Absolutely, positively, 100% yes.
[snapback]279308[/snapback]
Fixed.
Absolutely, positively, 100% yes.
[snapback]279308[/snapback]
Fixed.
[snapback]279311[/snapback]
The Bible isn't scientific.
Would you mind if I taught evolution in your church?
and yet SSJ hasnt cast a vote....decisions decisions, eh my boy?
[snapback]279312[/snapback]
Don't have to vote.
in the faith of christianity, creation iz the unquestionable explanation for existance.
if you take a class on evolution, evolution iz the explanation for existance.
in public school science classez, evolution iz not unquestionable law, it is a theory...a belief held by some and not by otherz. in this instance, if you are going to talk about how the universe came to be...both sidez should be told.
[snapback]279321[/snapback]
*bangs head on wall*
Read This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Further_explanation_of_a_scientific_theory) if you are in any way unsure of what a Theory is in science. Do not confuse it with a Hypothoesis or Conjecture. Gravity is a Theory. So dont try to lessen the scientific authenticity of Evolution by saying its a Theory. If you do so, you are also questioning gravity.
LOL.
GRAVITY IZ A LAW, SMART ONE. TAKE A LOOK AT A SCIENCE BOOK SOMETIME.
[snapback]279336[/snapback]
Physical laws are distinguished from scientific theories by their simplicity. Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to be changed as the body of available experimental data and analysis develops. This is because a physical law is a summary observation of strictly empirical matters, whereas a theory is a model that accounts for the observation, explains it, relates it to other observations, and makes testable predictions based upon it. Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory attempts to deal with why or how it happens.
As noted above, in common usage a theory is defined as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory is not considered fact or infallible, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproved, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional data.
Theories start out with empirical observations such as "sometimes water turns into ice." At some point, there is a need or curiosity to find out why this is, which leads to a theoretical/scientific phase. In scientific theories, this then leads to research, in combination with auxiliary and other hypotheses (see scientific method), which may then eventually lead to a theory. Some scientific theories (such as the theory of gravity) are so widely accepted that they are often seen as laws. This, however, rests on a mistaken assumption of what theories and laws are. Theories and laws are not rungs in a ladder of truth, but different sets of data. A law is a general statement based on observations.
Definitions of theory on the Web:
* a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
* hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
* A comprehensive explanation of a given set of data that has been repeatedly confirmed by observation and experimentation and has gained general acceptance within the scientific community but has not yet been decisively proven. See also hypothesis and scientific law.
college.hmco.com/geology/resources/geologylink/glossary/t.html
* a general principle that explains or predicts facts or events
education.jlab.org/beamsactivity/6thgrade/vocabulary/
* a statement or set of statements used to explain a phenomena. A theory is generally accepted as valid due to having survived repeated testing.
www.carm.org/evolution/evoterms.htm
* A theory is an abstract formulation of the constant relations between entities or, what means the same thing, the necessary regularity in the concatenation (qv) and sequence of phenomena and/or events. A theory may be true or false. A valid theory attempts to eliminate all contradictions in the application of cause and effect to a given specific situation or set of conditions. The aim of a theory is always success in action. ...
www.mises.org/easier/T.asp
* A scientific theory is an established and experimentally verified fact or collection of facts about the world. Unlike the everyday use of the word theory, it is not an unproved idea, or just some theoretical speculation. The latter meaning of a 'theory' in science is called a hypothesis.
www.whatislife.com/glossary.htm
* An extremely well-substantiated explanation of some aspects of the natural world that incorporates facts, laws, predictions, and tested hypotheses. (Eg, Einstein's Theory of Gravitation, 1916)
www.nmsr.org/wrkshp9.htm
------------
I mean im not one to question such a prestigious place of learning such as PRINCETON, but hey, what do they know compared to....oh wait, you didnt give your sources did you? well hey, if other people can pull information and statistics out of their asses, i suppose your just as qualified.
===========================================
@bigcheez:
While a great deal is now known about the properties of gravity, the ultimate cause of the gravitational force remains an open question and gravity remains an important topic of scientific research.
Alternative theories
Historical alternative theories
  * Aristotelian theory of gravity
  * Nikola Tesla challenged Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, announcing he was working on a Dynamic theory of gravity (which began between 1892 and 1894) and argued that a "field of force" was a better concept and focused on media with electromagnetic energy that fill all of space.
  * Induced gravity: In 1967 Andrei Sakharov proposed something similar, if not essentially identical. His theory has been adopted and promoted by Messrs. Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff who, among other things, explain that gravitational and inertial mass are identical and that high speed rotation can reduce (relative) mass. Combining these notions with those of Thomas Townsend Brown, it is relatively easy to conceive how field propulsion vehicles such as "flying saucers" could be engineered given a suitable source of power.
  * LeSage gravity, proposed by Georges-Louis LeSage, based on a fluid-based explanation where a light gas fills the entire universe.
  * Nordström's theory of gravitation, an early competitor of general relativity.
  * Whitehead's theory of gravitation, another early competitor of general relativity.
Recent alternative theories
  * Brans-Dicke theory of gravity
  * Rosen bi-metric theory of gravity
  * In the modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND), Mordehai Milgrom proposes a modification of Newton's Second Law of motion for small accelerations.
