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.

 

POLITICS: Kansas Debate Challenges Science Itself

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Moe Foe, that was great!

But it is sad, they want their creation in school, not Aztec, not Hindu, not Pebble People, but their creation.

Damn, I wanna go to college in Kansas!

"What is 2+2?" GOD!
"WHo wrote the Dec. of Ind.?" GOD!
"Who won the 1860 President Election?" GOD!
"Who do we kill?" Anyone who doesn't answer GOD!

YEA! I gots A! I are smart!




posted on May, 20 2005 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
Someone said above that ID was basically starting off with an answer and working backwards, that rings true more then anything else i've heard in this thread so far.

/me waves



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   
It looks like some of your information that you are use to fuel your hatred is incorrect.




Source : The Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report 2000, issue 97 pg 32-35 This compilation is based on hate group publications, citizens' reports, law enforcement agencies, field sources and new reports
Note: The Christian Identity describes a religion that is fundamentally racist and anti-Semitic whereas True Christian's are NOT!!


White Knights of Christianity




The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was originally a fraternal organization in the United States that advocated white supremacy and promoted Protestantism to the exclusion of other religions. It was founded by ex-servicemen of the Confederate Army in 1866, but it was disbanded by 1869.


Wikipedia

As for:



I do see the ICR going into schools and telling kids if they believe in reality/the truth then they are evil and going to hell.(ICR=Institute for Creation Research, but they don't research, they just yell science is evil, kill anyone who won't give Dwayne Gish a BJ((He is the leader))


Proof please where they are telling anyone has said anything even close to this.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Can anyone quantify an Intelligent Designer for me? Show me the Equasions! SHOW ME THE EQUASIONS!

When someone does that then I'll accept ID as a viable alternative to Evolution until that time it's just Pseudo-Sceintific claptrap.

[edit on 20-5-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 06:01 PM
link   
ame here sorry

[edit on 20-5-2005 by kenshiro2012]



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
BlackJackal,
I tried this argument in the past on a couple of threads that have been created on this subject.
No matter what you say, no matter how rational your response, there are members and mods here who will immediately oppose it. Not on the basis of merit of the debate but due to the connection of religion / christianity.
Even those who always argue for the right to question issues will oppose this even to the point of ridiculing anyone who tries to uphold it.
Just on the basis of religion


You are right some people are stuck in their dogma's on both sides of the issue and will not change. What I look for are people with open minds who truly deny ignorance rather than embrace it.

And for sardion2000's responce allow me to reitterate what this truly means



In the end this mandates science will not decide before-hand what it may discover, which has always been an unscientific manner, which hindered the urge for man to discover how the universe works in the first place. Such as saying I think the moon is made of cheese so now I will set out to prove the moon is made of cheese, rather than saying I want to know what the moon is made of and setting out to discover what the moon is made of.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Heh I realized that after going back through the thread and rewrote my reply, on Fridays my brain takes a vacation


When I went to school I had increadible Science teachers which instilled a love of the Scientific process but what they didn't do is laugh down ANY questions.

I didn't realize that there were OKAY questions and NOT okay questions in american science classes. It wasn't like that at my school, but then again different countries different systems.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
Can anyone quantify an Intelligent Designer for me? Show me the Equasions! SHOW ME THE EQUASIONS!

When someone does that then I'll accept ID as a viable alternative to Evolution until that time it's just Pseudo-Sceintific claptrap.

[edit on 20-5-2005 by sardion2000]


This can go both ways. Can you quanitfy the process of Evolution? Can you show me the equations?



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
Someone said above that ID was basically starting off with an answer and working backwards, that rings true more then anything else i've heard in this thread so far.


This is how modern Science works. First you must state what you are setting out to find, then you set out to find it. For example a scientist may state he is setting out to prove that MRSA's antibiotic resistance comes from evolution by using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis type, mecA and Tn554 polymorphism. Then you get your grant money and you start to work to prove your hypothesis.

