| Are you happy with this decision? |
| Yes |
|
28% |
[ 6 ] |
| Somewhat/Don't Care/Unsure |
|
19% |
[ 4 ] |
| No |
|
52% |
[ 11 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 21 |
|
| Author |
Message |
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
 Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:08 pm |
|
| Leo Wyatt wrote: | 1: In the beginning God created the Earth.
2: He created man and then he put Adam in a deep sleep and took one of Adam's ribs out.
3: Out of the rib, he made Eve.
Evolution is a theory it is not fact. God is fact. We can't just appear out of nowhere like people seem to think... |
Evolution claims that new species derive from existing ones through the survival of the individuals most successful in the environment, who (ona statistical basis) reproduce better and produce better offspring. This has been clearly demonstrated. It is a fact.
It is not the only way new species arise, and does not make that claim.
Evolution is not and was never intended to explain how life began.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:12 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Things like electricity and tectonic shifting are theories, too. But we accept them, because they're obviously apparent and you can just connect the dots together. The same goes for evolution pretty much, except the dots are further apart. |
Where does this idea that electricity is a theory come from?
Electrons exist. We separate them from atoms, move them around, change their kinetic energy, measure their mass and charge.
Electrons move from atom to atom in certain materials. This is called current flow. It exists.
So how is electricity a theory?
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Dec 23, 2005 11:23 pm |
|
Good point on the electricity, Taz, however I disagree with you that evolution is fact. Is it highly likely? Yes. But is it fact? No, it is a theory which is contested. And often quite highly.
Just my two cents.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Fri Dec 23, 2005 11:40 pm |
|
| webtaz99 wrote: | | IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Things like electricity and tectonic shifting are theories, too. But we accept them, because they're obviously apparent and you can just connect the dots together. The same goes for evolution pretty much, except the dots are further apart. |
Where does this idea that electricity is a theory come from?
Electrons exist. We separate them from atoms, move them around, change their kinetic energy, measure their mass and charge.
Electrons move from atom to atom in certain materials. This is called current flow. It exists.
So how is electricity a theory? |
Text books continue to list it as "electrical theory." It exists, obviously, but the way that it exists is apparently in dispute... You can google "electrical theory." Earthquakes would appear to present clear evidence of tectonic shifting, but alas... it's a theory.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Fri Dec 23, 2005 11:48 pm |
|
Evolution has been proven time and time again through testing and observation and is widly accepted by all scientist. It is usually contested, RM, by those who wont look at the evidence and see the truth.
As for facts, there are very few Facts in this world.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Dec 23, 2005 11:52 pm |
|
Hey, I think it's reasonable to contest it and I believe in it. I agree with you. I think all the evidence supports it. But it is still a contested thing, and therefore other ideas should be taught.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Sat Dec 24, 2005 1:11 am |
|
contested by who then? If that is your main reason for wanting other ideas, then list some contesting research against evolution.
This research has to be scientific and needs to be able to be proven or disproven.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Dec 24, 2005 1:31 am |
|
Why are we even having this debate if it's not contested? (And btw, even the scientific community is still debating ideas about evolution, creation, etc  )
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Sat Dec 24, 2005 6:39 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Why are we even having this debate if it's not contested? (And btw, even the scientific community is still debating ideas about evolution, creation, etc ) |
Actully, yes. Because this debate is about ID, not evolution... Well, it was originally.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Dec 24, 2005 9:26 pm |
|
Uh, not quite. The reason why we're having the debate OVER Intelligent Design in the first place is BECAUSE there are other ideas than evolution.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Sat Dec 24, 2005 11:30 pm |
|
Yes, but that doesn't mean that Evolution is being contested. That just means that another idea has been brought forth to explain the origins of man and the universe, and as stated numerous times, Evolution does not go into the origins of life.
And it's ID being contested not evolution. ID cannot be experimented upon by the scientific method. What it does, is gives a conclusion then gives reason why the conclusion is sound. Unless it can be tested over and over again, it cannot be called a theory of science and therefore cannot be taught in a science class room.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Dec 25, 2005 12:16 am |
|
You can spin it all you want. View it as you will, but I stand by my stance--what I clearly see is correct. No, it's evolution that's contested, and THAT'S why we have these other ideas.
EDIT: It goes both ways, the contest, but it's BECAUSE of the disagreements with evolution that other ideas are out there and stuff.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Sun Dec 25, 2005 12:50 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | You can spin it all you want. View it as you will, but I stand by my stance--what I clearly see is correct. No, it's evolution that's contested, and THAT'S why we have these other ideas.
