Debate over evolution now allowed in Tenn. schools

[Si modo]

(For Si Modo)

How about "There is no God?"

Oh wait, you can't prove there is or there is not a god so that flies out the window in such a data set.


Hmmm...Tough one!

I've never seen Si Modo on this thread or any thread say science disproves the existence of a god or gods.

No one is claiming Si Modo says this.

Using Si Modo argument for the need of a falsifiable data set, and the case that ID requires a designer, one could assume that this designer is the god of creation.

The problem now lies in proving or disproving this god exist. Understand, claiming something exist does not prove or disprove the theory since it could have been created or randomly assembled to its current state. So the existance of an object actually lies in both a set that proves the theory and disproves the theory. You need something that is mutually exclusive from either set.

An even stranger argument is this case of a watch maker and a watch. I have a watch, I present a watchmaker. Did the Watchmaker create this watch? It is possible that the watchmaker I present to you did not make the particular piece, another watchmaker did!

Using this realization , once one is able to concludes there is a god this does not prove that the god in question created the life form you are studying. It is possible that there is another god that created the lifeform. So a new problem arises even if you are able to prove there is a god--how many gods are there and how do you associate a particular god to a particular life form?

There are probably even more problems awaiting the ID theorists than what I just presented, and this exploration into the problem leads to some very abstract concepts that could lead to the undermining of their agenda--introducing Monotheism into the schools.

My argument for a falsifying data set is not an argument - it is a basic requirement that ALL theories in science MUST meet.

When ID has a data set, either real or hypothetical, that can falsify it, then I will be one of the first proponents of it being taught in science.

 

[Erand7899]

Well, that's not an answer to my question.

Your logical fallacy in this instance is known as 'petitio principii.'


Look that up.


LOL

You deny basic definitions of what a scientific theory is.

You dodge simple questions.

I could go on, but there really is little that is NOT a logical fallacy of your "argument". And, you resort to dishonesty.

So, let's go back to the questions I posed to you based on your denial of what a scientific theory is:

If a theory is not falsifiable, by definition, it is not a scientific theory.

Falsifiability, by definition, is a real or hypothetical data set that falsifies the theory. There must exist some data set, either real or imagined, that will make the theory false.

Strange, but you already assume that existing scientific data sets falsify the theory of intelligent design. Then you claim it cannot be a theory because it is not falsifiable. Make up your mind.



So, what is that real or hypothetical data set that disproves ID? It shouldn't be hard to come up with one as you simply can make one up.

And your answer is?

Irreducible complexity is just one. When you can prove that a functioning cell can exist without some of the thousands of components necessary for the most basic cell, you can falsify intelligent design. Until then, you have a serious flaw in your theory of how life commenced. When you can show a reasonable evolution of an immune system, you will be able to falsify intelligent design. When you can establish an evolutionary rationale for bi-sexual reproduction, and provide a reasonable evolution of that factor, you can falsify intelligent design.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your logical fallacy in this instance is known as 'petitio principii.'


Look that up.


LOL

You deny basic definitions of what a scientific theory is.

You dodge simple questions.

I could go on, but there really is little that is NOT a logical fallacy of your "argument". And, you resort to dishonesty.

So, let's go back to the questions I posed to you based on your denial of what a scientific theory is:

If a theory is not falsifiable, by definition, it is not a scientific theory.

Falsifiability, by definition, is a real or hypothetical data set that falsifies the theory. There must exist some data set, either real or imagined, that will make the theory false.

Strange, but you already assume that existing scientific data sets falsify the theory of intelligent design. Then you claim it cannot be a theory because it is not falsifiable. Make up your mind.



So, what is that real or hypothetical data set that disproves ID? It shouldn't be hard to come up with one as you simply can make one up.

And your answer is?

Irreducible complexity is just one. When you can prove that a functioning cell can exist without some of the thousands of components necessary for the most basic cell, you can falsify intelligent design. Until then, you have a serious flaw in your theory of how life commenced. When you can show a reasonable evolution of an immune system, you will be able to falsify intelligent design. When you can establish an evolutionary rationale for bi-sexual reproduction, and provide a reasonable evolution of that factor, you can falsify intelligent design.

