[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Can I add a little side note here: The PRC (China) graduated more people in Math and Science last year than the USA did in EVERYTHING. They will soon be producing TEN times as many engineers as will we.
If this trend continues, this does not bode well for us. Imagine a country with 1.5 billion people, many MORE educated people than us. How many of our school children study Mandarin? I had children wanting to practice their English with me when I was there. How many of our children even know what Mandarin is?
We will soon be surpassed and the Chinese will rightly demand continually more influence in world affairs. Is this desireable?
Our children should be learning how to compete and how to speak the language of our competition, not some mystical mumbo-jumbo that serves no purpose.
“Wow, how fascinating that someone designed the bird shit on my windshield?”
I cringe as I say this, but I agree.
And the Giants are going to go to the super bowl. Its a done deal my man ;}[/quote]
Maybe its that book THE IRON HEEL wielding its influence on me – especially the part about if angels can dance on the head of a pin (inside joke)
Merry Christman, FI, and to all on this board (even Vroom)!
[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Depends on what you mean by “understand.” Do we understand the mechanisms behind gravity? no, not exactly. Do we understand the effects of gravity? yes, we do. Can you tell me how long it takes a new species to develop? Because I can tell you how long it takes an apple, dropped at a given height, to hit the ground.
[/quote]
It’s starting to seem like you are arguing for the sake of arguing. When I say people understand gravity less I meant how it works, not the fact that it does work (the theory, not the law). Obviously everyone knows if I drop a rock it’s going to fall, but how many people know and understand the theory of why? A small percentage. Just like everyone knows that life exists on this planet, but unlike gravity most people have a understanding on the theory of why. I stand by my analogy.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Can I add a little side note here: The PRC (China) graduated more people in Math and Science last year than the USA did in EVERYTHING. They will soon be producing TEN times as many engineers as will we.[/quote]
The fact is that their population is roughly five times that of the USA, so a more accurate statement might be that they will graduate roughly twice as many engineers per capita. Better, but still way short of good.
[quote]
Our children should be learning how to compete and how to speak the language of our competition, not some mystical mumbo-jumbo that serves no purpose. [/quote]
Very true, but I can provide books and home-school my kids if it comes down to that. Right now I don’t think it will.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Can I add a little side note here: The PRC (China) graduated more people in Math and Science last year than the USA did in EVERYTHING. They will soon be producing TEN times as many engineers as will we.
If this trend continues, this does not bode well for us. Imagine a country with 1.5 billion people, many MORE educated people than us. How many of our school children study Mandarin? I had children wanting to practice their English with me when I was there. How many of our children even know what Mandarin is?
We will soon be surpassed and the Chinese will rightly demand continually more influence in world affairs. Is this desireable?
Our children should be learning how to compete and how to speak the language of our competition, not some mystical mumbo-jumbo that serves no purpose.
“Wow, how fascinating that someone designed the bird shit on my windshield?”
[/quote]
I really hope you come back to this because I stand by everything I said in my first post in answer to your bullshit.
Why do you think I’m being emotional?And as for having a false sense of security,I’d have said it all to your face then your line of arguement couldn’t have been developed because it would have been shot down a lot earlier and forgotten.If you have a problem with these forums then don’t come on and spout bullshit!!!
How old do you think I am?
You are lying about being a student of the hard sciences,not even a high school student of chemistry would have made the glaring factual errors that you made.SO2 is not the gaseous form of Sulpher!!!It is the result of Sulpher’s oxidation by Oxygen,a chemical reaction,your ignorance of the simplest scientific facts is breathtaking!I don’t know what your higher degree is,but it sure ain’t science!
I don’t need to look at my periodic table mate,I know it!Which you clearly don’t!Isn’t simple research a lovely thing.
You say science and religion(which is basically what your proposing here)can co-exist, but they can’t.One demands proof and the other only needs intellectual paralysis and faith.ID is ‘the god of the gaps’ and thats all.Evolution has evidence which can be seen and documented(fossil records and in medical science(bacterial evolution,mutating viruses).
I await your (no doubt internet researched)reply with undisguised glee.
Just realised that I’ve probably made an error(if anybody is bothered!?)
Lockwood’s factual error about ‘Sulpher’s gaseous form’ which does exist but not at Earthlke temperatures(don’t know what temperature Sulpher actually reaches it’s gaseous form).I said it was SO2,but you would need O2 around for that to be the case and there wasn’t a great deal arounds at that time.The compound he’s talking about is probably H2S,not that he would know the difference anyway!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Can I add a little side note here: The PRC (China) graduated more people in Math and Science last year than the USA did in EVERYTHING. They will soon be producing TEN times as many engineers as will we.
