Originally Posted By DlandDug >>>>Of course. Because, as we all well know, you can't prove a negative.<< Which is why intelligent design is bogus as science.<< This is a complete and total non sequitur. I am astonished.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "A few years ago I was in the Natural History Museum in Washington DC. They were busily dismantling a rather large gallery devoted to early life on earth. A sign explained that with the advances in scientific knowledge, most of the information in the gallery was now disproven, and was being brought up to date." Since when is any science set in stone? Ok, there are basic principles, but many times the end result has to be changed based on new experiments and revelations. Through the history of man we've made advances in science, and updated our thinking. The thing that gets me (and I was brought up in Christian schools...so got ONLY Intelligent Design) is that evolution is expected to be a complete science that has all the answers. Becaus it doesn't, it's discredited. However, all I remember from my science classes are how the theroy of evolution is wrong because of this missing fact, or this crazy theory, however we never learned WHY ID was a good alternative theory...only because God created the earth...completely faith based and NO evidence of that other than "oh, well, the earth had to be created by an intelligent being...just look at how complex it is". Uh, yeah, but is there any evidence to back that up? The theory of evolution may not have anywhere near all the answers, but it sure does have more evidence than intelligent design.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 ">>>>Of course. Because, as we all well know, you can't prove a negative.<< Which is why intelligent design is bogus as science.<< This is a complete and total non sequitur. I am astonished." Maybe you should put a big smiley face after that one!
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Well, I guess I need to be careful with what I say, but I tell you what Tom, let me go home this evening and get some material together and I will post some of it tommorrow on this thread. Then we can do a little debating instead of insulting.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom I thought that a judge already ruled that Intelligent Design was not science and could not be taught in school.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Speaking of museums, the Intelligent Design fans are creating their own. <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0508070365aug07" target="_blank">http://www.chicagotribune.com/ news/nationworld/chi-0508070365aug07</a>,1,474799.story?page=2&coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed "Everyone is totally fascinated by dinosaurs," said Dennis Lindsay, president and chief executive officer of Christ for the Nations, a non-profit international Bible ministry that is co-founding the Dallas museum. "It will be an attraction to have those and share the story that, from our position and opinion, dinosaurs did not live 65 million years ago," he said, referring to many creationists' belief in a biblical Earth age of less than 10,000 years. It is important to many creationists that man and dinosaur lived simultaneously because they believe there was no death in the world until Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden. If the Genesis story is false, they say, then there would be no need for Jesus Christ to redeem the sins of the world. Thus, at the Museum of Earth History, Genesis dictates gentle, vegetarian dinosaurs sharing Eden with Adam and Eve, whose vaguely Polynesian appearance represents all races, according to a guide. Another exhibit confirms that dinosaurs, like all land creatures created on Day 6, were on Noah's Ark. The exhibit maintains that the ark could accommodate them because it was huge--450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high--and only smaller, adolescent dinosaurs were put on board. Such literal interpretation is essential, Sharp said, because "if we lose Genesis as a legitimate scientific and historical explanation for man, then we lose the validity of Christianity. Period." That last bit amazes me. Like cmpaley, I believe that God and evolution are not mutually exclusive. But holding out for literalism and an earth of only 10,000 years flies in the face of simple scientific fact, IMO. I believe the old testament, like the new, is full of metaphor and parable, but unlike the new, not labeled as such. In the new, Jesus says "I'm going to tell you a parable now..." He doesn't say it was historical fact that there was this good Samaritan who happened upon someone; it's a story designed to teach. I believe the old testament is full of such metaphor and parable also, but not always labeled as such. And so the 6 day creation doesn't have to be read as a literal 6 days. We do know that dinosaurs did NOT share their time on earth with humans, and pretending they did is just teaching a falsehood. I'm sorry these people feel that if you can't take Genesis literally you lose the religion - I certainly don't. And I'm sorry that they're taking the rather extreme step of opening museums to teach this bogus stuff.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka <<The exhibit maintains that the ark could accommodate them because it was huge--450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high--and only smaller, adolescent dinosaurs were put on board.>> I have no idea how people can believe this and not be just a little insane.
Originally Posted By RC Collins The Origin of Intelligent Design: <a href="http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=526" target="_blank">http://www.discovery.org/scrip ts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=526</a>
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Nice label Mele. Why not study some of thier material or give one of them a chance to justify thier position before you label them as insane. I personally believe in Creationism and have studied varous things regarding it in the past. But I suppose it is ok to label me? Double standard much?
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 I find it interesting that those who ask Christians to be tolerant, are sometimes incapable of being tolerant of Christians. I really do my best to not get fired up about such things, but it is amazing to me the stereotypes that are pushed on Christians. It also is interesting to me that these threads turn into an opportunity for people to post thier variation of the stereotype or stereotypes.
Originally Posted By ElKay "I find it interesting that those who ask Christians to be tolerant, are sometimes incapable of being tolerant of Christians." The distain that some might have against those fundamentalist Christians that are trying to pass ID as an alternative to evolution as scientific thought is the intolerant idea that they have a right to pass off their philosophy as science. That's like showing up with for a football game with hockey sticks demanding to play. As the initial article suggests ID is actually a concept that tries to negate evolution on theological grounds, not on a cohesive scientific altenative. ID is counter intuitive in the light that for 1,000 Man has by trial and error surmised the basic construct of evolution by the development of agriculture and husbandry. It fact that humans have crack the evolutional theory by being able to breed better and better crops, plants and livestock demonstrates the most basic mechanics of nature that describes evolutionary theory. Earlier forms of ID, like Creationism generally states that God created every living thing on Earth and nothing changes. This totally ignores the practice of breeding plants and animals. ID is just an "evolution" of Creationism intended to make it a more acceptable for of Creationism. The hostility toward those promoting ID, is the logical extension that if ID is a science then all other sciences could be likewise made over to conform with some group's theology. Would you really like to drive a car based on ID-like "science" or work in a similarly designed building?
