It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Evolution Is A Theory Not A Fact Stickers Must Be Removed From Georgia Textbooks

page: 12
0
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Having had an avid interest in this thread I beleive the ban hammer fell on a poster named MRMOJORISING. He was a late comer to this thread but posted several times before getting the proverbial "ban on the run"

On another note I do wish to post anofficial apology to Nygdan. I typed in haste the sentence about remaining in ignorance. My frustration at having to post and repost the same information came through at last. I usually edit out such things but this one slipped through on a day filled with other unrelated stresses. That will teach me to debate when I'm already stressed out. Please accept my apologies.

[edit on 26-1-2005 by Johannmon]




posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   
No problem, nothing to worry about.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   
I jsut thought I'd add my two cents in on this:




If you take a pelican, that lives in an area with shallow water, it will have a smaller beak because it does not need to go that deep to grab fish. But if you stick it in an area with much deeper water, and several generations later, the beak will be substantially larger.


Actually it means the pelican would die since it couldn't fish in the deeper water, which means it wouldn't have any offspring to evolve into the long beaked Pelicans. More over, evolution states that things do not degrade but only evolve further, a pelican can not evolve then regress, then re-evolve. This seems to be what evolutionsits state as the reason for a whale's pelvic bone, but according to their own theory all creatures came from the ocean, which means a creature can't evolve to go back into the water. I'd like to state that I AM NOT A CREATIONIST OR AN IDTst, I just think that a theory created by a man, alone on an island with some paper and a pencil during the Victorian era, which was presented as a theory in need of testing should be tested using modern scientific evidence. The fact that modern science seems to refute many of the assumptions made by Darwinian theory seems to have no bearing on Darwinist's loyalty to their theory. I think that at best Darwinism needs to be revised, but god forbid you mention that to a Darwinist.

Anyways, as far as the case goes, this is America, you're allowed to think and say what you want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. I think perhaps the text books should be changed to state, at least in one sentence, that Darwinism is still a theory, as is much of science, and if the student wishes to prove it either way he/she should be encouraged to do their own research and come to their own conclusions. Perhaps the stickers should be replaced with "Deny Ignorance" stickers


*edited for spelling and typos, it's hard to watch Star Trek and type at the same time

[edit on 26-1-2005 by Shadowflux]



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowfluxThe fact that modern science seems to refute many of the assumptions made by Darwinian theory seems to have no bearing on Darwinist's loyalty to their theory. I think that at best Darwinism needs to be revised, but god forbid you mention that to a Darwinist.

Darwin's theories have been tested, and found to have passed the tests. This is not to say that there hasn't been change and revision, such as the incorporation of genetics into a darwinian framework, or that ther isn't controversy now, like with how prevalent adaptation is or how much neutral evolution accounts for change, but researchers are constantly challenging "darwins" theory, its a function of science.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   
But how many revisions are needed until a theory is proven to be insufficient, negliable, or just flat out wrong. Occums Razor favors the theory that requires the least amount of revision and hypothetical elements to sustain it as theory. These "revisions" to Darwinian theory are a posteriori, after the fact, a priori theories should be favored. Remember, Dawrinian evolution can never be proven as fact for millions of years, until we can compare the creatures of today with the creatures of the next evolutionary epoch we can't find out whether or not it's true. Look at the Big Bang hypothesis, it's been revisied so much to keep it alive we've had to create somthing called Dark Matter, something which, if ever discovered or detected, would result in the negating of it's existence.

lol, if you think about it, Darwinists are negating Darwinism when applied to the evolution of scientific theories



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   
"Occam's Razor" is not always a good theory, IMO. When dealing in complex matters, in fact, Ockham is often wrong. Some things are just complicated, and when a solution is not obvious, none will be found without some speculation. Regardless, intelligent design is hardly a more simple alternative. You then have to explain where the intelligence came from.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux
But how many revisions are needed until a theory is proven to be insufficient, negliable, or just flat out wrong.