Strains of bacteria can 'evolve' a genetically transmissible resistance to certain antibiotics, producing an entirely new strain that can exhibit that resistance,

solely by having been exposed to said antibiotic over a period of time.

There no evidence whatsoever of the need for an intelligent designer to effect that process;

the process of natural selection and survival of the fittest selects out particular bacteria and allows them to reproduce, until the capability for resistance has been built into the genes of successive generations.

 

[Erand7899]

So, let's go back to the questions I posed to you ?

You have been spanked quite enough. There seems to have been some much brighter posters attracted to the conversation at this point.


You should just sit back and read.

It is quite obvious you have never studied anything in your shallowed life, other than insults.
There is a great difference in how different religions would want "their" creationism taught, but that is beyond your comprehension.
So if all you have are insults you are not worth responding too unless you are so wrong it is sad to let you post your lies. Which is 100% of the time.

You continually make the unsupported assumption that anyone who disagrees with your concepts of evolution want creationism taught in the schools. What I want is open and honest discussion of what you accept as the gospel, in public schools. Perhaps students should discuss why some scientists believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs, while others insist that birds predated the dinosaurs. Perhaps students should ask why few, if any, of the intermediate models of humans survived to the current age. After all, these pre humans had to be viable for thousands of years to allow the necessary evolutionary changes to the next model. Why did they suddenly cease to exist?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The greatest human minds once stomped their feet and insisted the world was flat. While I basically agree with you that there has been a progression of species, you should be careful on what you insist to be 'fact' in the face of our limited understanding.

But the good news is we are still debating it, especially in Tennessee!

They took Genesis as the factual account as to how the Earth was formed.

I don't know what how you would expect the explanation to read in a pre-science world of primitive people.

I would expect those primitive people to believe that their world must have been created by a supernatural power,

because they didn't have the scientific knowledge to understand that such a world could have been created by forces of nature devoid of the supernatural.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You have been spanked quite enough. There seems to have been some much brighter posters attracted to the conversation at this point.


You should just sit back and read.

It is quite obvious you have never studied anything in your shallowed life, other than insults.
There is a great difference in how different religions would want "their" creationism taught, but that is beyond your comprehension.
So if all you have are insults you are not worth responding too unless you are so wrong it is sad to let you post your lies. Which is 100% of the time.

You continually make the unsupported assumption that anyone who disagrees with your concepts of evolution want creationism taught in the schools. What I want is open and honest discussion of what you accept as the gospel, in public schools. Perhaps students should discuss why some scientists believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs, while others insist that birds predated the dinosaurs. Perhaps students should ask why few, if any, of the intermediate models of humans survived to the current age. After all, these pre humans had to be viable for thousands of years to allow the necessary evolutionary changes to the next model. Why did they suddenly cease to exist?

Should science class debate the question of the divinity of Jesus Christ?

 

[amrchaos]

Your logical fallacy in this instance is known as 'petitio principii.'


Look that up.


LOL

You deny basic definitions of what a scientific theory is.

You dodge simple questions.

I could go on, but there really is little that is NOT a logical fallacy of your "argument". And, you resort to dishonesty.

So, let's go back to the questions I posed to you based on your denial of what a scientific theory is:

If a theory is not falsifiable, by definition, it is not a scientific theory.

Falsifiability, by definition, is a real or hypothetical data set that falsifies the theory. There must exist some data set, either real or imagined, that will make the theory false.

Strange, but you already assume that existing scientific data sets falsify the theory of intelligent design. Then you claim it cannot be a theory because it is not falsifiable. Make up your mind.



So, what is that real or hypothetical data set that disproves ID? It shouldn't be hard to come up with one as you simply can make one up.

And your answer is?

Irreducible complexity is just one. When you can prove that a functioning cell can exist without some of the thousands of components necessary for the most basic cell, you can falsify intelligent design. Until then, you have a serious flaw in your theory of how life commenced. When you can show a reasonable evolution of an immune system, you will be able to falsify intelligent design. When you can establish an evolutionary rationale for bi-sexual reproduction, and provide a reasonable evolution of that factor, you can falsify intelligent design.

A quick question about your points.

Concerning IC and the components of a cell. What if we do consider the removal of such componets as not a cell, but it is still considered alive and can survive without it? Would that still disprove evol even though we could still have a living organism that does not require said components?