ID science works opposite of this by taking the available evidence and coming to a conclusion using the available data.

Which one sounds more logical?



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Heres 6 experiments that you can use to prove the theory of evolution.

Evolution - Experiments

It may still be a theory and may always be a theory. How can we observe something millions of years in making? But atleast where it trumps ID is that it is scientific. It has verifiable and repeatable experiments that prove its theory and thats more than can be said about ID.

[edit on 20/5/05 by subz]



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   
I don't think the issue of complexity is anything to get hung up on, since higher mutation rates can be expected in pre-history, and at every stage in evolution more proteins have been synthesized from 'unchanged' genes.

God does play dice.

He rolls ten gallon buckets of 10mm dice and only needs 66 6's to come up with the platypus.

Look, inteligent design is a neat idea, and it's viable in terms of something to bat around while drinking beers, but it's a faith issue, not a fact issue. You believe it or you don't, and the reasons for belief do NOT center on knowledge, they center on the belief itself.

The problems I have with inteligent design are few, just two in fact. 1.) it aint all that inteligent, and that's been extensively documented 2.) it's a millimeter further along this slow creep towards theocracy, and I detest theocracy.

Schools need to teach life essentials, and respect/common sense, and bare bones social skills. If you want to learn about God, go to seminary.

Just homeschool your kids, federal mandates be damned.

[edit on 20-5-2005 by WyrdeOne]



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
The problems I have with inteligent design are few, just two in fact. 1.) it aint all that inteligent, and that's been extensively documented 2.) it's a millimeter further along this slow creep towards theocracy, and I detest theocracy.


Your entitled to your beliefs just as I am to mine but I would like for you to explain your reasoning here. How has Intelligent Design been documented to show that the theory is not that intelligent?



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Heres 6 experiments that you can use to prove the theory of evolution.

Evolution - Experiments

It may still be a theory and may always be a theory. How can we observe something millions of years in making? But atleast where it trumps ID is that it is scientific. It has verifiable and repeatable experiments that prove its theory and thats more than can be said about ID.

[edit on 20/5/05 by subz]


The only problem with this is that in order to have these theoretical experiments that are on this website you have to assume that evolution is true. These are not real world experiments they are computer simulations. Another computer simulation could show how a neural network was created by and intelligent agent and designed to grow. These experiments do not prove evolution.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   
The moment we start to compare One theory to another is the moment when both sides become entrenched and discussion gets derailed.

Just because an argument sounds logical doesn't mean it actually is, study QM sometime and you'll just see how illogical and absurd the Universe really is, I expect the true answer of our origins will be just as absurd and counter-intuitive as QM is(as that is the foundation of everything)

In my mind(and the minds of just about every Acedemic on the Planet) the onus is on the ID proponents not the "Defenders" of Evolution(They need not defend just adapt as new information comes to light
untill something else comes along and replaces Evolutionary thinking, and the best bet for that will be something that builds upon previous theories wether they are ID(which IS rooted in Creationism wether you believe it or not) or Evolution). Personally I'm not sure anyone of us on this thread is qualified to make such a comparison.



ID science works opposite of this by taking the available evidence and coming to a conclusion using the available data.


Really show me ONE peer-review study with at least ONE citation that supports that statement, are the NASA folks doing as you say and coming to the conclusion that there is water on mars then going out to search for evidance to support that assumption(like Richard C. Hoaglund does every single day
)? Last time I checked most scientists would become a laughing stock if they worked like that. Allthough I admit some fields are fuzzier then others.

I know my response seems like a copout, but you know what I could really care less. The real issue still is POLITICS: Kansas Debate Challenges Science Itself by changing this phrase

"a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us."
to
"a systematic method of continuing investigation using observation, experiment, measurement, theory building, testing of ideas and logical argument to lead to better explanations of natural phenomena."

