The creationists are BACK

[Dr.Drock]

Nobody is arguing evolution within species, there is nothing to 'believe' there. The problem comes when people try to use evolution to somehow prove that the Bible is incorrect by insinuating the man 'evolved' from some other creature, or that all living things evolved from one beginning 'spark' of life. That has not been proven. Evolution as it is today does not disprove anything about intelligent design.

Totally agree.

However not be able to disprove something doesn't make it a viable topic in a science class.

That's fine, as long as the science class doesn't say that evolution explains the origins of human life or implies that human life evolved from a completely different species therefore negating the concept of an intelligent designer.

I'm not going in that circle again, as long as you're conceding that creationism shouldn't be in science classes, that's good enough for me at this point.

 

[Jack Fate]

Totally agree.

However not be able to disprove something doesn't make it a viable topic in a science class.

That's fine, as long as the science class doesn't say that evolution explains the origins of human life or implies that human life evolved from a completely different species therefore negating the concept of an intelligent designer.

I'm not going in that circle again, as long as you're conceding that creationism shouldn't be in science classes, that's good enough for me at this point.

You have no logical reason to exclude ID from science class. I'm willing to allow teaching of evolution along with ID. How come you won't? Sounds like big brother to me.

 

[Dr.Drock]

That's fine, as long as the science class doesn't say that evolution explains the origins of human life or implies that human life evolved from a completely different species therefore negating the concept of an intelligent designer.

I'm not going in that circle again, as long as you're conceding that creationism shouldn't be in science classes, that's good enough for me at this point.

You have no logical reason to exclude ID from science class. Sounds like big brother to me.

Yes I do, exclude ID from science class as there's nothing scientific about it.

It is big brother, sadly big brother runs education.

 

[FA_Q2]

Nobody is arguing evolution within species, there is nothing to 'believe' there. The problem comes when people try to use evolution to somehow prove that the Bible is incorrect by insinuating the man 'evolved' from some other creature, or that all living things evolved from one beginning 'spark' of life. That has not been proven. Evolution as it is today does not disprove anything about intelligent design.

Totally agree.

However not be able to disprove something doesn't make it a viable topic in a science class.

That's fine, as long as the science class doesn't say that evolution explains the origins of human life or implies that human life evolved from a completely different species therefore negating the concept of an intelligent designer.

The origins of life, no. Evolution does not cover that. Divergence of species, there is plenty of evidence for that. Just because you do not want to believe it does not mean it is not there. That STILL does not preclude ID by the way.

Well then, I don’t see where I misconstrued your statements but I was under the impression from the last few pages of your posts that you thought ID was scientific. Of course, scientific has nothing to do with validity. ID is more than possible and you can believe whatever you feel like believing. I would never advocate for something different. It is aggravating though when ID’ers try and assert that belief is scientific.

What if it's true? If it doesn't fit your idea of what is "scientific", does that mean it would not be valid even though it would be true? Do you see how a closed mind locks you out of any further possibility? No one knows for sure how the universe was created. Man's understanding is limited at best.

My closed mind? I have NEVER stated ID was false. I do not have a closed mind in that subject. It is not a ‘locked out’ possibility but at this point there is ZERO evidence that ID is correct and therefore it is not scientific. Should the day come where ID has something in the form of evidence it will become scientific.

 

[Jack Fate]

I'm not going in that circle again, as long as you're conceding that creationism shouldn't be in science classes, that's good enough for me at this point.

You have no logical reason to exclude ID from science class. Sounds like big brother to me.

Yes I do, exclude ID from science class as there's nothing scientific about it.

It is big brother, sadly big brother runs education.

And you see no problem with that?

 

[Dr.Drock]

You have no logical reason to exclude ID from science class. Sounds like big brother to me.

Yes I do, exclude ID from science class as there's nothing scientific about it.

It is big brother, sadly big brother runs education.

And you see no problem with that?

I say sadly big brother runs education and you interpret that as me having no problem with it?

I want to do away with the department of education (along with many of depts, homeland security, etc), one of the many reasons I don't like our 2 parties.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And that's the heart of the matter right there, Jack. They have decided that intelligent design is not 'scientific' because they have no way of studying it, we are not advanced enough, and maybe never will be, so it's easier to dismiss it and say it's 'just religion'. These people are arguing against straw men that they've created in their own mind. No one is denying evolution within species, no one is saying that science and religion have to be mutually exclusive of each other. Gadawig, or whatever the hell his name is, thinks he has a corner on the market by believing in both science and God, which is ridiculous. I haven't seen one person in this thread say that science is not valid. It's a ridiculous argument, that when taken to the basics, makes no sense whatsoever.

