OT: Dabods thread missing?

[Reality]

Q. for you Evolutionists.  Since science is based on creating and testing the exact same environment/circumstances, which science cannot do as regards origin of uni, just what is your takes on how the universe started?

Take a blender apart with only 25 parts, set it in a box and shake it for 40 million years and it will never assemble itself into a blender.  Yet the univerce, with far more intricate parts and numerous other factors, did?

Most of the "Ape-Men" alleged go betweens are largely the artists imagination.  Ie they find only a jawbone and the artist draws in ALL the rest and claim we have found the missing link.

[Joe Vancil]

Hold on a second, there!

Intelligent Design has NOT YET REACHED THEORY STATUS!  At this point, it is merely a hypothesis.

Intelligent Design has not been supported by evidence, nor has it been meticulously tested.  It's going to take work before it is fit to be called a "theory."

Like I said - I've got no problem with Intelligent Design playing in this arena.  It just has to play by the rules.

 

[Guest_Randy]

You aren't EVER going to be able to prove Intelligent Design, IMO -- how would you do that?  I don't think it could be done -- however, I think it deserves to be "in the mix" until a theory CAN be established as fact.

Those who hold completely with evolution use as much faith, IMO, as those who hold to other theories -- but so far they all are just theories, they should all be presented.

[Joe Vancil]

You're mixing terms, Randy.

Evolution is a theory, because empirical evidence supports it as a possibility - namely, the changes within a species.

Intelligent Design is a hypothesis, because there is no empirical evidence supporting it.  HOWEVER, were scientists able to produce from non-biological components some sort of life, then, there would be empirical evidence to support that it COULD be done.  Such knowledge would likely result in the finding of some sort of "marker," if you will, indicating that such a thing had been done.  This could lead to the discovery of some common "marker" within life on Earth, thereby lending more empirical evidence.  At such a time, Intelligent Design would be a theory.

Please do not use the word "theory" to represent "unproven possibility."  That's not what science deems a "theory."  Doing that is kind of like using "ounces" interchangeably as in the parts of a pound and the parts of a cup.  The two mean different things.

And until Intelligent Design has some sort of scientific proof behind it, it remains a hypothesis.

 

[Guest_Randy]

Joe,

You are right (hey, it happens to everyone at some point) -- and I would go as far as to say that there is no way that ID would ever be considered a "theory."  However, the theory of evolution doesn't have enough to support it as anything other than a theory so I think it's important to mention other ideas.  I think ANY good scientist would strive to search for truth -- no matter where that truth might take them.

[WayOutWest]

Joe,

You are right (hey, it happens to everyone at some point) -- and I would go as far as to say that there is no way that ID would ever be considered a "theory."  However, the theory of evolution doesn't have enough to support it as anything other than a theory so I think it's important to mention other ideas.  I think ANY good scientist would strive to search for truth -- no matter where that truth might take them.

Randy,

I would have no problem with any other THEORY being put up against evolution.  I just have a very hard time with people trying to put "ideas/beliefs" up against theories in public schools.  If people are allowed to bring their own ideas or beliefs into the classroom then I will demand that the IPU belief system be taught along with ID since IPU and ID are equal in validity IMO.

[Guest_Randy]

Joe,

You are right (hey, it happens to everyone at some point) -- and I would go as far as to say that there is no way that ID would ever be considered a "theory."  However, the theory of evolution doesn't have enough to support it as anything other than a theory so I think it's important to mention other ideas.  I think ANY good scientist would strive to search for truth -- no matter where that truth might take them.

Randy,

I would have no problem with any other THEORY being put up against evolution.  I just have a very hard time with people trying to put "ideas/beliefs" up against theories in public schools.  If people are allowed to bring their own ideas or beliefs into the classroom then I will demand that the IPU belief system be taught along with ID since IPU and ID are equal in validity IMO.

WOW,

Did you catch the statement made by educators in Philly?  They have a problem with a statement being read BEFORE teaching the students that the evolutionary theory is the basis of life -- the statement basically states that there are gaps or holes in this theory.  

It's STILL a theory -- it hasn't grown beyond the theory because it has YET to be proven.  

I'm actually not saying that ANYTHING else should be taught -- what I'm saying is when you make a comment like that -- you are elevating the Theory of Evolution to one of fact -- not one of theory -- and the truth is that it isn't fact, it's a hypothesis, that while it DOES have some support, it lacks proof to make it a law.  

I have a problem with someone who wants to teach kids what to believe rather than teaching them to seek an answer for themselves.  IF something is truth -- fine, then teach it as truth -- but if it's a theory -- then open their minds up to look elsewhere!  Why is that so wrong?  Why are these educators, scientists and/or theologians so threatened by children thinking for themselves?

[Joe Vancil]

Because a sizable number of those educators, scientists, and/or theologians are more in the business of mind-control rather than in that of education/enlightenment.

 

[WayOutWest]

Joe,

You are right (hey, it happens to everyone at some point) -- and I would go as far as to say that there is no way that ID would ever be considered a "theory."  However, the theory of evolution doesn't have enough to support it as anything other than a theory so I think it's important to mention other ideas.  I think ANY good scientist would strive to search for truth -- no matter where that truth might take them.

Randy,

I would have no problem with any other THEORY being put up against evolution.  I just have a very hard time with people trying to put "ideas/beliefs" up against theories in public schools.  If people are allowed to bring their own ideas or beliefs into the classroom then I will demand that the IPU belief system be taught along with ID since IPU and ID are equal in validity IMO.