  * The new and "highly controversial" Process Physics theory attempts to address gravity
  * The Self creation cosmology theory of gravity in which the Brans-Dicke theory is modified to allow mass creation.
  * The satirical theory of Intelligent falling
[snapback]279343[/snapback]
lol...so wut i'm getting from this iz that my definitionz arent correct, and my statement of wut a law versus a theory iz, isnt true. well, if actually knowing wut the meaning of those wordz are makez me a dumba$$, then i guess i am.
gravity iz a law...accepted by all...or maybe you dont. there iz no question in this. so if all you're gonna do iz sit here and pull crap off the internet and try to be-little everything i say, then just realize you're making yourself look like a total jacka$$. mr. princton, i could give a ::Dolphin Noise:: if you're pullin stuff off anyone website in the world...you still cant deny wut i'm saying. so if tryin to shoot down your oppositionz every statement (even if their statement has no fault) makez you sleep better at night...then sweet dreamz maricon.
but dont you see!
we are debating!
we are debating what a theory is, which is underlying debate to evolutionary theory.
[snapback]279349[/snapback]
We're not debating on what a theory is...
We're debating on how much of a smart*** you're being...
I say we either get back on topic or I see a closing coming soon, as there is a mod looking at the thread right now.
lol, evolution iz an explanation, i never argued against that. I told you that gravity was A LAW. AND IT IS.
so pull your head outta your a$$.
[snapback]279354[/snapback]
Newtons law of Gravitation is not the same as the theories of gravity. Gravitation is a law, we see it and can measure and observe it. Gravity is extremely unknown. we dont know what causes it, how it spreads, what its range is, or a lot of other things.
i think there was a miscommunication somewhere...
lol, evolution iz an explanation, i never argued against that. I told you that gravity was A LAW. AND IT IS.
so pull your head outta your a$$.
[snapback]279354[/snapback]
Newtons law of Gravitation is not the same as the theories of gravity. Gravitation is a law, we see it and can measure and observe it. Gravity is extremely unknown. we dont know what causes it, how it spreads, what its range is, or a lot of other things.
i think there was a miscommunication somewhere...
[snapback]279355[/snapback]
Look...you're basically saying that there's no proof that gravity exists. That's why you're looking dumb. Gravity exists. Otherwise, we'd all be floating.
Now. Show me the definite proof that evolution happened/is happening.
There is none.
lol, evolution iz an explanation, i never argued against that. I told you that gravity was A LAW. AND IT IS.
so pull your head outta your a$$.
[snapback]279354[/snapback]
Newtons law of Gravitation is not the same as the theories of gravity. Gravitation is a law, we see it and can measure and observe it. Gravity is extremely unknown. we dont know what causes it, how it spreads, what its range is, or a lot of other things.
i think there was a miscommunication somewhere...
[snapback]279355[/snapback]
Look...you're basically saying that there's no proof that gravity exists. That's why you're looking dumb. Gravity exists. Otherwise, we'd all be floating.
Now. Show me the definite proof that evolution happened/is happening.
There is none.
[snapback]279357[/snapback]
Nooo.....im saying that we dont fully understand gravity. there are many theories about gravity, the best one being a part of einsteins theory of relativity.
Gravitation exists. Gravitation, but so far our best scientists have been unable to identify any specific particle or energy that is responsible for gravitation. such a find would explain what the force is that causes gravitation. if we understood *what* gravity was, then we would have flying cars and artificial gravity on the space station.
-----------
I can easily reverse your question, since you are so firm in your belief that gravity is a law, show me what gravity is. what causes it? how does it work? and cite your sources.
-----------
To more directly respond to the topic: This fellow is a winged dinosaur. Part bird, part lizzard. Saw him on a show on PBS some time ago.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a4/Archaeopteryx-model.jpg/250px-Archaeopteryx-model.jpg)
I can easily reverse your question, since you are so firm in your belief that gravity is a law, show me what gravity is. what causes it? how does it work? and cite your sources.
To more directly respond to the topic: This fellow is a winged dinosaur. Part bird, part lizzard. Saw him on a show on PBS some time ago.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a4/Archaeopteryx-model.jpg/250px-Archaeopteryx-model.jpg)
[snapback]279363[/snapback]
Are you an idiot? Do you REALLY Need proof that gravity exists? How about the fact that you're not floating off into space? My source? Life.
Ah yes...show a picture of something that's supposed to be half-something, half-something. That makes no sense as far as evolution is concerned...look at the duckbill platypus. It has a duck's bill and feet, a beaver's tail, and an otter's body. I guess it evolved from something else?
Ah and as for human evolution. If we evolved from apes...then why do apes still exist? If something evolves, it's not supposed to exist in its old form any more.
These are the defininitions as I was taught them of the stages of the scientific process.
Hypothesis: An idea formed from observation that hasn't been tested much yet.
Theory: An idea that has been tested but not enough data is present to make it unquestionable.
Law: An idea that has been tested for many years and has been confirmed consistently by the data.
By these definitions it can be said that both ideas are theories and theories only. Since they are contesting theories I think they should be taught in classes so that students can make a choice as to which they believe. Also teaching them together will help teach rational organized thought to the students which is something that is invaluable.
