|
|
 |
question? |
+ |
Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 5:34 AM i think intelligent design should be taught in high school science classes alongside evolution. it shouldn't necessarily be given the same amount of time as evolution, but it should be mentioned as an alternative idea. i can guess what most of the posters here will think, but i would like to hear why. —question? |
|
|
|
|
goldberry99 |
+ |
Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 5:57 AM Intelligent design isn't science. It does not use the scientific method and cannot be refuted or supported with testing. Discuss it in philosophy or religious studies is fine, but keep it out of science class. —goldberry99 |
|
|
|
|
goldberry99 |
+ |
Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 5:58 AM Intelligent design isn't science. It does not use the scientific method and cannot be refuted or supported with testing. Discuss it in philosophy or religious studies is fine, but keep it out of science class. —goldberry99 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pookie |
+ |
Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 7:59 AM Technically speaking, the theory of evolution does not follow the scientific method either. One of the steps of the scientific method involves "observation." No one has ever observed one critter evolving into another critter and no one has yet found a missing link in the fossil record. —pookie |
|
|
|
|
turdblossom |
+ |
Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 9:07 AM Technically speaking, the theory of evolution does not follow the scientific method either. One of the steps of the scientific method involves "observation." No one has ever observed one critter evolving into another critter and no one has yet found a missing link in the fossil record. —pookie Who told you that load of crap? Why do you think you get a new flu shot every year? Because the flu evolves into a new strain over the course of 12 months. Go back to your cutsie comments, nimrod. —turdblossom |
|
|
|
|
Xerties |
+ |
Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 9:10 AM That's not true. There is plenty of evidence in the fossil record of various species evolving through time. —Xerties |
|
|
|
|
bguirk |
+ |
Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 9:14 AM Did Darwin's Blade register a new identity? I call bogus. —bguirk |
|
|
|
|
pookie |
+ |
Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 9:14 AM
Edited Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 9:15 AM I learned the "load of crap" in my biology class. And I did not say that there was no progressive fossil record. I said that they have not as yet found the missing link. By the way, I was not making an attempt to argue against evolution; I was only repeating what my evolutionist biology teacher taught. —pookie |
|
|
|
|
mandeemoo22 |
+ |
Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 9:16 AM Call him a nimrod back! No wait, a double nimrod! Do it! —mandeemoo22 |
|
|
|
|
Wugie |
+ |
Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 9:19 AM lol —Wugie |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pookie |
+ |
Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 9:19 AM Moo, you are too funny. But I'm a bit more evolved than that. : ) —pookie |
|
|
|
|
turdblossom |
+ |
Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 9:32 AM Funny, either your teacher is an idiot or (more likely) you just weren't listening. If anyone is actually interested, read more. And by the way, anyone so actively misinformed to believe that crap is, in fact, a nimrod. —turdblossom |
|
|
|
|
greymatters |
+ |
Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 9:36 AM Why are you attacking pookie? Did your dad rape you? —greymatters |
|
|
|
|
pookie |
+ |
Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 9:39 AM I believe I was sufficiently attentive when my evolutionist biology teacher spent an entire class enumerating all the reasons why the evolution theory does not completely follow the scientific method. At the time, I did additional research and found that even evolutionists are divided on that topic. You can quote some evolutionists who believe that the evolution theory DOES follow the scientific method, and you will equally find evolutionists who feel that the opposite is true. Interestingly, Darwin himself did not teach evolution as fact and personally acknowledged that there were some holes in his theory which he could not defend. If Darwin himself was not terribly adamant about some of his ideas, why should anyone else be? —pookie |
|
|
|
|
turdblossom |
+ |
Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 9:48 AM Why are you attacking pookie? Did your dad rape you? —greymatters Yes, this morning, and I'm feeling mean! Interestingly, Darwin himself did not teach evolution as fact and personally acknowledged that there were some holes in his theory which he could not defend. If Darwin himself was not terribly adamant about some of his ideas, why should anyone else be? —pookie Because the scientific community has had 100+ years to think on it and still overwhealmingly (nearly universally) thinks it's the correct theory? If you have any reputable reading on the internet supporting what you're saying, I'd be genuinly interested in reading it. But what you've said so far hasn't made much sense, and smacks of romantic creationism. —turdblossom |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
turdblossom |
+ |
Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 10:00 AM No, thanks. I think this is something I'll remember forever. —turdblossom |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MajandraFan |
+ |
Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 10:36 AM Because the scientific community has had 100+ years to think on it and still overwhealmingly (nearly universally) thinks it's the correct theory? —turdblossom The scientific community also believes in dinosaurs, black holes and the big bang.