If this trend continues, this does not bode well for us. Imagine a country with 1.5 billion people, many MORE educated people than us. How many of our school children study Mandarin? I had children wanting to practice their English with me when I was there. How many of our children even know what Mandarin is?
We will soon be surpassed and the Chinese will rightly demand continually more influence in world affairs. Is this desireable?
Our children should be learning how to compete and how to speak the language of our competition, not some mystical mumbo-jumbo that serves no purpose.
“Wow, how fascinating that someone designed the bird shit on my windshield?”
I cringe as I say this, but I agree.
And the Giants are going to go to the super bowl. Its a done deal my man ;}
Maybe its that book THE IRON HEEL wielding its influence on me – especially the part about if angels can dance on the head of a pin (inside joke)
Merry Christman, FI, and to all on this board (even Vroom)!
I haven’t read the entire thread because after the first two pages it just turned into personal attacks and the such. Anyways here it goes…
I think everyone who is opinionated about Evolusion should read a book called “A Case for the Creator” by Lee Stobel. I became very interested in reading about the recent discoveries that find flaw in Darwin’s theory that my college professor and Geologist (one that works in the field, not just a desk geologist) suggested we read.
What would you all like to teach in schools if Evolusion’s entire theory of evolving from single cell organisms is false?
Better yet… why don’t we watch how modern Darwinists are going to change the thoery because of the discoveries of the “Cambrian Explosion”??
I doubt many of you have actually read Darwin’s “Origins of Man” yet why do you promote it??? Likely because you were force fed it down your throat as a kid to believe it completely true.
As for the Big Bang Theory… what caused it? The theory suggests that the universe was still, no movement, no action, and then all of a sudden BANG and explosion creates the universe as we know it…but what caused the bang if nothing was in motion. Physics will explain for every ACTION there is an equal and opposite REACTION. ID calls this action the “unmoved mover”. How can you disprove that with science?
I am not really trying to get answers from any of you. I actually am undecided on the school/constitutional debate. I just want to let everyone in on more modern science and I suggest everyone reads up on how Evolusion has been held as fact while it has yet to be proven.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
last time i checked, the “Theory of Evolution” has been neither observed
Uhhh, fossil records, different species, differences within species? Evolution has definitely been “observed.”
nor replicated, and therefore should be the “Model of Evolution” based on the hypothesis of natural selection.
Actually, I recall reading that scientists were able to force some type of insect to “evolve” in the laboratory. Ever read about how over-prescribing antibiotics has lead to strains of bacteria that have become resistant to the current crop of antibiotics? That’s evolution. Well, not quite - it’s adaptation of an organism to its environment, which is a key component in evolution.[/quote]
"Uhhh, fossil records, different species, differences within species? Evolution has definitely been “observed.” "
In regards to the differences between species and differences between different members of the same species, these are phenomenon which evolution tries to explain and to use them as evidence for the theory of evolution is to engage in circular reasoning.
“Actually, I recall reading that scientists were able to force some type of insect to “evolve” in the laboratory.”
This statement provides very little in the way of support for your argument. In order for it bolster your argument, the study it mentions has to be referenced.
“That’s evolution. Well, not quite - it’s adaptation of an organism to its environment, which is a key component in evolution.”
Replicating one component of a theory is not the same as replicating an entire theory. A theory is not true simply because one of its necessary components is true.
[quote]utman316 wrote:
I am not really trying to get answers from any of you. I actually am undecided on the school/constitutional debate. I just want to let everyone in on more modern science and I suggest everyone reads up on how Evolusion has been held as fact while it has yet to be proven.[/quote]
Natural selection is an observable fact. The fittest do actually survive. What we don’t know is the exact number and flavor of every single mechanism of gene mutation, gene transferrence, etc., etc.
Are you willing to throw up your hands at our lack of knowledge and say “God did it!” or are you going to hunker down and look deeper into this? Just because some of us have given up the race a bit early doesn’t mean that they should get to subject our kids with their lack of willingness to explore.
Of course science doesn’t have all the answers. If it did, there wouldn’t be scientists anymore… only teachers. Religious people are allowed to point out the failings of science in all honesty when the very last scientist has given up, and we are all well aware that we have got everything all figured out.