[snapback]279422[/snapback]
There are soo many theories though, String theory, Quantum Theory, General Realtivity, Gravity Theory, Evolutionary Theory, Global Warming, Music Theory.
And what makes all these different from Laws, like the Law of gravity, is that they explain the how and why, whereas a law defines the existance.
Taking the most famous case of newton, his Law of Universal Gravitation defines the existance of gravity. Force of gravity is related to an objects mass, etc. But newton could not explain what caused it.
Einstien developed his Theory of Special Relativity, which defines the Why of gravity, That mass dents the universe and stuff falls into these dents, which explains why the force of gravity is related to an objects mass.
On that note, Intelligent Design is not a theory on the grounds that it can not be disproven. The guiding force is unkown and unknowable, like God. Because it can not be disproven, it can not be called a theory, and is thus not comparable to evolution.
A theory can be disproven or proved. Hence why it's still a theory not a law.
[snapback]279433[/snapback]
no.....
a theory never becomes a law. a law is an observable occurance. a theory explains why that occurance occured.
This realy is an underlying problem in debating evolution vs intelligent design, is we have to standardize our definitions of what everything is. :D
(Yes, Islam's God is the same God as the Christian God). .
[snapback]279426[/snapback]
No they are not. Thay have alot wackier beliefs than we do. Our God doesn't tell us to "kill all infedels." Our god doesn't teach that women have no rights, and that they are property.
A theory can be disproven or proved. Hence why it's still a theory not a law.
[snapback]279433[/snapback]
no.....
a theory never becomes a law. a law is an observable occurance. a theory explains why that occurance occured.
This realy is an underlying problem in debating evolution vs intelligent design, is we have to standardize our definitions of what everything is. :D
[snapback]279434[/snapback]
L O L
Entire volumes have been and are being written on this particular subject, which is more in the realm of philosophy than science. A theory can be either a very limited or a very broad explanation of a particular set of facts, an explanation that describes the relationship between previously unexplained or noncohesive facts and ideas. It unifies, into a usually brief statement, how something works. It often specifies the mechanism of how some process of nature is working, although mechanism may only be a part of the overall phenomenon. If a hypothesis is a proposed explanation of how some process works, then a theory is a hypothesis for which some substantial supporting data has been obtained. However, as noted above, a theory can be very narrow (how a single type of small process works) or very broad (e.g., the theory of evolution, a very complicated process indeed).
A law is, to my mind, simply a very, very broad and very very important theory for which we have very very good data and which applies to many, many aspects of our world. Thus the Laws of Thermodynamics or in chemistry the Laws of Mass Action (notice the capital letters, which laws tend to be stated in, for emphasis), apply not only to physical chemistry and chemistry in general, but to physics, biology, perhaps even economics. We also have very good data that these laws are obeyed universally and have detailed knowledge of their mechanisms. In contrast, a theory, though widely accepted may lack some crucial details of mechanism. For example, although the evidence that evolution has and is occurring is incontrovertible, the actual mechanism by which evolution occurs is under intense debate, and indeed, evolution probably occurs via multiple interacting mechanisms.
Put succinctly, a theory is a Law that hasn't been around long enough or doesn't yet have enough data to become a Law.
theory can become law.
Absolutely, positively, 100% yes.
[snapback]279308[/snapback]
Fixed.
[snapback]279311[/snapback]
The Bible isn't scientific.
Would you mind if I taught evolution in your church?
[snapback]279313[/snapback]
Actually, in my church they did teach evolution. Mind you, it was why it's fnerked up idea, but it was still taught.
Honestly, Creationism should not be taught in Public schools, because Chrisianity, Judaism, and Islam are not the only religions out there (Yes, Islam's God is the same God as the Christian God). If you are going to study theories of how life came to be, you must also go over theories for Buddhism, Hinduism, aboriginal religions, Sikhism, the list goes on... Whereas, in a Christian or Catholic school, I'd say Creationism should be taught, if the teacher so wishes. But I went to a Catholic school, and they taught evolution. :|
Not everyone believes the same theories. Whereas the Bible is just a book written by a man 'under the influence of God', evolution has been picked at by numerous scientists, studied, and tested. At least evolution is devoid of all religion, and so not one religion should be able to get its panties in a knot about it being taught. I don't hear Hindus complaining about it...
[snapback]279426[/snapback]
Well, since most religions believe in a form of Creationism, I feel that it should just be said that according to many theories a higher being created the earth. Sure, it was God, but hey, if you say that a god, somewhere somehow, created the earth, then all religions are pretty much happy.
And Allah is not God. x.x
Loco, your quoting a Pharmacist?
Seriously, a guy who mixes drugs is going to be an expert on scientific theory.
okay then.....
[snapback]279441[/snapback]
Ok, expert. I am sure YOU know everything there is to know.
And there is no option for me in this poll, unless there is a "this thread is BS" option...
Am I the only one that noticed the first option is pro-evolution too?
[snapback]279438[/snapback]
And there is no option for me in this poll, unless there is a "this thread is BS" option...
[snapback]279454[/snapback]
Exact reasoning behind me not casting a vote.
