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.

 

Bush Advocates Teaching ID in Schools

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley
There is even a village in italy where everyone is immune to cancer.. it's in their dna.


Could you give more info about this please?

Thanks in advance


(Either here, new thread, U2U is fine)




posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by deesw

God left nothing missing. How can you believe scientists that find bones scattered about over a twenty mile radius and swear they belong to the same creature?


Yes he is perfect that is why creationism and science can never coexist in the same level.

Better to remain uneducated in the issue that finding answers to question outside the Religious dogma.

Bible will never be able to answer your questions like science does, but "alas" we can not believe in science because it goes against bible believes.

Asking questions without accepting the answers given is not a good way to get in a debate.

But challenging science in favor of religion is easy to do, you don't have to prove nothing but denied everything.


“God is perfect” but “Man is faulty” but then again we are his creation and like the bible said “in his image he created man and women in his image he created both”

So I wonder in who the fault really should fall on.


Education is the enemy of religion.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
No I'm not, there is a difference between something adapting to it's environment and something evolving into something else.


The difference is time. Over time, adaptations compound to such a degree that you can get something VERY different from what you started with.


If we evolved from something else, then why aren't we still evolving into something else?


We almost certainly still are. What do you expect- a third eye to magically appear in the back of your head some day? That's not how evolution works. That's just the kind of mischaracterization that ignorant religion mongers will use as an illustration to make good science sound absurd.
Look at which traits are favored for breeding and you'll see where evolution is going.

Basically in a few hundred to a few thousand years I'm betting that the human race will have significantly higher metabolism, darker skin tone, better dexterity and more pliable bone structure which doesn't get jacked up from all the odd positions we put ourselves in for comfort these days, a lot more people will have poor eyesight, more men won't be able to do the only thing men are good for without viagra, and I'm guessing peoples voices will become a tad more pleasant as well.
The stuff that stops a person from getting laid, from the most part, will not remain. The stuff that can be overcome to make a person more layable will become more common.


If we share a common ancestor with apes, then why can't we talk to each other? Too many loop holes, doesn't hold water, and Darwin was a Godless fruit.


I've got an Irish surname. Why can't I speak Gaelic?
Then there's the hardware upgrades to consider. We're built slightly different, we are capable of slightly different sounds.

Edit to add: If Darwin was a godless fruit, then a preacher is a scienceless nut.

[edit on 13-8-2005 by The Vagabond]



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   
How long would it take to teach the creation theory? Like, one class? They could probably just play a video. I think Jack Palance should narrate it and be green screened against things like the parting of the red sea etc. All CGI of course, unless they can actually get Pat Robertson in to part it himself.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Pat Robertson can't part the Red Sea for the video. He would, but he's too busy encouraging his followers to pray for yet more "vacancies" on our supreme court, which is of course a life-time appointment. Infer from that what you will.

My take is that if a guy who prays for people to be smitten parts the red sea, his help ain't coming from above.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Ok Deesw I'm part French, German, Russian(Makes me asian damn it, get a globe, where is most of Russia? ASIA! The college people can bite me when they say I'm not Asian) Irish English Indian(native american) Dutch and Italian, how come I can only speak English and Japanese?

Also who is to say we are superior to a Chimp or Gorilla? Yes we are "smarter" but go toe to toe and guess who wins?

Also why would we need to change? Who's to say we aren't? We have grown taller over the years with the average height over 4 inches more then in the 1500's. We have lost use of the appendix, why it can be removed with little consequence unless your doctor leaves his cell phone in you or something.(I kid you not, the things they leave in patients is amazing)

Edit: Spelling, this is what you get for being up all night and day and night and day on a Mountain Dew fix.

[edit on 13-8-2005 by James the Lesser]



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I wonder if people on this thread actually know what intelligent design entails. Because, ID and evolution both believe in a lot of points, such as microevolution.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   
This came up in the Debate forum. Check it out:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 01:54 AM
link   
I once again ask. Has anyone done the math on the probability of life coming about with there being a creating force?

Now lets run with the idea of creation. Definition 1 from dictionary.com says "To cause to exist; bring into being."