What is considered a "reasonable evolution"? Understand, some adaptations could be considered evolution by some scientist while others woulld consider any type of 'evolution' as a natural adaptation. That will presents a problem in terms of determine if evolution took place or is it ID with adaptation.
Therefore ,would you consider the most mintue change in the immune system an evolution, or an adaptation?

Why is there a need to provide a rationale for bi-sexual reproduction to falsify intelligent design when such a rationale could easily be used to justify ID? What is the need to provide a rationale for the evolution of bi-sexual reproduction for evolution. What about sexual reproduction that requires a transient organism or medium to promote reproduction. Such a mechanism could be justified using either Evolution and ID and is much more complicated than a bi-sexual reproduction.


I don't think these are good points for proving one theory or another. Too much is open for debate and there are no well defined lines to make a case for one versus another.

Maybe if you explain why your cases would disprove theory A versus theory B and maybe yur point would be cleare for me.

 

[Si modo]

Your logical fallacy in this instance is known as 'petitio principii.'


Look that up.


LOL

You deny basic definitions of what a scientific theory is.

You dodge simple questions.

I could go on, but there really is little that is NOT a logical fallacy of your "argument". And, you resort to dishonesty.

So, let's go back to the questions I posed to you based on your denial of what a scientific theory is:

If a theory is not falsifiable, by definition, it is not a scientific theory.

Falsifiability, by definition, is a real or hypothetical data set that falsifies the theory. There must exist some data set, either real or imagined, that will make the theory false.

Strange, but you already assume that existing scientific data sets falsify the theory of intelligent design. Then you claim it cannot be a theory because it is not falsifiable. Make up your mind.



So, what is that real or hypothetical data set that disproves ID? It shouldn't be hard to come up with one as you simply can make one up.

And your answer is?

Irreducible complexity is just one. When you can prove that a functioning cell can exist without some of the thousands of components necessary for the most basic cell, you can falsify intelligent design. Until then, you have a serious flaw in your theory of how life commenced. When you can show a reasonable evolution of an immune system, you will be able to falsify intelligent design. When you can establish an evolutionary rationale for bi-sexual reproduction, and provide a reasonable evolution of that factor, you can falsify intelligent design.

To the bolded and underlined, how does one prove a negative or even gather data on a negative?

Proving negatives is not a data set that falsifies a theory.

And, irreducible complexity is STILL a simple begging the question.

Fallacies are not data sets.

 

[SniperFire]

They took Genesis as the factual account as to how the Earth was formed.

I don't know what how you would expect the explanation to read in a pre-science world of primitive people.

I would expect those primitive people to believe that their world must have been created by a supernatural power,

because they didn't have the scientific knowledge to understand that such a world could have been created by forces of nature devoid of the supernatural.

That, of course, is the heart of the study and debate. Perhaps 90% of the people in the world disagree with your theory.

In Tennessee, our school children will also be examining and debating the theory of Intelligent Design along with your 'non-directed bumping and grinding of primordial ooze somehow generated information sets that Bill Gates described as 'far, far more advanced than any software we have ever created' theory - which is ridiculous on it's face but still taught by the shamans in most every science classroom in America.

Yet even though your theory is stupid on it's face, we shall remain open minded about it and let the free exchange of ideas flow!

 

[Vidi]

I don't know what how you would expect the explanation to read in a pre-science world of primitive people.

I would expect those primitive people to believe that their world must have been created by a supernatural power,

because they didn't have the scientific knowledge to understand that such a world could have been created by forces of nature devoid of the supernatural.

That, of course, is the heart of the study and debate. Perhaps 90% of the people in the world disagree with your theory.

In Tennessee, our school children will also be examining and debating the theory of Intelligent Design along with your 'non-directed bumping and grinding of primordial ooze somehow generated information sets that Bill Gates described as 'far, far more advanced than any software we have ever created' theory - which is ridiculous on it's face but still taught by the shamans in most every science classroom in America.

Yet even though your theory is stupid on it's face, we shall remain open minded about it and let the free exchange of ideas flow!

Your summation of the science is hilarious in its ignorance. And thats coming from one of the 90% you mention.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't know what how you would expect the explanation to read in a pre-science world of primitive people.