Scientists aren't all they're cracked up to be.
Technically speaking, the theory of evolution does not follow the scientific method either. One of the steps of the scientific method involves "observation." No one has ever observed one critter evolving into another critter and no one has yet found a missing link in the fossil record.
—pookie Don't blink or you'll miss it. Actually blink or you'll miss it. —MajandraFan |
|
|
|
|
Laxdude |
+ |
Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 10:45 AM While I think the whole load of Intelligent Design is a thinly veiled attempt to get religion back in the schools - which is all that it is, do not believe otherwise - I really do not have trouble with it. I would not be against it being mentioned, but I do not think it should be focused on in any Science class. I think some sort of "critical reasoning" class would be a better home for it. Where topics can actually be discussed and debated. Maybe it would stop the insane political/religious polarization that has swept through the US and Canada. And you want to know why that will never happen? The political parties like it that way. If everyone is too busy thinking the other side is insane and a commie or fascist (depending on which side you are on) and you have to fight them tooth and nail, it does not allow one the chance to look inward and see the chaos within. That and the fact that you can not talk about any hot-button issue without being branded anti-semitic, homophobic, anti-woman, or unpatriotic. Just as long as they give the Flying Spaghetti Monster his due...all hail his noodlie appendages. —Laxdude |
|
|
|
|
WeepWeep |
+ |
Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 11:20 AM evolution is a fact. no dispute. it is the mechanism of evolution that remains theoretical. one suggested mechanism is Darwin's Theory of Evolution aka natural selection. you will have to refer to those more evolved than myself as to whether Darwin's theory has been observed or follows the scientific method. supposedly the recent trial is in development for a movie. —WeepWeep |
|
|
|
|
pookie |
+ |
Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 11:22 AM Turd, I applaud your willingness to read various articles on the subject. I don't have the time to dig them up right now due to the fact that I gotta go run some errands before I have surgery tomorrow. I hope to get to it when I get back. It's true that scientists have learned more in the years since Darwin, but Darwin felt that the existence of instinct highlighted a flaw in his ideas. Honest scientists admit that they still cannot explain how and why instinct exists. MF, are you referring to the fact that an idea cannot technically qualify to be called a "theory" unless it has passed all the steps of the scientific method? —pookie |
|
|
|
|
goldberry99 |
+ |
Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 12:13 PM Here's the problem: Finding problems with evolution is not evidence of intelligent design. Scientists often have many hypotheses about what is occur in nature, and they test them all separately. And perhaps they're all wrong and the "answer" isn't any of them. And they have to keep researching. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS EXPLANATION BY DEFAULT. When someone says "there's no scientific explanation" that does not mean EVIDENCE of supernatural explanation. Scientists say all the time they don't understand something, there are phenomena they can't test for or understand. Does that mean that all these holes have supernatural explanations? No, it simply means they don't know, maybe they will one day, maybe they won't. Lightning was an act of God until it was studied by scientists. Using Jesus to plug the holes in the scientific knowledge of man is not science, just say we don't know that's it. As technology EVOLVES so does our knowledge. The periodic table did not start out complete, it grew as the studies grew. —goldberry99 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MajandraFan |
+ |
Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 1:11 PM Pookie, your eyes are evidence that your ancestors came from the ocean.
Blink.
No-one believes in God. It is so true. —MajandraFan |
|
|
|
|
bguirk |
+ |
Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 1:57 PM before I have surgery tomorrow. I hope it's minor and I hope it all goes well Pookie. —bguirk |
|
|
|
|
Full Meat |
+ |
Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 2:46 PM I was talking to a co-worker who was checking out escort service reviews and said: "It's frustrating that there's hundreds of women out there willing to give me a blowjob for a few dollars. But you gotta assume they're all infected. Makes me believe in intelligent design." —Full Meat |
|
|
|
|
MajandraFan |
+ |
Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 2:51 PM So what's the caviar like at the Bel Air country club these days? —MajandraFan |
|
|
|
|
Grand Fromage |
+ |
Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 3:13 PM Anyone who buys creationism/intelligent design is a complete tool who should be sterilized and deported to a fenced-in island somewhere far, far away from the rest of the world. Or just shot on the spot, I'd be okay with that. —Grand Fromage |
|
|
|
|
Darwin'sBlade |
+ |
Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 8:43 PM Another fine example of how so called progressives, who espouses tolerance of other ideas and open-mindedness, really are a bunch of short-sighted morons. And you notice how these leftist find it so easy to attack personally? Disagree with them, put out a counter argument like pookie did, and he gets called a "nimrod". —Darwin'sBlade |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
turdblossom |
+ |
Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 10:13 PM And you notice how these leftist find it so easy to attack personally? Disagree with them, put out a counter argument like pookie did, and he gets called a "nimrod". —Darwin'sBlade You shouldn't have. I've gone bright red. —turdblossom |
|
|
|
|
Laxdude |
+ |
Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 10:33 PM And should I point out the basic errors of the Scientific Method? Firstly the concept of time as a progressive and constant measure. And secondly that by observing, or measuring an event we are affecting it. Just because B follow A every time you watch or are measuring...does not mean it happens when you stop. Anyway...this is all a general plot of the fundamental Christians. Step 1) Prayer in school. Step 2)........., Step 3) Prophet. But, remember a lot of this stink is caused by people that think dinosaur fossils are either the work of the devil, to cause you to question your faith, were put in the ground by God as is, or are proof that the great biblical flood happened...killing out all now extinct species. —Laxdude |
|
|
|
|
Darwin'sBlade |
+ |
Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 11:23 PM Now how hard was that to do? You put forth a counter-argument, made your point, without resorting to insults and name calling. You sure you're a liberal? —Darwin'sBlade |
|
|
|
|
MajandraFan |
+ |
Thursday, February 2, 2006 at 12:06 AM And should I point out the basic errors of the Scientific Method? Firstly the concept of time as a progressive and constant measure. And secondly that by observing, or measuring an event we are affecting it.
