Most Americans Feel Religion Is 'Under Attack,' Poll Shows

Mystical · Post by **Mystical** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:21 pm

I definately think that ID should be taught alongside evolution. So far there isn't any real evidence to back evolution. I also liked the idea of supplying students with a 'warning' that the theory of evolution is not fact. It was taught as fact to me as a child--just don't want my kids getting brainwashed.

Cougar · Post by **Cougar** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:34 pm

I must say, that if you claim there is no evidence for evolution, you appear to be quite ignorant of the subject. In a matter of a few weeks, bacteria left on their plates, supposedly dead due to the fact that they could not utilize fructose, were found to have proliferated and progeny were indeed using the fructose on the agar in which they were placed. I do not see how this alone does not prove evolution occurred. These bacteria clearly evolved to use fructose, even though they previously did not have the ability to break it down.

So, why should ID be taught with evolution? Do you feel there is abundant scientific evidence for ID? If so, please give me the citations of the testable, falsifiable, observable data in congruence with ID.

Mystical · Post by **Mystical** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:42 pm

I'm sorry, Cougar. Macro-evolution. So, again. There isn't any real evidence to back evolution.

So, because evolution has no real scientific backing; i.e. it provides no explanation of how life originated; we should supply our children with some sensical reason, shouldn't we?

Do you feel there is abundant scientific evidence for ID?

I really don't care if there is any scientific evidence for it. The fact that there is no scientific evidence for any other explanation speaks volumes to me. Also, mathematically and logically, there is plenty of evidence--more than enough.

Cougar · Post by **Cougar** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:44 pm

Do you also want your kids to hear a statement that the theory of relativity may be inaccurate? That the speed of light might not be 3.0 x 10 to the 8th, even though this constant is used in countless equations in physics, chemistry and many life sciences... What about Newton's Laws of motion or the laws of thermodynamics? What about gravity? Should kids not be taught about black holes or black body radiation?

Yes, brainwashing is a real doozy in schools today...

AttentionKMartShoppers · Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:45 pm

Cougar wrote:I must say, that if you claim there is no evidence for evolution, you appear to be quite ignorant of the subject. In a matter of a few weeks, bacteria left on their plates, supposedly dead due to the fact that they could not utilize fructose, were found to have proliferated and progeny were indeed using the fructose on the agar in which they were placed. I do not see how this alone does not prove evolution occurred. These bacteria clearly evolved to use fructose, even though they previously did not have the ability to break it down.

So, why should ID be taught with evolution? Do you feel there is abundant scientific evidence for ID? If so, please give me the citations of the testable, falsifiable, observable data in congruence with ID.

Microevolution does not equal macroevolution...and, because we don't know all the facts, the solution could be really quite simple, and you are blowing it out of proportion.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:48 pm

Cougar wrote:Kmart:

First off, do you think you could refrain from the qualitative names you give to anyone or any belief that does not agree with your own? I am quite certain that people on both sides of this argument have more intelligence than anyone here could imagine. I disagree with calling names and I think that scientists, theologians, opponents and proponents on either side of the argument should be given an equal amount of respect.

Niall Shanks and Karl H. Joplin, both of East Tennessee State University, have shown that systems satisfying Behe's characterization of irreducible biochemical complexity can arise naturally and spontaneously as the result of self-organizing chemical processes (Philosophy of Science, 1999). Also, scientists at Harvard have published a book this year describing how certain mutations can cause irreducible complexity. Because the physiology and processes now employed by certain proteins or amino acid chains have a certain function does not mean that the same proteins have always had the same function. It may be that currently, a system cannot work without it, however that does not mean that it NEVER worked without it. It's called evolution... oh no!

Not sure how to rebut your dolphin comment, I don't really understand what you are saying. If one is going to insult or rebut a claim, I would hope that there would be evidence and thought behind it.

They don't according to Behe...Behe still maintains that their arguments (self-organization) do not work I think...and certain mutations can cause irreducible complexity...maybe, but does this have anything to do with any of the examples Behe has written about....or are they only strawmen?

