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.
Originally posted by apc
There is also no DIRECT evidence that I am actually typing at this computer right now. I am merely relaying electrochemical signals being transmitted through my nerves and brain. For all you know, I am actually an artifical intelligence engine always set to 'chaos' mode.
Originally posted by Kano
Originally posted by kenshiro2012
Unfortunately,
Many here on ATS seem to either forgotten that evolution is still a theory or else they equate theroy as fact.
Unfortunately,
Many here on ATS are also too ignorant to realise that scientific theories are not just something someone came up with randomly. Everything in science is explained with a Scientific Theory. Google for Scientific Method or something.
Makes those look pretty stupid who attack the idea purely because its known as Evolutionary Theory right?
Originally posted by Kano
Quite simply, because Evolution is a testable Scientific Theory as defined by the Scientific Method. "Intelligent Design" is nothing of the sort.
Originally posted by simtek 22
Originally posted by Kano
Quite simply, because Evolution is a testable Scientific Theory as defined by the Scientific Method. "Intelligent Design" is nothing of the sort.
Whos scientific method?
www.answersingenesis.org...
The debate works both ways. If you choose to not believe one side, that is a pretty narrow way of thinking. There are accredited scientists on both sides of the issue. Hence "Thoery" comes into play.
"Women Were Designed For Homemaking"
Jonathan Goode (grade 7) applied findings from many fields of science to support his conclusion that God designed women for homemaking: physics shows that women have a lower center of gravity than men, making them more suited to carrying groceries and laundry baskets; biology shows that women were designed to carry un-born babies in their wombs and to feed born babies milk, making them the natural choice for child rearing; social sciences show that the wages for women workers are lower than for normal workers, meaning that they are unable to work as well and thus earn equal pay; and exegetics shows that God created Eve as a companion for Adam, not as a co-worker.
Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
IF the debate here is whether or not creationism should be taught alongside evolution in a science class, then the answer is outright NO.
How can you possibly put creationism on the same page? You cant just reference children to the bible when they ask about evolution.
"How did the whale come to be?"...."OH....go look in the bible.....GOD created it on the 4th day..." What kind of answer is that?
Its not really an answer, is it?
At least evolution, and granted it might not be right, is a much better answer than some bible verse with absolutely no falsifiability.
You cant test and predict how a whale came to be strictly from bible verses, can you?
It seems to me that if we put creationsim into science text books the kids really wont be learning anything, except for cliches like "Oh...GOD created it"
How are kids suppose to get smarter if the answer is always going to be "GOD created it"????
At least with evolution they can question it.
Originally posted by simtek 22
Hajduk, APC, you're missing the point of the debate here, you present good information in support of evolution, but the thread has to deal with putting 2 different theories into school text books. Nothing you have presented has shown me why both theories can't be taught together in a public school.
"Shut up before I hang/burn/drown you."(acceptable means of killing people in the bible)
And again, just your version or all the others? What makes yours more right? Because you killed more people? Because you raped more children?
Originally posted by kenshiro2012
I am very familiar to the scientific nmethod as well as the basis of scientific theory, fact, law.
A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."