WOW,

Did you catch the statement made by educators in Philly?  They have a problem with a statement being read BEFORE teaching the students that the evolutionary theory is the basis of life -- the statement basically states that there are gaps or holes in this theory.  

It's STILL a theory -- it hasn't grown beyond the theory because it has YET to be proven.  

I'm actually not saying that ANYTHING else should be taught -- what I'm saying is when you make a comment like that -- you are elevating the Theory of Evolution to one of fact -- not one of theory -- and the truth is that it isn't fact, it's a hypothesis, that while it DOES have some support, it lacks proof to make it a law.  

I have a problem with someone who wants to teach kids what to believe rather than teaching them to seek an answer for themselves.  IF something is truth -- fine, then teach it as truth -- but if it's a theory -- then open their minds up to look elsewhere!  Why is that so wrong?  Why are these educators, scientists and/or theologians so threatened by children thinking for themselves?

Randy,

Please go figure out the terms "fact/theory/hypothesis".  Then learn to use them correctly, those terms are NOT interchangable as Joe has tried to point out.

I really don't know if you're just making honest mistakes in your posts or you're actually trying to be sly in your interchanging use of the terms as they apply to evolution and ID.

It's annoying and not worth responding too until you get it strait.

[WayOutWest]

Because a sizable number of those educators, scientists, and/or theologians are more in the business of mind-control rather than in that of education/enlightenment.

Joe,

Is "educators, scientists, and/or theologians" another term for white-christian-male?

Just curious.

[Joe Vancil]

Is "educators, scientists, and/or theologians" another term for white-christian-male?

Nope.

Well, theologians might be.

Scientists would definitely not be "Christian."

And educators would likely not be "male."

My comment is that there are several agendas being pushed in this country at the expense of thinking for oneself:  the Christian agenda, the black agenda, the feminist agenda, the homosexual agenda...all in competition with the "traditional" agenda that you refer to.

When it comes to mind-control, it's not just the White-Christian-Male government you have to worry about, anymore.
 

[WayOutWest]

When it comes to mind-control, it's not just the White-Christian-Male government you have to worry about, anymore.

Dammit to hell, I thought I had it all figured out!!!

[westkoast]

*flies away in spaceship with L. Ron Hubbard and Tom Cruise*

 

[Guest_Randy]

Joe,

You are right (hey, it happens to everyone at some point) -- and I would go as far as to say that there is no way that ID would ever be considered a "theory."  However, the theory of evolution doesn't have enough to support it as anything other than a theory so I think it's important to mention other ideas.  I think ANY good scientist would strive to search for truth -- no matter where that truth might take them.

Randy,

I would have no problem with any other THEORY being put up against evolution.  I just have a very hard time with people trying to put "ideas/beliefs" up against theories in public schools.  If people are allowed to bring their own ideas or beliefs into the classroom then I will demand that the IPU belief system be taught along with ID since IPU and ID are equal in validity IMO.

WOW,

Did you catch the statement made by educators in Philly?  They have a problem with a statement being read BEFORE teaching the students that the evolutionary theory is the basis of life -- the statement basically states that there are gaps or holes in this theory.  

It's STILL a theory -- it hasn't grown beyond the theory because it has YET to be proven.  

I'm actually not saying that ANYTHING else should be taught -- what I'm saying is when you make a comment like that -- you are elevating the Theory of Evolution to one of fact -- not one of theory -- and the truth is that it isn't fact, it's a hypothesis, that while it DOES have some support, it lacks proof to make it a law.  

I have a problem with someone who wants to teach kids what to believe rather than teaching them to seek an answer for themselves.  IF something is truth -- fine, then teach it as truth -- but if it's a theory -- then open their minds up to look elsewhere!  Why is that so wrong?  Why are these educators, scientists and/or theologians so threatened by children thinking for themselves?

Randy,

Please go figure out the terms "fact/theory/hypothesis".  Then learn to use them correctly, those terms are NOT interchangable as Joe has tried to point out.

I really don't know if you're just making honest mistakes in your posts or you're actually trying to be sly in your interchanging use of the terms as they apply to evolution and ID.

It's annoying and not worth responding too until you get it strait.

Okay, and while we are getting technical -- would you please learn how to spell -- it's annoying and not worth responding to until you get it "straight."

[Skandery]

Please go figure out the terms "fact/theory/hypothesis". Then learn to use them correctly, those terms are NOT interchangable as Joe has tried to point out.

I was the first to try to point out the differences to Randy months ago, I've since given up.  If I had a nickel for everytime I read the statement, "a theory, oh that's just a best guess", I would quit my job and invest in a publishing company with the flagship title being: Skander's Dictionary of Scientific Terms.  I might even add "For Dummies", since they seem to be the only ones who read anymore.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When it comes to mind-control, it's not just the White-Christian-Male government you have to worry about, anymore.

Yeah, they're just the best organized and the most dangerous.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*flies away in spaceship with L. Ron Hubbard and Tom Cruise*

*wk gets thrown out of the airlock by L. Ron Hubbard and Tom Cruise when they realized he didn't have the requisite $5,000*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dammit to hell, I thought I had it all figured out!!!

WayOutWest, just send $5000 to your nearest Scientology establishment and they'll start you on you're way to work up the confidence in yourself to begin to apply your inner wisdom of motivating yourself to start perhaps thinking that you might begin to figure out that there's really something else to figure out, maybe.