No, let me go real slow for you:
I believe in God.
I believe in the scientific method when testing science. When tested with the scientific method I believe science can determine the validity of the science and determine if they are theories.
Evolution is a scientific theory.
ID CAN NOT be tested by the scientific method. ID is belief only.
You admit ID can not be studied. Well, NO SHIT.
NO religous belief can be studied. Religous beliefs are not science.
Religion is beliefs ONLY.
Science that conflicts with religous beliefs is DENIED all the time by those with religous beliefs.
Show us one time you did not support those here that claim we are ANTI CHRISTIAN, GOD HATERS, DENIERS OF GOD.
One time. You support that. YOU are the ones claiming we believe in evolution BECAUSE WE HATE GOD.
Get your facts straight there Moe. We do. We believe in science.

We believe in science also. That is where you stumble. Your definition of what is science is not the final authority. Are scientists allowed to believe in ID in your little world?

As long as there is no scientific evidence for ID, the only reference to it in any SCIENCE class, if any, would be to simply say that.

Teaching ID in a science class in any other manner would be the equivalent of teaching some event that never happened - or for which there is no evidence it happened - in a history class.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If ID created species, at different times in the history of the earth, how did that happen?

Did they just poof! magically appear? One day there were no modern horses, say, and the next day there were?

Did they have parents? Did they appear full grown? How many suddenly appeared?

ID makes no sense.

 

[konradv]

That's fine, as long as the science class doesn't say that evolution explains the origins of human life or implies that human life evolved from a completely different species therefore negating the concept of an intelligent designer.

I'm not going in that circle again, as long as you're conceding that creationism shouldn't be in science classes, that's good enough for me at this point.

You have no logical reason to exclude ID from science class. I'm willing to allow teaching of evolution along with ID. How come you won't? Sounds like big brother to me.

Because it isn't science. You're trying to equate a religious story that can't be proven to a theory which may not be "proven" to your satisfaction, but at least has data to back it up. ID does not have the data and never will, IMO, because it's essentially untestable.

 

[Jack Fate]

Yes I do, exclude ID from science class as there's nothing scientific about it.

It is big brother, sadly big brother runs education.

And you see no problem with that?

I say sadly big brother runs education and you interpret that as me having no problem with it?

I want to do away with the department of education (along with many of depts, homeland security, etc), one of the many reasons I don't like our 2 parties.

Thanks for explaining. We agree there. So you have no problem with ID being taught along with evolution?

 

[Jack Fate]

I'm not going in that circle again, as long as you're conceding that creationism shouldn't be in science classes, that's good enough for me at this point.

You have no logical reason to exclude ID from science class. I'm willing to allow teaching of evolution along with ID. How come you won't? Sounds like big brother to me.

Because it isn't science. You're trying to equate a religious story that can't be proven to a theory which may not be "proven" to your satisfaction, but at least has data to back it up. ID does not have the data and never will, IMO, because it's essentially untestable.

I disagree that ID is a religious story. Einstein didn't believe in religious stories.

Data can be manipulated. Do you believe in man made global warming or climate change?

 

[konradv]

Nobody is arguing evolution within species, there is nothing to 'believe' there. The problem comes when people try to use evolution to somehow prove that the Bible is incorrect by insinuating the man 'evolved' from some other creature, or that all living things evolved from one beginning 'spark' of life. That has not been proven. Evolution as it is today does not disprove anything about intelligent design.

Totally agree.

However not be able to disprove something doesn't make it a viable topic in a science class.

That's fine, as long as the science class doesn't say that evolution explains the origins of human life or implies that human life evolved from a completely different species therefore negating the concept of an intelligent designer.

Then the parents need to send their kids to a religious school and not expect the public to pay the freight. We're lagging far enough behind in the scientific disciplines. We don't need time wasted on things that can't be proven or at least backed up with lots of data.

 

[Dr.Drock]

And you see no problem with that?

I say sadly big brother runs education and you interpret that as me having no problem with it?

I want to do away with the department of education (along with many of depts, homeland security, etc), one of the many reasons I don't like our 2 parties.

Thanks for explaining. We agree there. So you have no problem with ID being taught along with evolution?

Of course I have a problem with that. One is backed by science, one isn't.

I have no problem with it being taught in a religion course, just not in a science course.

 

[Jack Fate]

Totally agree.

However not be able to disprove something doesn't make it a viable topic in a science class.

That's fine, as long as the science class doesn't say that evolution explains the origins of human life or implies that human life evolved from a completely different species therefore negating the concept of an intelligent designer.

Then the parents need to send their kids to a religious school and not expect the public to pay the freight. We're lagging far enough behind in the scientific disciplines. We don't need time wasted on things that can't be proven or at least backed up with lots of data.