EDIT: It goes both ways, the contest, but it's BECAUSE of the disagreements with evolution that other ideas are out there and stuff. |
I'm starting to love your vague answers with nothing to back up what you say.
A) How am I spinning anything?
B) How do you know you are correct and not wrong? Where is the evidence to back up your claims?
and to answer your edit, no, these Ideas came to fill in the gaps of Evolution like the Origins of life.
-------signature-------
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." President Thomas Jefferson
"A man's respect for law and order exists in precise relationship to the size of his paycheck." Adam Clayton Powell Jr.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Dec 25, 2005 12:27 pm |
|
I said, "View it as you will, but I stand by my stance." I may be wrong, but judging from the fact that there are so many other ideas out there and that evolution isn't the only one, and that it's still contested, I make my judgment and stand by it. You aren't giving any more solid answers than me anyways, but I digress. It is irrelivent. It's Christmas, and no one's minds are going to be changed. I'm not going to deal with this. I have my opinion, you have yours. Neither of ours are going to change, and either of us may be wrong. So have a Merry Christmas, and have your merry opinion. 
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Sun Dec 25, 2005 8:14 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | webtaz99 wrote: | | IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Things like electricity and tectonic shifting are theories, too. But we accept them, because they're obviously apparent and you can just connect the dots together. The same goes for evolution pretty much, except the dots are further apart. |
Where does this idea that electricity is a theory come from?
Electrons exist. We separate them from atoms, move them around, change their kinetic energy, measure their mass and charge.
Electrons move from atom to atom in certain materials. This is called current flow. It exists.
So how is electricity a theory? |
Text books continue to list it as "electrical theory." It exists, obviously, but the way that it exists is apparently in dispute... You can google "electrical theory." Earthquakes would appear to present clear evidence of tectonic shifting, but alas... it's a theory. |
"Electrical theory" is a semantic mis-labeling. While not every tiny facet of electromagnectics is understood, a great many theories have been demonstrated repetitively by multiple independent groups.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Sun Dec 25, 2005 9:55 pm |
|
| webtaz99 wrote: | | IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | webtaz99 wrote: | | IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Things like electricity and tectonic shifting are theories, too. But we accept them, because they're obviously apparent and you can just connect the dots together. The same goes for evolution pretty much, except the dots are further apart. |
Where does this idea that electricity is a theory come from?
Electrons exist. We separate them from atoms, move them around, change their kinetic energy, measure their mass and charge.
Electrons move from atom to atom in certain materials. This is called current flow. It exists.
So how is electricity a theory? |
Text books continue to list it as "electrical theory." It exists, obviously, but the way that it exists is apparently in dispute... You can google "electrical theory." Earthquakes would appear to present clear evidence of tectonic shifting, but alas... it's a theory. |
"Electrical theory" is a semantic mis-labeling. While not every tiny facet of electromagnectics is understood, a great many theories have been demonstrated repetitively by multiple independent groups. |
Then I'll leave it up to you to write the letter to the publishing companies and the rest of the scientists who seem to disagree, 
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
magenta
Commander
Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 404
Location: AUSTRALIA
|
| Sat Dec 31, 2005 11:19 pm |
|
This is a letter sent into the local paper in my state/australia.
Its all in the genes!
I AGREE that the science of both Evolution and ID should be taught in schools.
For Evolution they could teach that genetic drift has been proven in laboratories,that random mutation occurs every day and that it is common sense that organisms that live long enough to breed pass on their genes more effectively than those that die before they breed.
For ID they could teach that if something is really difficult to understand,we shouldnt try to understand it but instead we should believe a book,last updated 2000 years ago,based on an oral tradition of an obscure Middle Eastern desert tribe.
Steve McClure
Australia
I thought it was an excellent view on the case of teaching ID or Creationism in our schools,the case for NOT teaching it anyway!
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sun Jan 01, 2006 1:37 am |
|
If we can't post mature posts, that don't insult others' beliefs, that do not further the discussion, but only provoke other people, then let's not post at all.
|
|
|
magenta
Commander
Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 404
Location: AUSTRALIA
|
| Sun Jan 01, 2006 1:58 am |
|
I have only posted what an intelligent and open minded person had the guts to speak out about his 'opinion'.And it was printed in the largest paper in our state,they thought it was a point of view that was worthy to be read by the public!
Sorry if it offended anyone! 