That's an incredibly scientific decrying of all things scientific. You do realise you're being ironic? And that's poetry, which is decidely unscientific, which may have been what you're getting at. Just because B follow A every time you watch or are measuring...does not mean it happens when you stop.
It's a practical assumption. That's why planes don't bellyflop out of the sky and toasters don't turn into cheese. You zen buddhist, you.
Or is it taoist? —MajandraFan |
|
|
|
|
Grand Fromage |
+ |
Thursday, February 2, 2006 at 12:46 AM Another fine example of how so called progressives, who espouses tolerance of other ideas and open-mindedness, really are a bunch of short-sighted morons. And you notice how these leftist find it so easy to attack personally? If that was in response to me, I'd like to just mention that I do not consider myself a progressive, do not espouse any tolerance of incorrect, irrational and/or religious ideas and am not a leftist. I think libertarians are considered right wing in American politics, usually. So your assumptions are off a bit. —Grand Fromage |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rAnCIDsICk@!!! |
+ |
Thursday, February 2, 2006 at 12:57 AM YOUR ALL GOING TO HELL! I just wanted to say that, also someone pulled out a big trout on this one. —rAnCIDsICk@!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chrispy |
+ |
Thursday, February 2, 2006 at 7:08 AM jeeeeeeeeeejejejejeje. I really don't think most of these forum members can be blanketted with the term "liberal." The majority of us have very similar political beliefs, but they draw from both sides of the Aisle.
Execution/disposal of child abusers from the right, and pro-choice + anti intitutional religion from the left.
(mostly) ..but DB is undeniably right-winger compared to the rest of us. :/ —Chrispy |
|
|
|
|
mandeemoo22 |
+ |
Thursday, February 2, 2006 at 10:05 AM Well, just don't group me in with that little cluster. I'm radical, baby. Or just very liberal. —mandeemoo22 |
|
|
|
|
Grand Fromage |
+ |
Thursday, February 2, 2006 at 10:17 AM We could have an awesome TV show if we tossed child abusers into a big fenced compound with a bunch of weapons and a strict last-man-standing rule. —Grand Fromage |
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Thursday, February 2, 2006 at 11:28 AM
Edited Thursday, February 2, 2006 at 11:28 AM I've always said, the ideal sport I would enjoy viewing would be Roman-gladiator-style-battle. And we're always complaining about how our prison system is filled up... —Dark Laith |
|
|
|
|
pookie |
+ |
Wednesday, February 8, 2006 at 7:27 PM Uh, where did I ever say that I believe in creationism? I most certainly do not believe that the universe was created in 7 days and has only been here 6,000 years. And just for the record, it doesn't bother me in the least that someone thinks I'm a Nimrod just because I'm willing to scrutinize a belief rather than swallowing someone else's ideas whole without any thought. Oh hey, Dusty should have fun playing with that last sentence. : ) —pookie |
|
|
|
|
MajandraFan |
+ |
Wednesday, February 8, 2006 at 8:43 PM Uh, where did I ever say that I believe in creationism? I most certainly do not believe that the universe was created in 7 days and has only been here 6,000 years. —pookie I do. I'm an optimist, a feminist and a part of the new avant garde. Real? no-one believes that.
no-one believes in the big bang either —MajandraFan |
|