Mystical · Post by **Mystical** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:50 pm

That's perfectly fine with me. It isn't for you? I think we all know that these theories aren't infallible. Evolution, however, is different. It has been taught as if it is immaculate. Almost everyone I know thinks it's absolutely true, and that, I think you know is false.

Again, I don't want my kids brainwashed with falsities.

P.S. I think black holes are neat. Why shouldn't our kids be taught about them?

AttentionKMartShoppers · Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:55 pm

Cougar wrote:Do you also want your kids to hear a statement that the theory of relativity may be inaccurate? That the speed of light might not be 3.0 x 10 to the 8th, even though this constant is used in countless equations in physics, chemistry and many life sciences... What about Newton's Laws of motion or the laws of thermodynamics? What about gravity? Should kids not be taught about black holes or black body radiation?

Yes, brainwashing is a real doozy in schools today...

Maybe we wouldn't hear that the theory of relativity is innacurate...because there's evidence for it, and none against it as far as I know....not quite the same thing with evolution, so drop the false analogy.....And, COUGAR, come on, you said astronomy has no place in the classroom!

Cougar · Post by **Cougar** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 8:02 pm

I refer you to this site if you want evidence for macroevolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I also will refer you to the Miller-Urey experiment, where amino acids were produced via gases and chemicals thought to be present on a very young Earth... abiogenesis. You are correct that it is not addressed in evolution, as it is a separate theory of its own.

"Sensical reason" may be a subjective term. As a scientist, I feel that "sense" is followed by experimentation, observable, and parsimonous explanation. Many others feel differently.

Although there is a difference between microevolution and macroevolution, I think the important thing here is that it is EVOLUTION! A species evolved to survive in its environment... it is evolution plain and simple. The fact that we can see this little change in a few weeks, speaks volumes to what could happen under very violent and dynamic conditions like early Earth, over billions of years. Knowing what we know about UV light, chemical structures, speciation, adaptation, convergence, divergence, allopatry, sympatry, etc. it is pretty clear that several pressures on any particular species could produce some massive changes.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Sun Dec 04, 2005 8:08 pm

I also will refer you to the Miller-Urey experiment, where amino acids were produced via gases and chemicals thought to be present on a very young Earth... abiogenesis. You are correct that it is not addressed in evolution, as it is a separate theory of its own.

Uh, that's not evidence for anything. Miller didn't use an appropriate atmosphere. It lacked oxygen, and shouldn't have had methane or ammonia...that too has been known to be false for...at least 20 years by now?

//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Half that stuff is bull, thank you...the rest is circular reasoning I think.

Although there is a difference between microevolution and macroevolution, I think the important thing here is that it is EVOLUTION! A species evolved to survive in its environment... it is evolution plain and simple. The fact that we can see this little change in a few weeks, speaks volumes to what could happen under very violent and dynamic conditions like early Earth, over billions of years. Knowing what we know about UV light, chemical structures, speciation, adaptation, convergence, divergence, allopatry, sympatry, etc. it is pretty clear that several pressures on any particular species could produce some massive changes.

Big difference between micro and macro... too bad the evidence is stacked against you.

Forge · Post by **Forge** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 11:31 pm

Cougar wrote:Although there is a difference between microevolution and macroevolution, I think the important thing here is that it is EVOLUTION! A species evolved to survive in its environment... it is evolution plain and simple. The fact that we can see this little change in a few weeks, speaks volumes to what could happen under very violent and dynamic conditions like early Earth, over billions of years. Knowing what we know about UV light, chemical structures, speciation, adaptation, convergence, divergence, allopatry, sympatry, etc. it is pretty clear that several pressures on any particular species could produce some massive changes.

The art of snapping stainless-steel Erector-Set pieces together is different from the art of making those pieces from ore from the earth. The complexity is too different. If I were asked to make a robot out of pieces, no problem. If I were asked to make a robot out of iron ore, silicon, etc, I'd be in deep doo-doo.

And I've been detecting a very large amount of negative energy. Everyone, take a deep breath and have some pie.

Mystical · Post by **Mystical** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:13 pm

Cougar:

Looked through some of what you posted, but don't see any proof for macroevolution--one species transitioning into another. I see alot of reaching, but that's about it. The saddest part is the "transitional human-ape" evidence. There are no transitional ape-human fossils. It is all hypothesis. I know, that confuses alot of people.