(Yes, Islam's God is the same God as the Christian God). .
[snapback]279426[/snapback]
No they are not. Thay have alot wackier beliefs than we do. Our God doesn't tell us to "kill all infedels." Our god doesn't teach that women have no rights, and that they are property.
[snapback]279435[/snapback]
Listen, the Qur'an has nothing to do with their God being different than Christianiaty's. It's their prophets and your prophets saying different things. Mohammad, founder of Islam was a direct descendant of ABRAHAM who was the 'first' person to believe in ONE diety. It was HE who cast out his wife's slave girl, and HIS son, because his wife suddenly conceived. ABRAHAM is one of the leading PROPHETS of CHRISTIANITY. If you can not accept that another religion was born because of his cruel ways to his SLAVE, then you're worse than the nun who TAUGHT me this.
Absolutely, positively, 100% no.
[snapback]279308[/snapback]
Yes it should, because even if you don't believe in God, people who do believe in Him have to get evolution and the Big Bang Theory shoved down their throats, so people who don't believe in Him should have to hear what the Bible says, too.
(Yes, Islam's God is the same God as the Christian God). .
[snapback]279426[/snapback]
No they are not. Thay have alot wackier beliefs than we do. Our God doesn't tell us to "kill all infedels." Our god doesn't teach that women have no rights, and that they are property.
[snapback]279435[/snapback]
dude, the beliefs like that have become distorted into existence by modern times. The god is the same. Have you studied Islam at all? I suppose you think that Allah is a different god than God.
also, people. Simple answer. No. There are many different religions that are present in schools now. The class is SCIENCE class. No religion in science. Private schools can do what they want (I had to go to chapel every weekday for two years and every friday for six years).
doing some google fu
http://www.google.com/search?q=difference+...:en-US:official (http://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+theories+and+laws&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official)
The first 4 hits all say the same thing. (the rest are off topic)
Law = What
Theory = Why
a What can never be promoted into a Why, that would be nonsense.
[snapback]279580[/snapback]
http://deseretnews.com/dn/print/1,1442,600141440,00.html (http://deseretnews.com/dn/print/1,1442,600141440,00.html)
i told you that we could go on arguing about this forever...at this point, agruing about whether sumthin iz a law or not has nuthin to do with whether creation should be taught in the classroom. so letz just get off it and move back to the relevant subject matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
oh and at ti89...we're talkin bout showing both the general idea of ID and the idea of evolution...not specifically the christian accountz of ID. but if christian kidz gotta sit there and listen to sumthin they dont agree with being shoved down their throatz and other kidz dont gotta hear the other side...then they shouldnt teach evolution either then. if secular kidz dont wanna hear about ID, then christian (and other creationist believing kidz) shouldnt have to hear about evolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and the lil statementz about creation not belonging cuz it isnt "scientific" like evolution supposedly iz, dont really cut it. you dont consider creation to be scientific because it isnt completely based off cold hard logic...it requirez faith, therefore it isnt science, huh? well...i guess the big-bang and all that dont require any faith to believe in then? i mean...it doesnt take ANY faith to believe that this huge gigantic cloud of gas just existed outta no where and exploded into the universe. nope...no faith to believe in that...some hard logic stuff there. real scientific..."well God couldnt exist, but this random cloud of gas sure could. yup, thatz it."
point being...the "Intelligent Design doesnt belong in a classroom" thing doesnt work. cuz if thatz the case...Evolution and the Big-Bang dont belong either.
just like how we are learning about stories of Islam and about that religion, but it's not Muslim school or anything.
[snapback]279610[/snapback]
That's different. Learning about the history of how a religion came to be and learning about practicing a religion are two completely different subjects.
I don't know about your school, but when I took world history, we learned about the rise of Christianity AND Islam.
us, too. However, we learned about practicing a religion--kind of, and how a religion came to be.
[snapback]279629[/snapback]
Well yeah, basic background information is fine. The rise of the religions had an extreme effect on the history of the world.
ID doesnt belong in the classroom because you cant disprove it. every single scientific theory can be disproven. i mean hell, even newtonian physics break down at the very small level of the sub atomic. (for the simple: the stuff that makes up matter is not affected by such things as gravity). we have quantum theory to handle those. ID requires faith. Science requires observation.
------------------------------------------------------
The big bang doesnt require faith because no claim has been made outside of what can be observed and measured. Ill tell you the very simplest, most easily observed proof of the big bang: the universe is expanding. how do we know? doppler shift. that means that as a star moves away from us, its color gets more reddish, and astronomers can track star movement and have found that everything is moving outward towards the edge of the universe. No one has tried to state a fact about the begining the universe. the great thinkers like Hawking for example use math and tests in laboratories to substantiate their hypothosises and theories. what is the test for god?
[snapback]279611[/snapback]
no faith required to believe that it just appeared from no where? none huh?
well, everyone'z pretty much solid on where they stand so there aint much point in dragging this on. i'm outta here.
Absolutely, positively, 100% yes.
[snapback]279308[/snapback]
Fixed.
[snapback]279311[/snapback]
You are so retarded...
