well documented with evidence, and others pure conjecture. Discussion of the topics in the schools is neither affecting science, or leading students away from science. It is simply returning the learning environment back to free expression.

Creationism is a belief and not a theory. Intelligent design, on the other hand, is a theory that should be explored.

You just made a lot of Neanderthal 'scientists' poop themselves in fear.

What made you believe in Neanderthals? The Bible or science?

And yes, feel free to fill in your very clever joke about how ppl disagreeing with you in this thread is why you believe in neanderthals.

 

[Si modo]

I said the question was not logical, not that asking questions was illogical.

You double-digit IQ types are starting to bore me.


Up your game.

I can understand why you would also think that a question is illogical.

As long as you are retreating from your initial dumbassed take, we good!

What do you think my "initial take" was?

 

[Si modo]

This is your opinion, not shared by everyone. Open your mind.

Definitions are not opinions.

They most certainly are.

Go to any two or three encyclopedia, and compare their definitions on any topic.

Did I mention you suck at logic and reason?

I understand how EVERYTHING must be relative in your mind. Perception is reality, and all that.

Just like political hacks.

 

[SniperFire]

Definitions are not opinions.

They most certainly are.

Go to any two or three encyclopedia, and compare their definitions on any topic.

Did I mention you suck at logic and reason?

I understand how EVERYTHING must be relative in your mind. Perception is reality, and all that.

Just like political hacks.

You got your ass kicked, again.

That is twice in about 10 minutes.

Why not take a break and come back later.


I am here to help!

 

[Dr.Drock]

They most certainly are.

Go to any two or three encyclopedia, and compare their definitions on any topic.

Did I mention you suck at logic and reason?

I understand how EVERYTHING must be relative in your mind. Perception is reality, and all that.

Just like political hacks.

You got your ass kicked, again.

That is twice in about 10 minutes.

Why not take a break and come back later.


I am here to help!

Ahh the insecurity of people who self-annoint themselves as victors.

I mean this in the nicest of ways Sniper, I've got a lot of pity for you.

 

[Si modo]

They most certainly are.

Go to any two or three encyclopedia, and compare their definitions on any topic.

Did I mention you suck at logic and reason?

I understand how EVERYTHING must be relative in your mind. Perception is reality, and all that.

Just like political hacks.

You got your ass kicked, again.

That is twice in about 10 minutes.

Why not take a break and come back later.


I am here to help!

The "I win, I win" point?

OK, if that makes you feel good, I'm all about feeling good.

But feelings have nothing to do with definitions. Neither do opinions.

But, as you believe they do, let's explore that.

My statement is that ID is not a scientific theory because, for one, it is not falsifiable - as the definition requires.

Falsifiable is, by definition, the existence of a real or hypothetical data set for which the proposed theory does not apply (the theory is falsified by that real or hypothetical data set).

So, what is the real or hypothetical data set which demonstrates ID as invalid? It's not hard, because you can simply make up a data set that falsifies ID. So, what is that data set?

 

[Si modo]

 

[konradv]

They most certainly are.

Go to any two or three encyclopedia, and compare their definitions on any topic.

Did I mention you suck at logic and reason?

I understand how EVERYTHING must be relative in your mind. Perception is reality, and all that.

Just like political hacks.

You got your ass kicked, again.

That is twice in about 10 minutes.

Why not take a break and come back later.

I am here to help!

How can we expect help from someone who can't answer simple questions? For every supposed example of design it should be easy to show any number of true examples of randomness. The very way DNA is transmitted is random and that's the basic blueprint of life.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Evolution under intense scrutiny for 100+ years is still not a scientific law, so why shouldnt there be debate? It is still a theory, like the Big Bang, Global Warming, and pretty much all of psycology.

 

[konradv]

Evolution under intense scrutiny for 100+ years is still not a scientific law, so why shouldnt there be debate? It is still a theory, like the Big Bang, Global Warming, and pretty much all of psycology.

Scientific debate, sure, but ID isn't science. Any debate should be held in Social Sudies, not a science class. A scientific theory isn't a guess. It requires evidence and to date ID hasn't come up with anything. What's to teach or discuss?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Evolution under intense scrutiny for 100+ years is still not a scientific law, so why shouldnt there be debate? It is still a theory, like the Big Bang, Global Warming, and pretty much all of psycology.

So is gravity, if there was a religious motivation to deny gravity, people would be jumping off buildings.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, you advocate the teaching of one religion's mythology in a science class. There is zero evidence for creationism, and huge volumes of evidence against it. And that idea affects the disciplines of geology, biology, and astronomy. Essentially, creationism denies the whole of modern science.

Evolution covers a broad range of theories, some well documented with evidence, and others pure conjecture. Discussion of the topics in the schools is neither affecting science, or leading students away from science. It is simply returning the learning environment back to free expression.

Creationism is a belief and not a theory. Intelligent design, on the other hand, is a theory that should be explored.

Creationism and ID are synonymous, and there is no evidence for either.