This is not the case. Just because we do not have every single chemical reaction mapped out doesn’t mean that evolution is wrong or even that far off.
As far as coming from one-celled organisms, that is just common sense. Are you saying that we came into multi-cellular existence by skipping over the uni-cellular one? We just can’t explain how exactly it happened. What we do know is WHEN it happened:
I am not really trying to get answers from any of you. I actually am undecided on the school/constitutional debate. I just want to let everyone in on more modern science and I suggest everyone reads up on how Evolusion has been held as fact while it has yet to be proven.[/quote]
You’re undecided are you? Something tells me you haven’t spent nearly as much time studying evolution as you have creationism.
Yeah, I got that impression too. For me one clue was that he couldn’t spell the word “evolution”.
I mean, we all make spelling mistakes, but to claim to have researched this and to have an opinion we all need to hear about creationism and evolution, perhaps you should display some ability to read and write?
[quote]utman316 wrote:
I haven’t read the entire thread because after the first two pages it just turned into personal attacks and the such. Anyways here it goes…
I think everyone who is opinionated about Evolusion should read a book called “A Case for the Creator” by Lee Stobel. I became very interested in reading about the recent discoveries that find flaw in Darwin’s theory that my college professor and Geologist (one that works in the field, not just a desk geologist) suggested we read.
What would you all like to teach in schools if Evolusion’s entire theory of evolving from single cell organisms is false?
[/quote]
The question is not relevant, because evoluTion has not been proven false.
Why would the cambrian explosion necessitate the changing of the theory of evolution? You do realize that the so called “cambrian explosion” ocuured over a period > 50 million years, don’t you? Also it is notable that there are fossils that have been found in the precambrian rocks. Additionally, the fossils found in the “cambrian explosion” were simple, evolutionary predecessors of modern lifeforms- they did not include advanced animal species that exist today. This is compelling evidence of evolution and common descent. The fossil record of the cambrian period is perfectly consistent with modern neodarwinist theory.
Now if we were to find fully formed modern mammals in precambrian strata, that would give evolutionists cause to rethink their theories. Which begs the question to you: if creationism is consistent with modern science, why aren’t the fossils of all modern animals found throughout all time periods of the fossil record, as would be predicted by a creationist theory?
First off, Charles Darwin never wrote a book called “Origins of Man”. He wrote a book called “The Origins of Species” (most likely what you refer to) and another called “Descent of Man”.
Secondly, Origins of Species is not even used as a scientific reference anymore. It is over 100 years old, and the science of evolutionary biology has advanced by leaps and bounds since then. You are obviously clueless about science, otherwise you would realize that due to the nature of science, outdated books like “origins of species” (though groundbreaking at the time and teh catalyst for great ideas) have strictly a historical value. Do college calculus and physics classes require students to read Isaaac Newton? Do marine engineering students read the original works of archimedes? Do med students read the works of Vesalius? You should be getting the picture by now.
As for education on the issue, your inability to corrrectly spell evolution speaks volumes of your knowledge of the subject.
Your postulation of a God offers no better solution to the problem. it is still subject to the same criticism (“what created God?”). It is more sensible to go with teh proposition that a universe with matter and physical laws has just always existed. By the Ockham’s razor principle, this idea is simpler and more logically sound then the idea of an omniscient God creating everything. There is direct observable evidence for the existence of a Universe. Your only “evidence” fopr the existence of God is the existence of the universe.
As per whether your proposition of a God is falsifiable, that depends. If you simply propose that there is a force called God that brought the universe into existence and nothing more, well that is neither testable or falsifiable. However, if you propose that there is a force called God that created the Universe that created the universe in the exact manner described in teh book of Genesis… well that is falsifiable and has been proven wrong already.
I agree that you don’t apppear to be looking for answers but I doubt that you are undecided.
[quote]
I just want to let everyone in on more modern science and I suggest everyone reads up on how Evolusion has been held as fact while it has yet to be proven.[/quote]
Maybe you should follow your own advice and read up on modern science (something that you obviously have not been doing). It might be best to read up on actual scientific literature rather than religious propaganda books.
yeah sorry about the spelling mistake, I was writing very late at night.
Honestly I had been pro-darwin up until a geology class pionted out just a few of the theory of evolution’s problems. I really don’t care what anyone chooses to believe, there is a plausible debate for both sides. The problem with evolution is that in the past 50 years text books have been putting false (not purposely, just early/bad science). They don’t get rid of a lot of this information because there would be nothing to put there…and guess what, the text book industry would lose money.