I myself don't understand it too very clearly... but I do think that having religion in the public education system is not very acceptable... mainly because in public schools kids have so many different religions. If they want religion so much go to private schools. I am somewhat religious, but I just don't think religion belongs in public education.
its minutia. a lot of people dont like arguing such details. but if you must know, lets say bible in this sense encompases creation as described in the Judeo-Christian traditions.
[snapback]279838[/snapback]
You misinterpret me. I read the posts in this topic, and half of the people think you'll be giving storytime. I just wanted to clarify for people that didn't understand.
You would not be able to do this. I can say that right now. For one simple reason.
There is much to discuss on this topic. Teachers would have to understand the holy books very, very thoroughly. This is where the problem arises.
What teacher, who has been around 10+ years, would want to recertified for an addition so large? Might as well have a religion class.
Additional conflicts I see so far:
1. Not teaching the views of every possible religion. What if my religion wasn't taught? I would be very ticked off and would bring in the legal team.
2. What if a teacher misrepresented something from the holy books? A student might take offense to her interpretation and sue.
I love God. However, I want everyone else to love whomever they love without being pressured into loving my God. If they'd voluntairly join a religion class, that's one thing. If they're forced to learn of something in a mandatory science class and then have their faith shaken, I would cry.
I think either both or neither should be taught. Not just one.
[snapback]279945[/snapback]
DING DING DING DING DING.
winner.
I think either both or neither should be taught. Not just one.
[snapback]279945[/snapback]
DING DING DING DING DING.
winner.
[snapback]279947[/snapback]
'
alright then, both of you, if we teach neither, what do we teach?
I think either both or neither should be taught. Not just one.
[snapback]279945[/snapback]
DING DING DING DING DING.
winner.
[snapback]279947[/snapback]
'
alright then, both of you, if we teach neither, what do we teach?
[snapback]279967[/snapback]
sex, drugs, and rock n roll
I think either both or neither should be taught. Not just one.
[snapback]279945[/snapback]
DING DING DING DING DING.
winner.
[snapback]279947[/snapback]
'
alright then, both of you, if we teach neither, what do we teach?
[snapback]279967[/snapback]
sex, drugs, and rock n roll
[snapback]279972[/snapback]
w00yt!
I think either both or neither should be taught. Not just one.
[snapback]279945[/snapback]
DING DING DING DING DING.
winner.
[snapback]279947[/snapback]
'
alright then, both of you, if we teach neither, what do we teach?
[snapback]279967[/snapback]
Scientology, then sex, drugs, and rock n roll.
What exactly IS Scientology?.. other then one more thing to make Tom Cruise crazy?
Wait.. no. Tom is crazy enough without it.
[snapback]280008[/snapback]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology)
http://sp9.rojer.pp.ru:4666/912%20-%20Trap...he%20Closet.avi (http://sp9.rojer.pp.ru:4666/912%20-%20Trapped%20in%20the%20Closet.avi)
I dont understand those things. I want Liz to explain it to me.
[snapback]280012[/snapback]
I will. Not this second though because school hates me. Do you ever look in Rolling Stone? There is a good article on Scientology in there. But today is the last day of March...
I think either both or neither should be taught. Not just one.
[snapback]279945[/snapback]
DING DING DING DING DING.
winner.
[snapback]279947[/snapback]
'
alright then, both of you, if we teach neither, what do we teach?
[snapback]279967[/snapback]
Just say "There are many opinions about how the Earth was formed; some believe in creationism while others believe in evolution." And leave it at that. This would cause much less controversy.
lol, evolution iz an explanation, i never argued against that. I told you that gravity was A LAW. AND IT IS.
so pull your head outta your a$$.
[snapback]279354[/snapback]
Newtons law of Gravitation is not the same as the theories of gravity. Gravitation is a law, we see it and can measure and observe it. Gravity is extremely unknown. we dont know what causes it, how it spreads, what its range is, or a lot of other things.
i think there was a miscommunication somewhere...
[snapback]279355[/snapback]
If your gunna debate, first of all. Know what your talking about about you just say things.
Gravity has NEVER been seen or mesured OR been proven. Check the article on String Theory in the Augest 2005 issue of Discover.
i dont think the bible per se has to be taught in there...but just both ideaz of creationism and evolution in general.
[snapback]281086[/snapback]
I just think that the schools should study evolution, as long as they say that there are other theories to the creation of life.
i dont think the bible per se has to be taught in there...but just both ideaz of creationism and evolution in general.
[snapback]281086[/snapback]
I just think that the schools should study evolution, as long as they say that there are other theories to the creation of life.
[snapback]281248[/snapback]
and i think that they should do both or none. why should i have to sit and be force-fed sumthin i dont believe in if non-creationistz dont?
i dont think the bible per se has to be taught in there...but just both ideaz of creationism and evolution in general.
[snapback]281086[/snapback]
I just think that the schools should study evolution, as long as they say that there are other theories to the creation of life.
[snapback]281248[/snapback]
and i think that they should do both or none. why should i have to sit and be force-fed sumthin i dont believe in if non-creationistz dont?
[snapback]281251[/snapback]
because religion and public education need to be seperated.
that still dont answer my question. if ID cant be taught, then neither should evolution. the theory itself iz being taught as fact with no opposition or alternative to it. biased...bottom line.