Originally Posted By RC Collins Evolution, to many of people foaming at the mouth to attack anything that questions it, is a philosophy, not a scientific theory. The starting presuppositions include naturalism and that the same physical forces we have today resulted in the world we see today without any interference from elsewhere. I'd like to see one of these people name just one "hypothetical discovery" that would disprove evolution in their minds. Fossil throw off the timeline? We can add years. Life couldn't have originated spontaneously from unorganized, nonliving material on this planet? Then it must have happened somewhere else and came to earth. There's nothing a scientist could ever discover that would cause these people to say "Gee, maybe this whole idea of macroevolution is wrong." They are committed to their beliefs that: Humans evolved from distinctly nonhuman animals (maybe my kids will be born with wings?) Likewise, all animals evolved from ancestors very different than the present-day animals. All living things – redwood trees, humpback whales, owls - came from a common ancestor, or a handful of common ancestors. Life originated spontaneously from unorganized, nonliving materials. The Earth just happened to have the right conditions to support life. The universe – meaning every physical thing and force there is - popped into existence from nothing spontaneously without any transcendent being or force causing it to happen. That all takes an awful lot of faith, considering much of that flies in the face of logic, extensively tested science, human experience, and statistical probabilities. Who would buy it if I said a murder weapon just spontaneously appeared in my hand? Surely, if the whole universe could, why not a knife? How do you know that laboratory measurements of volume are reliable? Maybe some of the material just disappeared or appeared, like the universe itself. We want to insist that schools should only teach that, even where there is clear irreducible complexity in organisms and systems, that naturalistic evolution is the only acceptable explanation? >>It's a proven fact, Disneyman55. Every scientific discipline supports it - geology, biology, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, etc. It's called a theory because that's how scientists refer to the framework of a particular model.<< There are many scientists that do not accept macroevolution for the origin of the species, life, or the universe. The majority do, but how else do you graduate without agreeing with what the school is teaching? It's rather cyclical. >>And we can prove as false the claims that the earth is only 10,000 years old or that all animials were created fully formed in their current state.<< That's irrelevant to ID. ID makes the claim, based on the same evidence everyone has to see, that SOME sort of intelligence was involved in the origin of the species, and/or life. It does not make the claim as to the nature of that intelligence, or anything about Noah, or anything about 10,000 years, though there may be some ID people who believe in a "young Earth." Some people believe extraterrestrials were involved (which, of course, simply pushes the same questions back to some other place and time… where did the extraterrestrials come from?). Philosophy is inevitably mixed into this debate. Science is one thing, the philosophy is another, and if you're going to bring philosophy into it, it is opening up a can of worms. You can't prove that God wasn't involved in your creation, the creation of the human race, the creation of life, or the creation of the universe, so no matter what, there will always be people who will believe God was involved. It isn't the place of a public school to say otherwise. It IS the place of the public school to teach students the facts, not hiding the challenges to certain conclusions about what happened and when. Since we are talking past events, we can't prove for sure, on pure science, what happened. We can believe strongly, but we can't prove it. To me, this whole thing is yet another argument for the separation of state and school.
Originally Posted By tapdancemom >>I find it interesting that those who ask Christians to be tolerant, are sometimes incapable of being tolerant of Christians.<< Well said Disneyman55, I get so tired of reading negative comments about Christians it makes me not want to ever come into this thread, let alone post and getting jumped all over.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka <<But I suppose it is ok to label me?>> First of all, I DID NOT call Christians (or people who believe in Creationism)insane. I was saying that someone who believes that 2 of every single animal on this planet (and the food to feed them for 1 1/2 months) would fit onto a 450 ark is a little bit nutty. I have no problem with people having FAITH in their beliefs, but don't pretend that it is completely based in logic. I believe that the truth lies somewhere between creationism and evolution. There is always a process in creating something and I believe that science and evolution play a part in the creation of the world. I don't pretend to know exactly how it all works but I'm more inclined to use logic and science instead of blind faith. I'm sorry if you don't like the fact that I find the whole ark concept as absurd. But you think I labeled all Christians as insane. I didn't do that and I'm not going to apologize for what you think I said or for what you think I believe.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka <<it makes me not want to ever come into this thread, let alone post and getting jumped all over.>> That's funny considering I only commented (in jest) that the theory of a adolescent, vegetarian dinosaurs living on 450 ft. ark was a little insane and I was the one who was labeled as intolerant and "jumped all over". I guess we all have our own ideas about who or deserves tolerance.
Originally Posted By woody In my take on evolution, it should not be taught as a theory in school. It is a flawed science. Also, evolution is too political and controversial to be reliable as a scientific fact. I think elements of evolution may be credible, but the big bang theory is a waste of space that proves nothing. I noticed that evolution is completely dropped as a scientific course in the later grades and especially college, which doesn't require it as a prerequisite for graduation. If college doesn't require it, why does public schools require it? It is time to put evolution in its place and out of the public school systems.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<It is time to put evolution in its place and out of the public school systems.>> And while they're at it they should get rid of all the outer space garbage. We all know that the moon landing was staged on a Hollywood set anyway. And don't get me going about vaccines... as if any of them ever worked anyway. Nothing will ever happen to my kid that prayer won't cure.