Darwin's origianl theory is not, strictly speaking, 'accepted'. Once it had to be revised even once it was altered.


Occums Razor favors the theory that requires the least amount of revision and hypothetical elements to sustain it as theory.

Occams razor suggests that, all other things being equal, the less complex system is the one that should be accepted.



These "revisions" to Darwinian theory are a posteriori, after the fact, a priori theories should be favored.

Why?


Remember, Dawrinian evolution can never be proven as fact for millions of years, until we can compare the creatures of today with the creatures of the next evolutionary epoch

As has been pointed out in this thread, darwin's theory of evolution (or the modern form of it) can never be proven. If researchers have a population of fish, and over a million years they observe it turn into something like snakes, that will not prove darwin's theory.

Dark Matter, something which, if ever discovered or detected, would result in the negating of it's existence.

What? No it wouldn't. The detection of dark matter isn't a requirement of inflation theory anyway.

lol, if you think about it, Darwinists are negating Darwinism when applied to the evolution of scientific theories

How do you figure?



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   
DARWIN DID NOT CREATE EVOLUTION! It started with the greeks actually, just Darwin put it all into a book with his own observations.

Anyways, what makes you think an animal can't go back to the water just because it came from it? Evolution is about best survival ability, an animal can evolve then re-evolve againa and again. Why? because as times/weather/ratio of predator-prey changes, so does what is needed to survive. If you had an all prey ate at the same level of the treeline, they would either die or a new species would form. A species with say.....a longer neck.(ie a giraffe) Also, there is more proof of evolution. Giraffes would eat from a tree, it then grew thorns, so the giraffe grew a longer more flexible tounge, eventually the tree built a new defense, poison. The tree then let out a pheramone that told the other trees to make the poison. So the giraffe grew to know to eat a tree for only so long, then move upwind to continue eating without being poisoned. MACRO evolution.

You see, we don't go by what Darwin said, only christians think that so they can say they are right, or at least the other 99.99999% of the people are wrong. For you see, in science, things are STUDIED! They, unlike religon, don't go this is correct because we say so, if you disagree we kill you. So we went from what the GREEKS and Darwin saw/observed/hypothosised and the scientific theory evolved. As we learn more the more it evolves. Before gravity pulled things down, but then we learned that gravity only effects things with mass, and that eventually it could only pull something down at a certain speed.(don't remember what it is called, but if you take a pencil and an elephant and drop them at a extreme height, eventually they would fall at the same rate, though they are not falling, they are being pulled down by gravity) We learned that gravity can bend light, how? IDK, light photons don't have mass so how it is effected don't know, but that is what science is for! To find out why!



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Giraffes would eat from a tree, it then grew thorns, so the giraffe grew a longer more flexible tounge, eventually the tree built a new defense, poison. The tree then let out a pheramone that told the other trees to make the poison. So the giraffe grew to know to eat a tree for only so long, then move upwind to continue eating without being poisoned. MACRO evolution.


What you have described is micro-evolution since you still have a giraffe not a hippo. Macro evolution is the change of one kind into another, not one species into the same species with a longer neck or tongue. Macro-evolution involves the adding of new genetic code not simply the reshuffling of existing genetic material to highlight certain traits or bring out latent ones.

[edit on 27-1-2005 by Johannmon]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Evolution is a poor excuse for a theory if its proponents predictions continuously fail. Reliable science collects data then scientist organize, analyze and give an explanation of how ‘IT’ happened. A theory is submitted to an accepted periodical for review by referees who give commentary (not always favorable) of the submitted paper. Then the free for all starts as response articles are written (not always kindly). If the theory is accepted by consensus then predictions are made concerning what the future will reveal. If the predictions continuously fail then a new theory is formulated. Unless it is evolution. If universities are open forums then why not public schools? How else will we all learn the truth.

"What is truth" Pontius Pilot



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join