[snapback]281254[/snapback]
find an alternative that doesnt need God and ill listen.
that still dont answer my question. if ID cant be taught, then neither should evolution. the theory itself iz being taught as fact with no opposition or alternative to it. biased...bottom line.
[snapback]281254[/snapback]
find an alternative that doesnt need God and ill listen.
[snapback]281260[/snapback]
To hit both of those, there ARE other views. It just that a majority of them are considered stupid and long winded useless explanations. Therefore, with society in need of something to try and prove/believe/suspect, we chose evolution.
Bias views will always exist, as long as people don't all think the same.
that still dont answer my question. if ID cant be taught, then neither should evolution. the theory itself iz being taught as fact with no opposition or alternative to it. biased...bottom line.
[snapback]281254[/snapback]
find an alternative that doesnt need God and ill listen.
[snapback]281260[/snapback]
You only say that because you believe in Natural Selection.
If you were a believer in Intelligent Design, you'd say that having an explanation with God or some supernatural being involved is fine.
I don't see a problem in teaching that Natural Selection is the scientifically selected way, but that many people believe in Intelligent Design. It's a compromise. Keeps everyone happy.
They shouldn't say anything. Just shut up and don't bring it upon yourselves.
[snapback]281337[/snapback]
So you're saying the history and descent of humanity shouldn't be taught at all? Well that's hardly logical.
May I remind you all it is A "THEORY" not law of evolution. and besides I guess this post is an accidental error in the server. and besides if you want to teach children that our life was an accident and have no meaning in life but be some large complex bi-product of an explosion fine by me. Atleast if my religion isn't real I can have the elusion of happiness and purpose.
The dinosaurs are a perfecto example of evolution. <_<
[snapback]281674[/snapback]
that of they couldn't stand the climate change of the earth after the great flood (noah.) and went extinct.
May I remind you all it is A "THEORY" not law of evolution. and besides I guess this post is an accidental error in the server. and besides if you want to teach children that our life was an accident and have no meaning in life but be some large complex bi-product of an explosion fine by me. Atleast if my religion isn't real I can have the elusion of happiness and purpose.
The dinosaurs are a perfecto example of evolution. <_<
[snapback]281674[/snapback]
that of they couldn't stand the climate change of the earth after the great flood (noah.) and went extinct.
[snapback]282547[/snapback]
that right there is a core argrument against evolution. its propagated by idiots and ignoramousies. id go into more detail, but a great many people would cry out about it.
May I remind you all it is A "THEORY" not law of evolution. and besides I guess this post is an accidental error in the server. and besides if you want to teach children that our life was an accident and have no meaning in life but be some large complex bi-product of an explosion fine by me. Atleast if my religion isn't real I can have the elusion of happiness and purpose.
The dinosaurs are a perfecto example of evolution. <_<
[snapback]281674[/snapback]
that of they couldn't stand the climate change of the earth after the great flood (noah.) and went extinct.
[snapback]282547[/snapback]
that right there is a core argrument against evolution. its propagated by idiots and ignoramousies. id go into more detail, but a great many people would cry out about it.
[snapback]283488[/snapback]
Ignoramousies? LOL! But seriously, that is slander. Tolerance my butt.
May I remind you all it is A "THEORY" not law of evolution. and besides I guess this post is an accidental error in the server. and besides if you want to teach children that our life was an accident and have no meaning in life but be some large complex bi-product of an explosion fine by me. Atleast if my religion isn't real I can have the elusion of happiness and purpose.
The dinosaurs are a perfecto example of evolution. <_<
[snapback]281674[/snapback]
that of they couldn't stand the climate change of the earth after the great flood (noah.) and went extinct.
[snapback]282547[/snapback]
that right there is a core argrument against evolution. its propagated by idiots and ignoramousies. id go into more detail, but a great many people would cry out about it.
[snapback]283488[/snapback]
I believe IceFox said this in another thread, but I think it needs repeated:
Stop trying to sound smart, you aren't
I do know that what he said is wrong. and when i say *know* i mean it with the same conviction that he says god is real. i take it as an undisputed truth that the argument he tried to use is based on a falicy. Its not just your misconception that im trying to sound smart, its that they are using an argument that wouldnt hold up in in a serious intellectual debate.
[snapback]283750[/snapback]
not a single change of speciez iz on record...it cant be proven that a single speciez has ever changed.
if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modificationz, evolution would break down.
one of evolution'z weak points iz that it does not have any recognizable way in which conscious life could have emerged.
on that note, dont mistake the fact that im well versed in this particular topic or that i dont talkz like diz omg t3h bob is t3h c00lies like some people for an attempt at intellectual superiority.
[snapback]283750[/snapback]
go ::Dolphin Noise:: yourself...i'm straight-up sick of you.
I do know that what he said is wrong. and when i say *know* i mean it with the same conviction that he says god is real. i take it as an undisputed truth that the argument he tried to use is based on a falicy. Its not just your misconception that im trying to sound smart, its that they are using an argument that wouldnt hold up in in a serious intellectual debate.