Similiar wording but the latter leaves the door open for the Science teacher to teach Psuedoscience wether it be Christian, New Age, Judiasm, Hollow Earth "theories" or Cheese Moon theories. Interpretation is much easier(eg Less Loopholes) in the former definition.

[edit on 20-5-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 07:23 PM
link   
BlackJackal
Flounder eyes, whale hips, human vertebrae, snake legs, fluctuating pygmy/giant populations on isolated islands, the ressurgence of the sabretooth (half a dozen times in history), not to mention whales get the bends and big mouth frogs are so gluttonous they kill themselves as often as not. The fluid capacity of a Moa egg, the fact that cetaceans breath air instead of water, migrating hip sizes in human females, evolved plant communications, along with a host of obvious stop-gaps, workable evolutions that contribute to survival but at a high price, like sickle cell.

Sexual selection is another monkey wrench in the gears, because there would be no inteligent reason to design species which advance on the merits of their frills and colors and mating calls alone. These species have spent untold generations competing for sex, and they have become so specialized towards that task, they excel at nothing else - birds are widely recognized for their displays, along with little known contenders like spiders, and of course, the home team, humans.


Then there's the fact that many species utilize oxygen as their main fuel, which is incredibly dangerous and inefficient. A huge amount of energy is wasted from conversion to heat, and yet more is wasted because our metabolic rates vary widely due to mutation, then there're wisdom teeth, we all know about wisdom teeth...

Food allergies, variable immune responses, progressive changes to human facial symmetry, whale teeth vs. strainers, the seal's tail (joined legs) and of course, my favorite piece of evidence, the lizard brain squatting on our very own mammal stem.

I could go on, but there's a wealth of information on this topic on ATS, and linked to from ATS already. I've provided some, other members have provided much more, it's definitely out there to find.

What's interesting me the most right now is the argument against abiogenesis. I had never honestly considered the problem before joining ATS, because I was taught in school that life arose from nothing, due to chemical reactions in the primordial ooze. There are a lot of grey areas..in terms of who has the right calculations (in terms of precursors and environment).

I'm sorry if I seemed trite or terse with my earlier reply, it's just that..honestly, I see no scientific argument against adaptation, and I see no sound deductive argument for inteligent design (that can't be explained away by observable instances of ineffeciency in the animal kingdom - and the protein issue has sort of been touched on), so the argument has become repetetive, for me at least.

I really am interested to know how life arose from dust, and if you have a theory that can be tested I'd love to check it out, but as far as inteligent design..the mitochondria are often touted as proof of inteligent design, but they were probably evolved to suit another purpose and adapted later, as conditions in the organisms and the environment changed. The arguments for inteligent design seem to be more wishful thinking rather than careful analysis. I don't hold evolution as a fact, I consider it a good theory with several unpatched holes.

Truly no offense intended, everyone is entitled to their own views, and I support people making up their own minds the best they can. I just don't think we should be teaching kids anything except a desire to learn for themselves all they can. If random citizen X believes Jesus will descend from on high and burn the sinners, they're welcome to that belief, and they're welcome to indoctrinate their children into that school of thought. However, I outright refuse to pay for the operation and staff requirements of a public facility that has a good chance of being used for religious recruiting.

I think parents need to re-assert their authority over the lives of their children. Parents need to have the right to shape the learning of their children, for good or ill, and they need to take responsibility for the results, no matter what.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   
As Rren wisely stated earier...


Originally posted by Rren
I would have to agree with you here. As a believer and a 'lay' proponent of intelligent design, i say a change in the definition of science is ridiculous. Let us bring our evidence to the table under the same criteria as anybody else has to.


Making it easier by changing the definition of science in the Kansas School board charter is the ultimate cop out IMO. I have nothing more to say on this issue, I guess if you can't beat them on thier turf you change the terrain... I really hope this doesn't put Science into a seige mentality as that could do irreperable damage to some fields of study(eg They spend too much time addressing "controversies" rather then doing actual Science)

[edit on 20-5-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Nice post! I love your list of examples.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join