I would expect those primitive people to believe that their world must have been created by a supernatural power,

because they didn't have the scientific knowledge to understand that such a world could have been created by forces of nature devoid of the supernatural.

That, of course, is the heart of the study and debate. Perhaps 90% of the people in the world disagree with your theory.

In Tennessee, our school children will also be examining and debating the theory of Intelligent Design along with your 'non-directed bumping and grinding of primordial ooze somehow generated information sets that Bill Gates described as 'far, far more advanced than any software we have ever created' theory - which is ridiculous on it's face but still taught by the shamans in most every science classroom in America.

Yet even though your theory is stupid on it's face, we shall remain open minded about it and let the free exchange of ideas flow!

The Bible was written by God, according to the believers. Why wouldn't God know about science?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is quite obvious you have never studied anything in your shallowed life, other than insults.
There is a great difference in how different religions would want "their" creationism taught, but that is beyond your comprehension.
So if all you have are insults you are not worth responding too unless you are so wrong it is sad to let you post your lies. Which is 100% of the time.

You continually make the unsupported assumption that anyone who disagrees with your concepts of evolution want creationism taught in the schools. What I want is open and honest discussion of what you accept as the gospel, in public schools. Perhaps students should discuss why some scientists believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs, while others insist that birds predated the dinosaurs. Perhaps students should ask why few, if any, of the intermediate models of humans survived to the current age. After all, these pre humans had to be viable for thousands of years to allow the necessary evolutionary changes to the next model. Why did they suddenly cease to exist?

Should science class debate the question of the divinity of Jesus Christ?

Anyone?

Why not? The divinity of Jesus Christ is a Theory, correct? It is widely believed, books have been written on it, arguing for it. It might be true, then, if it were,

it would be a scientific fact.

According to the logic of some in this thread, a theory that lots of people believe, without regard to evidence,

is something that might be true. Therefore we should treat it as science.

 

[BDBoop]

A victory for freedom of thought and individualism in the school, and a stinging defeat for the secular mind police. We enjoy freedom of speech, not freedom from speech you find disagreeable.



'NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- A bill that encourages classroom debate over evolution will become law in Tennessee, despite a veto campaign mounted by scientists and civil libertarians who say it will reopen a decades-old controversy over teaching creationism to the state's schoolchildren.'

Tenn. governor allows evolution debate bill to become law

Imagine the lively debate and opening of minds which can now flourish in the previously flat-earther science rooms across Tenn, and hopefully the rest of America!

What's next, astrology and alchemy classes?

I think students should freely be able to debate the merits of astrology and alchemy.

What are you afraid of?

Absolutely!! That's how we create people who think, and can back up their thoughts with reason.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You deny basic definitions of what a scientific theory is.

You dodge simple questions.

I could go on, but there really is little that is NOT a logical fallacy of your "argument". And, you resort to dishonesty.

So, let's go back to the questions I posed to you based on your denial of what a scientific theory is:

If a theory is not falsifiable, by definition, it is not a scientific theory.

Falsifiability, by definition, is a real or hypothetical data set that falsifies the theory. There must exist some data set, either real or imagined, that will make the theory false.

Strange, but you already assume that existing scientific data sets falsify the theory of intelligent design. Then you claim it cannot be a theory because it is not falsifiable. Make up your mind.



So, what is that real or hypothetical data set that disproves ID? It shouldn't be hard to come up with one as you simply can make one up.

And your answer is?

Irreducible complexity is just one. When you can prove that a functioning cell can exist without some of the thousands of components necessary for the most basic cell, you can falsify intelligent design. Until then, you have a serious flaw in your theory of how life commenced. When you can show a reasonable evolution of an immune system, you will be able to falsify intelligent design. When you can establish an evolutionary rationale for bi-sexual reproduction, and provide a reasonable evolution of that factor, you can falsify intelligent design.

Strains of bacteria can 'evolve' a genetically transmissible resistance to certain antibiotics, producing an entirely new strain that can exhibit that resistance,

solely by having been exposed to said antibiotic over a period of time.

There no evidence whatsoever of the need for an intelligent designer to effect that process;

the process of natural selection and survival of the fittest selects out particular bacteria and allows them to reproduce, until the capability for resistance has been built into the genes of successive generations.