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sun Jan 01, 2006 2:08 am |
|
| magenta wrote: | I have only posted what an intelligent and open minded person had the guts to speak out about his 'opinion'.And it was printed in the largest paper in our state,they thought it was a point of view that was worthy to be read by the public!
Sorry if it offended anyone! |
Hmmm. Well, maybe you can try that again in a week when you are allowed to rejoin this user group.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Wed Jan 04, 2006 10:59 pm |
|
| Quote: |
School board rescinds 'intelligent design' policy
DOVER, Pennsylvania (AP) -- Biology teacher Jennifer Miller had refused to read a statement about intelligent design before her lesson on evolution. Now, the policy that led to a landmark lawsuit will no longer be required in her school.
The Dover Area School District's policy of treating the concept as an alternative to evolution was officially relegated to the history books Tuesday night. Newly elected board members unanimously rescinded the policy on a voice vote and with no discussion beforehand. A judge ruled it unconstitutional two weeks earlier.
"I will feel comfortable again teaching what I'd always felt comfortable teaching," Miller said.
A different group of school board members had been in control when the policy was approved in October 2004. The policy required that a statement be read that said Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps." It also referred students to an "intelligent-design" book, "Of Pandas and People."
Eight families sued, and on December 20, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III sided with their argument that the concept of "intelligent design" -- which attributes the existence of complex organisms to an unidentified intelligent cause -- is religious, not scientific. The judge said that violated the establishment clause in the First Amendment.
"This is it," new school board president Bernadette Reinking said, indicating the vote was final and the case was closed.
School board members declined to comment afterward.
Most of the previous board members who had defended the policy were ousted in the November election, replaced by candidates who pledged to eliminate the policy.
Policy defenders had said they were trying to improve science education by exposing students to alternatives with the policy. But the judge said the board's real purpose was "to promote religion in the public school classroom," and said intelligent design could not be taught as an alternative to evolution in biology classes.
"I tried ... to warn the board that we were facing a disaster and obviously I was not persuasive enough," said Jeff Brown, a former board member who resigned in protest after the policy passed. He said the costly court battle could have been avoided.
The Dover policy and high-profile lawsuit added fuel to a national debate over "intelligent design."
In Kansas, where state officials have been arguing over the teaching of evolution since 1999, education officials recently approved science standards that treat evolution as a flawed theory.
In Georgia, the state schools superintendent drew protests in 2004 for proposing a science curriculum that replaced the word "evolution" with "changes over time." Last year, a federal judge ordered Cobb County schools to remove from biology textbooks stickers that called evolution a theory, not a fact.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. |
Source: cnn.com
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Thu Jan 05, 2006 5:21 pm |
|
Good.
Like I said before, once it gets taken before a judge It will get tossed out of schools. It's not science.
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Thu Jan 05, 2006 5:29 pm |
|
Why not just leave it up to the teacher?
Let the teacher teach the class; as long as they remain objective, they should be able to present whatever theory they want; so long as they still satisfy the rest of the cirriculum.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Jan 05, 2006 5:58 pm |
|
You know, that's a good point, LB. The only real good argument that I've been able to think of, throughout thought and preparation for this debate (which I most likely won't be doing now, yet am helping other teammembers out with it), for the affirmative side of Intelligent Design involves freedom of speech and discussion of other ideas. In the science classroom we can't just be learning, as we can't in any classroom. We need to discuss and expand our minds and allow room for debate by teaching more than one idea when there are so many out there.
That's the affirmative argument (worded very horribly), and the argument that I happen to agree with.
But, in terms of debateability, the negative is a better case, I'll give you that. There are very valid arguments there; I just happen to disagree.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Thu Jan 05, 2006 9:48 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | You know, that's a good point, LB. The only real good argument that I've been able to think of, throughout thought and preparation for this debate (which I most likely won't be doing now, yet am helping other teammembers out with it), for the affirmative side of Intelligent Design involves freedom of speech and discussion of other ideas. In the science classroom we can't just be learning, as we can't in any classroom. We need to discuss and expand our minds and allow room for debate by teaching more than one idea when there are so many out there.
That's the affirmative argument (worded very horribly), and the argument that I happen to agree with.
But, in terms of debateability, the negative is a better case, I'll give you that. There are very valid arguments there; I just happen to disagree. |
It doesn't matter if it's an alternae idea, I will not use the term Theory because that is only reserved for Scientific Ideas, it is not science. It cannot be proven using the scientific method and it cannot be tested, therefore it doesn't belong being taught in a science classroom.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