You have no logical reason to put ID in religion class. Looks to me that you have a bias. Isn't it wrong to have a bias as far as education?

 

[konradv]

You have no logical reason to exclude ID from science class. I'm willing to allow teaching of evolution along with ID. How come you won't? Sounds like big brother to me.

Because it isn't science. You're trying to equate a religious story that can't be proven to a theory which may not be "proven" to your satisfaction, but at least has data to back it up. ID does not have the data and never will, IMO, because it's essentially untestable.

I disagree that ID is a religious story. Einstein didn't believe in religious stories.

Data can be manipulated. Do you believe in man made global warming or climate change?[/QUOTE]

It's certainly possible AND logical. After all, we know the heat-trapping properties of CO2. We know itatmospheric concentrations have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?

The problem with ID is that they not only don't have any data to show, they can't put together a simple logical syllogism to prove it's possible, like I just did for AGW. If you can, let's hear it.

 

[Jack Fate]

I say sadly big brother runs education and you interpret that as me having no problem with it?

I want to do away with the department of education (along with many of depts, homeland security, etc), one of the many reasons I don't like our 2 parties.

Thanks for explaining. We agree there. So you have no problem with ID being taught along with evolution?

Of course I have a problem with that. One is backed by science, one isn't.

I have no problem with it being taught in a religion course, just not in a science course.

Backed by YOUR science. We believe ID is science also. There are scientists who believe in ID.

 

[Jack Fate]

Because it isn't science. You're trying to equate a religious story that can't be proven to a theory which may not be "proven" to your satisfaction, but at least has data to back it up. ID does not have the data and never will, IMO, because it's essentially untestable.

I disagree that ID is a religious story. Einstein didn't believe in religious stories.

Data can be manipulated. Do you believe in man made global warming or climate change?[/QUOTE]

It's certainly possible AND logical. After all, we know the heat-trapping properties of CO2. We know itatmospheric concentrations have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?

The problem with ID is that they not only don't have any data to show, they can't put together a simple logical syllogism to prove it's possible, like I just did for AGW. If you can, let's hear it.

My point is that there has been manipulation of data in the global warming debate. Therefore, I don't think your point about evolution data being superior to ID is valid.

 

[konradv]

Thanks for explaining. We agree there. So you have no problem with ID being taught along with evolution?

Of course I have a problem with that. One is backed by science, one isn't.

I have no problem with it being taught in a religion course, just not in a science course.

Backed by YOUR science. We believe ID is science also. There are scientists who believe in ID.

Then they need to show the science. They don't get in just because it's "fair"!!! If they've got conclusive proof of something, ANYTHING, the majority of scientists would pay attention. So far, however, I see nothing except that we have to accept their mere contention that something, is "irreducibly complex". It's already been shown to be false for the eye and flight and I don't hold out much hope for that explanation of the next set of systems on their list.

 

[Jack Fate]

Of course I have a problem with that. One is backed by science, one isn't.

I have no problem with it being taught in a religion course, just not in a science course.

Backed by YOUR science. We believe ID is science also. There are scientists who believe in ID.

Then they need to show the science. They don't get in just because it's "fair"!!! If they've got conclusive proof of something, ANYTHING, the majority of scientists would pay attention. So far, however, I see nothing except that we have to accept their mere contention that something, is "irreducibly complex". It's already been shown to be false for the eye and flight and I don't hold out much hope for that explanation of the next set of systems on their list.

The majority of scientists thought Galileo was nuts.

What are you going to say to these nuts?
Scientists who support intelligent design - Evolution News & Views

 

[konradv]

I disagree that ID is a religious story. Einstein didn't believe in religious stories.

Data can be manipulated. Do you believe in man made global warming or climate change?[/QUOTE]

It's certainly possible AND logical. After all, we know the heat-trapping properties of CO2. We know itatmospheric concentrations have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?

The problem with ID is that they not only don't have any data to show, they can't put together a simple logical syllogism to prove it's possible, like I just did for AGW. If you can, let's hear it.

My point is that there has been manipulation of data in the global warming debate. Therefore, I don't think your point about evolution data being superior to ID is valid.

Supposed manipulation of data and my logical construct are two different things. Plus, you have no proof that AGW data has been manipulated. Much has been made of the "Climategate emails", but they're easily explainable in that scientists often use "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" from other sources and winnow out the contribution of man. The real hoax in all that was the skeptic/denier claim that that "proved" malfeasance, when the truth was closer to a purposeful misinterpretation by AGW deniers to put their theory in the best light and deflect attention from the fact that what was done was actually a crime.

As for evolutionary data vs ID data, 'some data' always beats out 'no data'.