[snapback]283750[/snapback]
not a single change of speciez iz on record...it cant be proven that a single speciez has ever changed.
if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modificationz, evolution would break down.
one of evolution'z weak points iz that it does not have any recognizable way in which conscious life could have emerged.
on that note, dont mistake the fact that im well versed in this particular topic or that i dont talkz like diz omg t3h bob is t3h c00lies like some people for an attempt at intellectual superiority.
[snapback]283750[/snapback]
go ::Dolphin Noise:: yourself...i'm straight-up sick of you.
[snapback]283771[/snapback]
not that, the theory vs law thing. the thing i put in bold
I do know that what he said is wrong. and when i say *know* i mean it with the same conviction that he says god is real. i take it as an undisputed truth that the argument he tried to use is based on a falicy. Its not just your misconception that im trying to sound smart, its that they are using an argument that wouldnt hold up in in a serious intellectual debate.
on that note, dont mistake the fact that im well versed in this particular topic or that i dont talkz like diz omg t3h bob is t3h c00lies like some people for an attempt at intellectual superiority.
[snapback]283750[/snapback]
If you want to try to reach intellectual superiority, maybe you should put down Roget's Thesaurus and use words of which you know the meaning.
To answer the poll: NO! And I'm a Christian, so don't think I'm anti-Christ or something. I just think teaching the Bible in school would be a little too much. Evolution would fall under the category of science. Therefore, it should be allowed to be taught in science class.
If you want to try to reach intellectual superiority, maybe you should put down Roget's Thesaurus and use words of which you know the meaning.
To answer the poll: NO! And I'm a Christian, so don't think I'm anti-Christ or something. I just think teaching the Bible in school would be a little too much. Evolution would fall under the category of science. Therefore, it should be allowed to be taught in science class.
[snapback]284055[/snapback]
i know a lot of words. i read. ive read over a hundred star trek books and seen hundreds of hours of trek. im always reading scifi books. not only do i know a lot of real words, but also a lot of words that dont even exist. if you have ever heard a vulcan speak then you know the kind of extensive and formal vocabulary they use. in school i read quite a few of the books on the reccomended reading lists. always reading, learning the occasional new word. just because i havent let my brain be washed away by television (most of my fellow employees when i washed dishes couldnt remember the last book they read) doesnt mean im going to lower my vocabulary to the level of a fourth grader.
If you want to try to reach intellectual superiority, maybe you should put down Roget's Thesaurus and use words of which you know the meaning.
To answer the poll: NO! And I'm a Christian, so don't think I'm anti-Christ or something. I just think teaching the Bible in school would be a little too much. Evolution would fall under the category of science. Therefore, it should be allowed to be taught in science class.
[snapback]284055[/snapback]
i know a lot of words. i read. ive read over a hundred star trek books and seen hundreds of hours of trek. im always reading scifi books. not only do i know a lot of real words, but also a lot of words that dont even exist. if you have ever heard a vulcan speak then you know the kind of extensive and formal vocabulary they use. in school i read quite a few of the books on the reccomended reading lists. always reading, learning the occasional new word. just because i havent let my brain be washed away by television (most of my fellow employees when i washed dishes couldnt remember the last book they read) doesnt mean im going to lower my vocabulary to the level of a fourth grader.
[snapback]284151[/snapback]
If you're saying I've been brainwashed by television, you're wrong. It just seems like you're using intelligent words just for the sole purpose of trying to sound smart.
you ever take the time to look at your own wordz and see how much of an ::Dolphin Noise:: you sound like?
[snapback]284304[/snapback]
why dont you do the same? just because you feel threatened by my mighty and awesome mental prowess is no reason get all uppity.
you ever take the time to look at your own wordz and see how much of an ::Dolphin Noise:: you sound like?
[snapback]284304[/snapback]
why dont you do the same? just because you feel threatened by my mighty and awesome mental prowess is no reason get all uppity.
[snapback]284321[/snapback]
I think he's talking about your arrogance, not your grammar and spelling.
ah yes well, to be perfectly honest, my ego has its own gravitational pull :p
[snapback]284324[/snapback]
no...it just makes you hated by alotta people here.
ah yes well, to be perfectly honest, my ego has its own gravitational pull :p
[snapback]284324[/snapback]
no...it just makes you hated by alotta people here.
[snapback]284380[/snapback]
Agreed.
Look, if you want to be respected, being arrogant isn't the best way. Actually, it isn't a way at all.
ah yes well, to be perfectly honest, my ego has its own gravitational pull :p
[snapback]284324[/snapback]
no...it just makes you hated by alotta people here.
[snapback]284380[/snapback]
i can count on one hand the number of people who even care. is that a lot? i dont know why it gets to you so much. do you have a carter voodoo doll? is their some kind of death shrine to me in your closet? why do you obsess over me so much? Its a bit disturbing.....
ah yes well, to be perfectly honest, my ego has its own gravitational pull :p
[snapback]284324[/snapback]
no...it just makes you hated by alotta people here.
[snapback]284380[/snapback]
Agreed.
Look, if you want to be respected, being arrogant isn't the best way. Actually, it isn't a way at all.
[snapback]284386[/snapback]
If loco ever *respected* me, id prolly feel dirty, like id killed a puppy.
ah yes well, to be perfectly honest, my ego has its own gravitational pull :p
[snapback]284324[/snapback]
no...it just makes you hated by alotta people here.