Allright, from a spiritual standpoint, let's look at ourselves, and how we create things in our own lives. Let's say I want a sandwich. So I have this "idea" about a sandwich, and I go make a sandwich. I ask anyone here on this board, tell me how that particular sandwich would have ever come into being without me first having an "idea" about the sandwich, and me taking the steps to make that sandwich. It would not have happened.

Let's look at the creator as the first "creator spirit" who started this whole thing. So we are part of this "creator," and we also have the ability to create in our own right. Creation is quite simple to understand, and doesn't need to be re-written because of conflicting fossil records, or "missing links."

I'm afraid man is a bit more than just mud that magically jumped to life and turned into tadpoles, to lizards, to monkeys, to man over billions of years.

Evolution, maybe, but not without creation. But where on earth are these monkeys who are in the middle of evolving into humans?

Troy



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   
That's the thing. Evolution claims to have evidence and proof all of the time. But that evidence and proof changes with the wind, along with all of the theories. Creationism has never changed. How can anyone actually believe that they were an accident?



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
But there is no proof that that is what those beings were or what happened. Remember there is a such thing as adaptation.


Of course, what you mention is EVOLUTION. You are conceding the ENTIRE argument. Adaptations result in speciation, eventually in the various phyla. And the entire story is encoded in genetics, which is a fascinating record only beginning to be decoded. But we already have a good start, confirming animals' relationship to each other, including humans.

The Sciences tend to confirm each other, if an hypothesis does not fit the evidence, it is refuted. Belief is merely clung to in the face of disproof, very similar to prejudice.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
Creationism has never changed.


If true, that merely proves that it isn't scientific.


Originally posted by deesw
How can anyone actually believe that they were an accident?


My parents had 5 "accidents".



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy
I once again ask. Has anyone done the math on the probability of life coming about with there being a creating force?


You could find this easily for yourself if you were really interested in knowing. Abiogenesis probabilities

But what difference does it make what the odds are, as long as they are not 0? Since we have no reason to believe there is anything beyond the natural, it is irrational to attribute anything to the supernatural if it is possible that it has a natural explanation, regardless of how improbable that may seem, as long as the probability is not identically 0.


Originally posted by cybertroy
I'm afraid man is a bit more than just mud that magically jumped to life


Is that the process that is thought to have happened, or are you intentionally trying to form a rediculous strawman that you can easily knock down?



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   
.
All you need for abiogenesis is a chain or sheet molecule that tends to accrue material more quickly than lose it. If it gets long enough it will, even though it may be stronger there, still have a higher likely hood of breaking there.
[chains work slightly better for it]

It doesn't even have to be making copies of itself initially.

As long as it is accruing material and occassionally breaking in two pieces that both tend to accrue material, that's the whole package.

Selection takes over from there.

It could be a carbohydrate polymer or a protien [amino acid] polymer. It could even be some kind of hydrocarbon polymer, but personally think that is less likely.

Eventually you have competing accruing chains and even though they are hardly what we would call life they start being filtered by the available nutrients and the most efficient ones persisting better and longer and breaking into new units that are more similar to themselves.

Guessing, based on what resulted, it would appear that an organized systematic way of accruing material won out as the most efficient.

Life is strangely enough anti-entropic.
freezing/solidifying matter makes something entropically neutral.
But life actually creates order, and then organization, which seems almost mystic.
In fact i think selection gave us inate responsive logic due to natural selection. Natural selection = Environmental filtering. As much as the cerebrum touts itself as the residence of all logic, i think the genepool was filtered for appropriate pre-guessing logic. [anticipation]

Big shape moving rapidly towards you in field of vison.
Those that moved to the side had better survival rates.

Big shape with shiny sharp things moving towards you.
Those that move quickly out of the way had better survival rates.

Even in those early stages of neural response we were programmed on a totally autonomic level to anticipate, be future oriented.

Thinking is more cost effective than actual physical evasion, so those that did more quick neural processing wasted less energy with unnecessary movement and had more energy to grow and reproduce.