No one wants to offer an ID based refutation of the above? Do you really wish to allow it to stand unchallenged, without contradiction?

It pretty much shoots down ID.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's next, astrology and alchemy classes?

I think students should freely be able to debate the merits of astrology and alchemy.

What are you afraid of?

Absolutely!! That's how we create people who think, and can back up their thoughts with reason.

We covered alchemy when I was in school manymanymany moons ago. Bottomline was, it's horseshit. and indisputable horseshit.

When did it become worthy of debate again? Where was I when that happened?

 

[g5000]

Irreducible complexity is just one. When you can prove that a functioning cell can exist without some of the thousands of components necessary for the most basic cell, you can falsify intelligent design. Until then, you have a serious flaw in your theory of how life commenced. When you can show a reasonable evolution of an immune system, you will be able to falsify intelligent design. When you can establish an evolutionary rationale for bi-sexual reproduction, and provide a reasonable evolution of that factor, you can falsify intelligent design.

I believe life on Earth was created by Blue Fairies on the Moon. When you can prove that a functioning cell can exist without some of the thousands of components necessary for the most basic cell, you can falsify Blue Fairies on the Moon.

Until then, I want the validity of Blue Fairies on the Moon given equal time with Evolution and Jesus Christ.

 

[Vidi]

Irreducible complexity is just one. When you can prove that a functioning cell can exist without some of the thousands of components necessary for the most basic cell, you can falsify intelligent design. Until then, you have a serious flaw in your theory of how life commenced. When you can show a reasonable evolution of an immune system, you will be able to falsify intelligent design. When you can establish an evolutionary rationale for bi-sexual reproduction, and provide a reasonable evolution of that factor, you can falsify intelligent design.

Strains of bacteria can 'evolve' a genetically transmissible resistance to certain antibiotics, producing an entirely new strain that can exhibit that resistance,

solely by having been exposed to said antibiotic over a period of time.

There no evidence whatsoever of the need for an intelligent designer to effect that process;

the process of natural selection and survival of the fittest selects out particular bacteria and allows them to reproduce, until the capability for resistance has been built into the genes of successive generations.

No one wants to offer an ID based refutation of the above? Do you really wish to allow it to stand unchallenged, without contradiction?

It pretty much shoots down ID.

Depends on what you consider Intelligent Design.

If one considers ID as just another term for 7 day creationism, then yeah...if one assumes that 7 day creationism is a reasonable theory based on every other piece of evidence proving it wrong.

But, if you believe ID is that Science is telling us HOW God did things then, no, it doesn't shoot it down. A lack of need doesn't prove that it didn't happen.

My two year old daughter doesn't NEED me to carry her across a room. She can walk. Her ability to walk does not PROVE that I didn't carry her.

 

[Valox]

I am from TN and need to know if humans came from munkees, then why are there still munkees?

Plus, ID has been shot down.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2alpk8PUd4]Irreducible Complexity (bacterial flagellum) debunked.flv - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Vidi]

Irreducible complexity is just one. When you can prove that a functioning cell can exist without some of the thousands of components necessary for the most basic cell, you can falsify intelligent design. Until then, you have a serious flaw in your theory of how life commenced. When you can show a reasonable evolution of an immune system, you will be able to falsify intelligent design. When you can establish an evolutionary rationale for bi-sexual reproduction, and provide a reasonable evolution of that factor, you can falsify intelligent design.

I believe life on Earth was created by Blue Fairies on the Moon. When you can prove that a functioning cell can exist without some of the thousands of components necessary for the most basic cell, you can falsify Blue Fairies on the Moon.

Until then, I want the validity of Blue Fairies on the Moon given equal time with Evolution and Jesus Christ.

And you can have equal time when you convince as many people that Blue Fairies are the catalyst as believe in God and Christ.

Until then however, you're just a loon. sorry couldn't resist the last part.

 

[Vidi]

I am from TN and need to know if humans came from munkees, then why are there still munkees?

Plus, ID has been shot down.
Irreducible Complexity (bacterial flagellum) debunked.flv - YouTube

I'm not even going to watch the video.

There are still monkeys because we didn't evolve from THOSE monkeys.

And that doesn't disprove God. At all. Not even a little.