Evolution...

No, I don't see that as possible. The science of embryology had discredit it completely by 1925. Yet I just did a little web searching and discovered it is still included in many high school level textbooks. It was universally taught until at least the 90's.

Do you really think it was just a little 70 year long oversight?

Plus, there was a admission, I wish I could could remember by who, that it had continued to be taught because, "it was a good evolutionary teaching tool".

Also, there are numerous other such examples. I'm going to call it a night, but I'll list several other very similar situations tomorrow.

Well I'll wait until then, because I can't find them. And better have that "intelligent design" argument ready too :p

Evolutionism requires quite a bit of faith.

Hail Science!:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1inStripes

Yes.


buckeye, my point is, if one is a theory that has some basis, and the other does as well (which intelligent design does have) why not teach both. Or, scrap it and not teach either, since neither apparently can be identified completely as an absolute.

---

Intelligent design really has nothing to back it up, meaning it can't be experimented on. It's not supported by most in the scientific community, only really one group does..it's called Discovery Institute i think? There's really no factual evidence behind it, nowhere's near evolution. Can't just cover all theories to make everyone happy, if that's the case than I want the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster taught too. Again, evolution is backed up by a lot of evidence and is accepted as fact. Another reason why Intelligent Design can't be taught is because it comes directly from religion(Christianity) and you can't teach that in public schools.

Pastafarianism ftw.
RAmen

I wouldn't be arguing with Gotch on this subject if I were you guys. One of the biggest evolutionists on the face of the earth is Joe Rogan (comedian or not, he knows what he's talking about), and Gotch has went post-for-post with that cat on other boards regarding this very subject.

I'd respect his opinion and move on, even if I didn't agree with it. You can't make any argument that Gotch hasn't heard, and even if you can--it's not going to be as good as what Rogan probably threw his way.

Much respect @Rogan & Gotch when it comes to this stuff.

You guys really don't know what you're talking about, and in typical fashion for those of your leaning you are being condescending and juvenile.

I'm extremely busy right now, real life and all. I simply don't have time to go too far (right now).

I can throw out a few things. Make a few statements and ask a few simply set-up questions. Not trying to be tricky, just setting the stage and seeing where we are on certain issues.

First, there is a huge difference in intelligent design and what most people call creationism. Did you even know that?

In truth intelligent design or ID is creationism, but the terms have come (in the ID design community especially) to mean sometime completely different.

There are a lot of things about the scientific ID community that you obviously don't know, based upon your previous posts. (I'm speaking to Burton, who I know I can discuss this with in a reasonable manner, and also to Buckeye, who I currently doubt can hold a civil discussion, but we'll see).

The Adam and Eve and young earth statements are strawmen, as those who believe as I do (true ID'ers) do not in any way rely upon religious scripture for any part of our belief. I am a believer in the teachings of Christ, but that is not relevant to ID.

The true ID community does not subscribe to a young earth theory. I believe the earth is much, much older than 8,000 years or whatever the "creationist" movement claims.

There are many in the scientific community who do believe in intelligent design, many who speak out about it and many more who do not because of the childish ridicule and even professional blacklisting that can result from doing so. Especially in the field of DNA research you find many who will openly speak of ID and many more who will whisper about it.

Let's see where we stand. Burton, would you answer a few simple questions for me?

1. Is mutation the cornerstone of evolution?

In other words, mutation is evolution. Over a period of many millenium enough positive mutations occur to result in actual species to species evolution.

2. Do you agree that science has shown that many more negative mutations occur than positive?

3. Do you agree that a negative mutation is likely to result in extinction?

At this point let me say that I understand the counter to this, save you some time, given enough time and opportunity a series of positive mutations will occur.

4.Do you agree that a series of positive mutations is likely to result in a advancement in life form?

Please be patient, when you guys asked me to state my case I told you it would be near impossible here. This is going to take some serious time.

I've got to go for now, that's a start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoeburnCane

I wouldn't be arguing with Gotch on this subject if I were you guys. One of the biggest evolutionists on the face of the earth is Joe Rogan (comedian or not, he knows what he's talking about), and Gotch has went post-for-post with that cat on other boards regarding this very subject.

I'd respect his opinion and move on, even if I didn't agree with it. You can't make any argument that Gotch hasn't heard, and even if you can--it's not going to be as good as what Rogan probably threw his way.

Much respect @Rogan & Gotch when it comes to this stuff.

---

Joe and I even took it to private emails.

Who wants to buy Joe Rogan's email address ;)

Just kidding, I wouldn't break his trust.

I've also spent about 5 years in constant debate with one of the worlds foremost atheists. Sorry, but I can't say who. But, I've learned a ton from debating him.

A few more things about the true Intelligent Design movement before I have to call it a night......

The ID movement does not want creationism taught in our schools, don't even want ID to be mandatory for now at least

The ID movement does not want evolutionary teaching to be removed for schools. What we do want is for the whole truth to be taught.

I've given you one example already. Here is another.


I'm sure you are familiar with the work of researches Miller and Urey. They are the guys who in the early 50's (53?) created the "building blocks" of life (amino acids) by concocting a primordial soup surrounded by the gases believed to be present on earth at the time. When this was exposed to an electrical charge (simulating lightning) very simple amino acids did occur. Although they were never able to go much further than very simple amino acids their study and finding were legit. It is taught in schools today as a strong evidence for the evolutionary theory of the origins of life.

So, what is the issue?

Bet you aren't familiar with this. By the mid 1970's science had determined that the mixture of gases we thought to be present on earth at the time of Miller and Urey's study in fact were definitely wrong.

And when the experiment is repeated with the correct gases? Nothing.....................

Were you taught that?

It's been known now for more than 30 years. Why wouldn't you be taught that as well? What is wrong with a full disclosure? Why the cover-up. Why the fear of the whole truth?

Later............................................. ...............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gotch

A few more things about the true Intelligent Design movement before I have to call it a night......

The ID movement does not want creationism taught in our schools, don't even want ID to be mandatory for now at least

The ID movement does not want evolutionary teaching to be removed for schools. What we do want is for the whole truth to be taught.

I've given you one example already. Here is another.


I'm sure you are familiar with the work of researches Miller and Urey. They are the guys who in the early 50's (53?) created the "building blocks" of life (amino acids) by concocting a primordial soup surrounded by the gases believed to be present on earth at the time. When this was exposed to an electrical charge (simulating lightning) very simple amino acids did occur. Although they were never able to go much further than very simple amino acids their study and finding were legit. It is taught in schools today as a strong evidence for the evolutionary theory of the origins of life.

So, what is the issue?

Bet you aren't familiar with this. By the mid 1970's science had determined that the mixture of gases we thought to be present on earth at the time of Miller and Urey's study in fact were definitely wrong.

And when the experiment is repeated with the correct gases? Nothing.....................

Were you taught that?

It's been known now for more than 30 years. Why wouldn't you be taught that as well? What is wrong with a full disclosure? Why the cover-up. Why the fear of the whole truth?

Later............................................. ...............

---

Okay, before I decide if I want to delve into this and keep up with conversation I just want to know if this is going to be evidence behind ID or just an exposure of apparent shadiness of evolutionary 'teaching tools' and beliefs. Not trying to jump to conclusions - I just want to get this out in the open before anything else and get a clear picture of whats going to be discussed.