Oh and the gentlemen discussing “survival of the fittest”…Darwin was a little off. It is not about how “fit” or “able” you are, it is about a speices ‘reproductive success’. Think about it. What is more fit? a bunny rabbit or a wolves who are losing population each year?
If you guys need proof, go read “A Case for the Creator” and then read any of the cited works it lists. They have information from both sides. Problems are happening with politics and education because the evolution that they are teaching or preaching is not up to date with new discoveries. The good Modern Darwinist are trying to evolve their theory to account for newer findings but, that is a very untraditional approach to science. Many of you simply have “faith” in Darwin while there is new evidence contradicting the theory.
Happy Holidays to everyone, but do read up on some recent documents on the subject, and I suggest you do so for both sides because fact or not, they are both very interesting.
[quote]utman316 wrote:
there is a plausible debate for both sides. [/quote]
Actually there’s not, and that was made very clear in the testimony from the Dover trial. I thought I knew what I was talking about until I read the transcripts. After I saw that, with the exception of one or two other posters on this topic, no one here on either side really has the facts. And using discredited books, like Of Pandas and Case for the Creator, just adds to the confusion. Especially Of Pandas and People, that was really torn apart in the Dover trial.
[quote]utman316 wrote:
Oh and the gentlemen discussing “survival of the fittest”…Darwin was a little off. It is not about how “fit” or “able” you are, it is about a speices ‘reproductive success’. Think about it. What is more fit? a bunny rabbit or a wolves who are losing population each year?
[/quote]
I hate to use the word stupid, but really I can’t think of any other word for it. Yet another creationist that chooses to argue about something he doesn’t even understand. ‘Fit’ means exactly what you said. It is based purely on their reproductive success. Not the fit most people talk about with 6 pac abs and 20" guns. Comments like that do nothing but prove your ignorance.
[quote]utman316 wrote:
yeah sorry about the spelling mistake, I was writing very late at night.
Honestly I had been pro-darwin up until a geology class pionted out just a few of the theory of evolution’s problems. I really don’t care what anyone chooses to believe, there is a plausible debate for both sides. The problem with evolution is that in the past 50 years text books have been putting false (not purposely, just early/bad science). They don’t get rid of a lot of this information because there would be nothing to put there…and guess what, the text book industry would lose money.
[/quote]
Really, what exactly is this bad science that you are talking about? Also your assertion that the textbook industry doesn’t update books because they would lose money seems odd. Wouldn’t they stand to make a handsome profit by forcing schools/students to purchase updated textbooks?
I am curious as to what “bad science” you are referring to. Modern science has done nothing but uncover more evidence and a greater understanding of the process of Evolution. My suggestion would be to check out actual scientific literature about the subject. The author that you keep referencing (Strobel) has such a poor misunderstanding of science that it is laughable.
You are saying the same thing as Darwin or any other evolutionist.
Strobel, the author of the book that you are referencing, is a reporter turned Christian apologetic and has no scientific qualifications. That book that you are mentioning is slammed by any serious scientist. I would also like to see what “new discoveries” you are referring to that contradict evolution. Discoveries are made on a regular basis that support modern evolutionary biology. Here is just one example that took me about 10 seconds to find on yahoo:
Oh really? You must have very little knowledge of science if you think that this is the case. Scientific theories have always changed and advanced over time- look at how Newtons laws of motion changed with the discovery of relative motion. By your logic physicists are all liars promoting “bad science”. That is just one of many examples of scientific progress that has ocurred hroughout every discipline of science. Scientists modify their theories as knowledge increases. That is teh nature of science. That is probably hard for people that follow religious dogma to understand.
What is up with all the stupid “faith” metaphors that you guys keep using? Why do you feel compelled to imply that the biggest flaw in your worldview applies to science?
[quote]
Happy Holidays to everyone, but do read up on some recent documents on the subject, and I suggest you do so for both sides because fact or not, they are both very interesting.[/quote]
I would suggest that you do some reading on what evolutionary biology entails, because it seems you have little understanding of it.
It amazes me how many people don’t read about the Scopes Monkey Trial.
This has all been done, and by far more philosophical minds (Darrow and Bryan). Folks who supports creationism, or ID, should read the exact transcripts of what went down back in Tennessee, as it was probably one of the greatest battles of the minds ever in a court room.
Its interesting as hell, regardless of who you support. Yet I rarely hear it ever mentioned anymore.
