Ableton Forum

kramerica wrote:...those idiots made a video for fellow idiots.

I take your point entirely.

Except that one of those idiots is the guy in the big house with the military at his command.

A sharp debate between scientists and religious conservatives escalated Tuesday over comments by President Bush that the theory of intelligent design should be taught with evolution in the nation's public schools. In an interview at the White House on Monday with a group of Texas newspaper reporters, Mr. Bush appeared to endorse the push by many of his conservative Christian supporters to give intelligent design equal treatment with the theory of evolution.

http://tinyurl.com/32ng7h

popslut wrote:

kramerica wrote:

A sharp debate between scientists and religious conservatives escalated Tuesday over comments by President Bush that the theory of intelligent design should be taught with evolution in the nation's public schools. In an interview at the White House on Monday with a group of Texas newspaper reporters, Mr. Bush appeared to endorse the push by many of his conservative Christian supporters to give intelligent design equal treatment with the theory of evolution.

http://tinyurl.com/32ng7h

I do think that when discussing evolution in schools it only seems natural that they should bring up the apposing theory that life was created and doesn't evolve. I'm not supporting either side but doesn't it make sense to tell both sides? theory and apposing theory.

Johnisfaster wrote:

popslut wrote:

kramerica wrote: http://tinyurl.com/32ng7h

I do think that when discussing evolution in schools it only seems natural that they should bring up the apposing theory that life was created and doesn't evolve. I'm not supporting either side but doesn't it make sense to tell both sides? theory and apposing theory.

nobody is arguing about that.

the point is that creationism or whatever should not be taught as a science.

it can be a philosophy/etchics/cultural studies but it does not have the ability to pass as a scientific measure because of its inability to be tested.

sweetjesus wrote:

Johnisfaster wrote:

popslut wrote: I do think that when discussing evolution in schools it only seems natural that they should bring up the apposing theory that life was created and doesn't evolve. I'm not supporting either side but doesn't it make sense to tell both sides? theory and apposing theory.

nobody is arguing about that.

I AM!! It's not the whole picture, what about all the other religions?



If you don't pray in my schools, I won't think in your churches.

sweetjesus wrote:

Johnisfaster wrote:

popslut wrote: I do think that when discussing evolution in schools it only seems natural that they should bring up the apposing theory that life was created and doesn't evolve. I'm not supporting either side but doesn't it make sense to tell both sides? theory and apposing theory.

nobody is arguing about that.

the point is that creationism or whatever should not be taught as a science.

it can be a philosophy/etchics/cultural studies but it does not have the ability to pass as a scientific measure because of its inability to be tested.

how do we test evolution by the way?

Johnisfaster wrote:

sweetjesus wrote:

Johnisfaster wrote: nobody is arguing about that.

the point is that creationism or whatever should not be taught as a science.

it can be a philosophy/etchics/cultural studies but it does not have the ability to pass as a scientific measure because of its inability to be tested.

how do we test evolution by the way?

It's been tested time and time again. The Galopogos are one huge lab. During the industrial revolution some moths were observed to change to an ashen color to blend in with the ask colored trees, for example. Don't you watch the Discovery channel?

How do we test intelligent design? Creamy or chunky?

The saving grace for evolution is that Christians are sure to become extinct.

Tone Deft wrote:[
How do we test intelligent design? Creamy or chunky?

hoho!

that's good science right there.

Tone Deft wrote:

Johnisfaster wrote:

sweetjesus wrote: how do we test evolution by the way?

It's been tested time and time again. The Galopogos are one huge lab. During the industrial revolution some moths were observed to change to an ashen color to blend in with the ask colored trees, for example. Don't you watch the Discovery channel?

How do we test intelligent design? Creamy or chunky?

The saving grace for evolution is that Christians are sure to become extinct.

what you're talking about is survival of the fittest, the moth best suited for the invironment ended up being more likely to mate and you end up with a whole bunch of moths that are suited properly

if you could truely test evolution it would no longer be a theory anymore.

b0unce wrote:

Tone Deft wrote:[
How do we test intelligent design? Creamy or chunky?

hoho!

that's good science right there.