[snapback]284380[/snapback]
i can count on one hand the number of people who even care. is that a lot? i dont know why it gets to you so much. do you have a carter voodoo doll? is their some kind of death shrine to me in your closet? why do you obsess over me so much? Its a bit disturbing.....
[snapback]284392[/snapback]
i dont obsess over anyone. i just got a huge distaste for people whose ego swellz larger than their own head. i could give a rats a$$ about you as a person...dont flatter yourself.
pls kill this thread. all that it is people bashing each other over the inevitable: death.
There may be a God. There may not be.
But we will all die. And then this thread will seem pointless in our endless free time after death.
Or we won't exist. And our kids will laugh at how stupid our thread is.
[snapback]284165[/snapback]
Ya know what? I'll quote myself. Just because I don't think anybody read the post when they were busy arguing!
So are you saying that SOME of the bible should be taught in science class? Well...what about science being taught in Religious Education class? They don't mix THAT well.
[snapback]284992[/snapback]
I'm saying that if it relates to the subject, which it can in some cases, and is taught as theory then the teacher should be allowed to have the choice of teaching it if he/she chooses so. Ministers and Sunday School teachers have the right of teaching Science if they want to, but since the general purpose of going to church is learning from the Bible, it's not likely to happen. Grade school is labelled as general education, so I think it's perfectly acceptable to put the Bible out there as an optional theory, as long as nobody's beliefs are being pushed.
So are you saying that SOME of the bible should be taught in science class? Well...what about science being taught in Religious Education class? They don't mix THAT well.
[snapback]284992[/snapback]
i dont think the bible itself should be taught in science, but the concept of ID in general.
So are you saying that SOME of the bible should be taught in science class? Well...what about science being taught in Religious Education class? They don't mix THAT well.
[snapback]284992[/snapback]
Is it required to have a Religious Education class over there or something? Most schools around here don't even offer that...
So are you saying that SOME of the bible should be taught in science class? Well...what about science being taught in Religious Education class? They don't mix THAT well.
[snapback]284992[/snapback]
i dont think the bible itself should be taught in science, but the concept of ID in general.
[snapback]285014[/snapback]
ah, but therin lies the rub, for what is an intelligent designer but a god? to bring ID into the science class is to bring religion in as well.
So are you saying that SOME of the bible should be taught in science class? Well...what about science being taught in Religious Education class? They don't mix THAT well.
[snapback]284992[/snapback]
Is it required to have a Religious Education class over there or something? Most schools around here don't even offer that...
[snapback]285015[/snapback]
yes, but in year 10 and 11 (I have no idea what grade it is over there) you can drop the subject. You don't HAVE to take it anymore.
evolution doesnt because new evidence is being found and sought after. if Evolutin required a great leap of faith no respectable scientist would consider it a credible scientific theory. evolution is based on cold scientific logic and processes. ID is rejection of nature and random chance in favor precision and order. ID is itself unnatural.
[snapback]285023[/snapback]
^ I agree.
Anyway, to elaborate my answer, I'll say something more. The Bible should not be taught in Science class. Because Religion isn't Science. The Theory of Evolution should not be taught as a true concept, just as a theory.
[snapback]285102[/snapback]
It may be a theory, but it at least has evidence to support it. The Bible is a book and lacks physical evidence to support it accuratly.
So are you saying that SOME of the bible should be taught in science class? Well...what about science being taught in Religious Education class? They don't mix THAT well.
[snapback]284992[/snapback]
Is religious class something in the UK? I have NEVER in my life seen one in California.
Did you know Lucy was named after the song "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds"?
[snapback]285102[/snapback]
I know! I learned that in my history class with the Nutty McNut teacher.
So are you saying that SOME of the bible should be taught in science class? Well...what about science being taught in Religious Education class? They don't mix THAT well.
[snapback]284992[/snapback]
Is religious class something in the UK? I have NEVER in my life seen one in California.
[snapback]285217[/snapback]
Sarah already answered that question because I already asked it...
So your asking for people who dont share your beliefs to put their faith in your god and his actions? no, not even that, your asking them to accept your way of life as fact?
[snapback]285580[/snapback]
No, he is saying to teach it, just as evoloution is taught. As a plausible theory.
I am reffering to ID, not the bible itself.
but thats not wut ID teaches, is it?
ID just states that the universe was the result of creation by a higher being.
[snapback]285596[/snapback]
Who?
its not a leap of faith. i'm not suggesting another God created the universe...but i think the concept should be taught, and the generalization of ID is the only way it would be allowed.
[snapback]285608[/snapback]
Well thats not unreasonable. I have exactly how it should go
Teacher: Before we begin, everyone should be aware that some people outside the scientific community believe that the universe was designed by an unknown being of great power. Now on to todays lesson.....
that sums it up pretty good, right?
Supernatural phenomonae are the realm of quacks and pseudo science. Things like ghosts, the easter bunny, and spontaneous combustion that have never been proven and will never be proven by science.
[snapback]285668[/snapback]
lol...thats funny.
wanna know wut else never has been and never will be proven by science...? evolution.