Life may be the the strongest anti-entropic force in the Universe.
Not only does it achieve order, it goes on to achieve organization.
It does so at least for some length of time with the brutal winnowing of numerous offspring.

Neurologically based sensory input, interal world modelling are all natural outgrowths of the Environment filtering out those that were not as well suited.

Evolution isn't magic, but it is amazing. It is awesome. It takes my breath away.

Now we are able to understand much of the fundamental mechanisms of genetics and can even intentionally create completely new codes for entirely original life forms.

Life just keeps on being filtered.

Now ID and Creationism trying not to sound totally stupid and inane accept micro evolution as real, but not macro evolution. Well at least they are starting to see the trees, if not the forest.
.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Okay, this is my first post, I won't "force" or "feed"my belief on anyone, since I believe all are entitled to their opinion. that opinion won't change my mind, since most of what I believe is based on personal experience and observation.

Having said that, I look at the present situation and attitude of our schools, and mostly, our students, since prayer etc. have been removed. This is what I base my opinion on, the results of an action.

Now, the reason, I decided to post, I have a question:

If (and I use the word loosely) science clones a human, is that human the result of evolution, or ID?

Also, in the future, how should it be taught in schools?



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Over and over, it seems to me that this whole "debate" is over language as much as anything. Science has it's own language. It uses words that are also used in the common vernacular but, in the lingo of science, the words have very specific meanings.

Science is very picky about words like "proof" and "fact" vs. "hypothesis" and "theory". The definitions are not exactly like what the layperson tosses around and understands (or misunderstands) in their everyday speach. No bonafide scientst will declare anything as a "scientific fact" or accept something as a "scientific law" unless or until there is absolutely no doubt at all.

In other words, there is no proof for any scientific theory and there never will be because once something is proven to be absolutely true, it is no longer called a theory. duh!

just Google...there are hundreds of sites that explain the language of science without ever even mentioning "evolution" - like this cut-and-paste from the first one that popped up. (Note: I pasted it in it's entireity because I doubted that some would even click a link.)

Oh! BTW - the "language of science" is usually taught in middle school so, maybe some of you were absent that day.




Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
That's the thing. Evolution claims to have evidence and proof all of the time. But that evidence and proof changes with the wind, along with all of the theories. Creationism has never changed. How can anyone actually believe that they were an accident?


Yes, creationism has changed. In the beginning, creationists tried to ban the teaching of evolution altogether. After being shot down again and again, its proponents now are attempting to spoon-feed doubts about evolution. Apparently, these people think that ID would remain as a valid theory by default once their thread of dubiousness is sown. But that would manifestly backfire, because that in itself is the seed of science and of inquiry itself. "Dubito ergo cogito; cogito ergo sum." -- Rene Descartes

It seems that religious fundamentalists are trying to defend their faith vis-a'-vis an attack on the what they perceive as adversarial. But fundamentalists implicitly create adversaries by the very nature of their doctrine. Only a cursory review of history is needed to overwhelmingly confirm that, especially with regard to Christianity. But it defies credulity that they would set themselves against a body of evidence as overwhelming as that confirming evolutionary theory. Of course, as with any theoretical construct, particular details are investigated time and again because that is part of the scientific method. But there is no experimentation process for religiousity, only ravening and craven maenads intent on the perpetuation of dogma without regard for fact.

The reason for wanting people not to use their God-given brains? The same as it has always been - CONTROL. Again, history confirms this fact as well. Thus, witness Galileo or any of the uncounted heretics dating back to Marcion.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by gypsyskyes
Now, the reason, I decided to post, I have a question:

If (and I use the word loosely) science clones a human, is that human the result of evolution, or ID?


If you accept that humans are the result of evolution, then cloning is the result of the intelligence resulting from evolution.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Is there really a wayBush can "win".??? I men if backs the teaching of ID, he is trying to appease other groups and spreading propaganda... If he doesnt back the teaching of ID he is a "biggotted Christian that does not respect freedom of religion"...Is there a way this guy can win on anything ???



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 07:03 AM
link   
baastetnoir,,, a little off topic, but what does your signature portray? Especially the American flag part?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join