For the first time ever b0unce, I think you and I agree on something...

Intelligent design can only be assumed, theorized or believed. It belongs in philosophy class, not science.

I think that as a philosophical question it bears merit, just as solipsism does. If schools teach intelligent design, then they should also teach that there is only one mind in the universe (your own), and that all sensory input is simply your imagination.

Each is equally probable, and equally unprovable.

Johnisfaster wrote:

Tone Deft wrote:

Johnisfaster wrote: It's been tested time and time again. The Galopogos are one huge lab. During the industrial revolution some moths were observed to change to an ashen color to blend in with the ask colored trees, for example. Don't you watch the Discovery channel?

How do we test intelligent design? Creamy or chunky?

The saving grace for evolution is that Christians are sure to become extinct.

what you're talking about is survival of the fittest, the moth best suited for the invironment ended up being more likely to mate and you end up with a whole bunch of moths that are suited properly

if you could truely test evolution it would no longer be a theory anymore.

Actually, nothing is 'provable' scientifically. The scientific method is designed to test whether hypotheses can be disproven. A host of considerations determine the amount of mileage a theory gets - e.g. the aforementioned falsifiability, predictive power, explanatory power, etc.

And you may not be aware, but it wasn't 'evolution' that was shocking about Darwin's theory (evolution was a well known idea but usually contained a religious component), but the idea of 'natural selection' - or as you say survival of the fittest.

I would add some other theories for "science" class...

Last Thursdayism
and
Brain in a Vat

Johnisfaster wrote:

Tone Deft wrote:

Johnisfaster wrote: It's been tested time and time again. The Galopogos are one huge lab. During the industrial revolution some moths were observed to change to an ashen color to blend in with the ask colored trees, for example. Don't you watch the Discovery channel?

How do we test intelligent design? Creamy or chunky?

The saving grace for evolution is that Christians are sure to become extinct.

what you're talking about is survival of the fittest, the moth best suited for the invironment ended up being more likely to mate and you end up with a whole bunch of moths that are suited properly

if you could truely test evolution it would no longer be a theory anymore.

by your measure, einsteins work and the whole nuclear world is not science.

everything in science is a thoery until proven with absolute certainty then it becomes accepted (not considered FACT) and even then a new theory may emerge to disprove that and if that theory holds upto scientific standards, then the theory becomes accepted.

with evolution, we can test things by looking at the physical evidence (fossils, fragments and mummified remains) and in many cases put them up against other scientific devices such as genome data and start to evaluate whether or not the theory holds up. So far it has.

With Creationism, it's left at 'an intelligent designer' (god) made us and that's that with no way to evaluate this at all.

at least Evolution stands a chance of being genuinely debunked!

the idiot holding the can thinks that all life is at human eye sight level and that to properly analyze and criticize a theory you have to actually look at the theory and in the case of evolution, it is suggested that mitocondrea formed dna and formed cellular forms which then went on to create bacterial and microscopic life forms and so on and so forth...

there is not "missing link" but there are missing links and they're constantly being found all the time from the descendance of bipeds to the shift of certain life forms in the ocean which have elements from land dwelling animals and vice versa.

the SCIENTIFIC evidence for evolution is compelling. a looney with a can of peanut butter is not.

M. Bréqs wrote:I would add some other theories for "science" class...

Last Thursdayism
and
Brain in a Vat

nice try but what evidence do you have FOR those THEORIES?

since there is no scientific data associated with it, this belongs in a philosophy class.

<sings>
98 more pages of God debate to go!!
98 more pages of God!!
Your -ism is wrong
My quote is long
97 more pages of God debate to go!!



Thursdayism - hilarious, I like Tuesdayism.

Tone Deft wrote:<sings>
98 more pages of God debate to go!!
98 more pages of God!!
Your -ism is wrong
My quote is long
97 more pages of God debate to go!!



Thursdayism - hilarious, I like Tuesdayism.

yes it's a wonderful philosophy!