Anyways, what part of all of the article is the greatest proof to you for macroevolution?

Jbuza · Post by **Jbuza** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:31 pm

Cougar wrote: In a matter of a few weeks, bacteria left on their plates, supposedly dead due to the fact that they could not utilize fructose, were found to have proliferated and progeny were indeed using the fructose on the agar in which they were placed. I do not see how this alone does not prove evolution occurred.

Wow! Now that is one giant leap!! I must applaud your ability to trust in the truth of something with such minimal evidence. The ability to adapt was one of the natural observations that Darwin used to formulate his theory.

It is as if you are saying adaptatin therefore evolution and than claiming adaptation as independant proof for evolution. I'm sure there is little anyone can do to convince you that evolution is false, but perhaps if you seek truth you will find it.

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:37 pm

Cougar wrote:I also will refer you to the Miller-Urey experiment, where amino acids were produced via gases and chemicals thought to be present on a very young Earth... abiogenesis.

Actually, the Miller-Urey experiment showed us exactly how life did NOT come into being. There is a huge difference between amino acids being produced in a closed environment and living cells coming into existence in a soupy ocean. Add to that they fact that there is NO evidence that this pre-biotic soup ever existed.

Cougar wrote:The fact that we can see this little change in a few weeks, speaks volumes to what could happen under very violent and dynamic conditions like early Earth, over billions of years. Knowing what we know about UV light, chemical structures, speciation, adaptation, convergence, divergence, allopatry, sympatry, etc. it is pretty clear that several pressures on any particular species could produce some massive changes.

Again, the big problem is that life did not evolve over billions of years. The fact is that life already existed shortly after a stable water cycle was established. Fossils of living creatures have been found in rocks dating to 3.86 Billion years old. Whatever caused life to form caused it to happen quickly.

BGoodForGoodSake · Post by **BGoodForGoodSake** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 3:24 pm

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:
Cougar wrote:Do you also want your kids to hear a statement that the theory of relativity may be inaccurate? That the speed of light might not be 3.0 x 10 to the 8th, even though this constant is used in countless equations in physics, chemistry and many life sciences... What about Newton's Laws of motion or the laws of thermodynamics? What about gravity? Should kids not be taught about black holes or black body radiation?

Yes, brainwashing is a real doozy in schools today...
Maybe we wouldn't hear that the theory of relativity is innacurate...because there's evidence for it, and none against it as far as I know....not quite the same thing with evolution, so drop the false analogy.....And, COUGAR, come on, you said astronomy has no place in the classroom!

The theory of general relativity has lead to the theorizing of the bending of light by gravitation as well as to the existance of black holes. It is also a construct for the big expansion as well as a host of other ideas for which empirical evidence has yet to be collected. The mathematics which govern our satelite communications are based on this theory as well. All we know is that all the evidence so far has backed the theory. Yes there have been tweeks and fine tuning of our understanding of the general idea behind the theory. The degree to which light bends around a gravitational field for instance has been measured with more precision in recent times and the results compared to calculations have shown discrepancies. Another huge problem is the seeming acceleration of the expansion of the universe. However the major flaw with the theory is the seeming incompatibility of the general theory of relativity with the theory of quantum mechanics. This is a major conflict which physicist have been dealing with in the past 50 years. Similarily but not as extreme evolution has some kinks which need to worked out. One of them seemed to be the idea of gradual evolution in biology. It appears that evolution does not occur in a gradual manor but more in jumps and spurts. Changes in environment seem to spur evolution to higher rates than at other periods of history. The introduction of punctuated evolution although revolutionary does not require a re-examination of all the research done in the past, it only adds a deeper level of understanding to what we have already observed. As far as I know physics is taught in the same manor as biology in our classes. Yet there seems to be a bias against the theory of evolution which has far more empirical support than there is towards the theory of relativity with far less evidence. I can only reach the conclusion that this is due to the implications of the theory of evolution. Because all sciences are evolving and maturing, towards a greater understanding of the physical world.