Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Intelligent Design should NOT be taught

Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 9:43:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think that I.D. should not be taught in the science classroom as a competing theory to evolution. What are all your peoples opinions?
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 9:45:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 9:43:28 AM, Pase66 wrote:
I think that I.D. should not be taught in the science classroom as a competing theory to evolution. What are all your peoples opinions?

Of course it shouldn't be taught in schools. There is a lot of evidence for evolution, but none for 'intelligent design'!
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 9:45:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 9:45:30 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 9:43:28 AM, Pase66 wrote:
I think that I.D. should not be taught in the science classroom as a competing theory to evolution. What are all your peoples opinions?

Of course it shouldn't be taught in schools. There is a lot of evidence for evolution, but none for 'intelligent design'!

My point exactly....
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 9:52:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 9:43:28 AM, Pase66 wrote:
I think that I.D. should not be taught in the science classroom as a competing theory to evolution. What are all your peoples opinions?

I agree. Unless it gains a significant following in the scientific community, I don't think any time should be spent on it. It's a fringe theory at best, and it seems like a waste of time to go over fringe theory at the highschool level. I think prevailing theories ought to be taught and leave fringe theories to upper level undergraduate classes or classes that focus on a narrow field of study.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
E2D2
Posts: 156
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 9:53:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 9:43:28 AM, Pase66 wrote:
I think that I.D. should not be taught in the science classroom as a competing theory to evolution. What are all your peoples opinions? : :

Since no one has any evidence of how we were created, it's best not to teach children one opinion. It's okay to give them various opinions from the various groups of this world but to teach them one opinion is wrong. Let the children form their own opinions of how they were created.
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 9:55:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 9:53:38 AM, E2D2 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 9:43:28 AM, Pase66 wrote:
I think that I.D. should not be taught in the science classroom as a competing theory to evolution. What are all your peoples opinions? : :

Since no one has any evidence of how we were created, it's best not to teach children one opinion. It's okay to give them various opinions from the various groups of this world but to teach them one opinion is wrong. Let the children form their own opinions of how they were created.

But evolution is not an opinion. It's like saying that children should not be taught gravitational theory because it's a theory, or that along with that, children should be taught that we are held to the ground due to invisible chords are attached to their shoulders, but they can't feel said chords...
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
E2D2
Posts: 156
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 9:57:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 9:55:25 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 9:53:38 AM, E2D2 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 9:43:28 AM, Pase66 wrote:
I think that I.D. should not be taught in the science classroom as a competing theory to evolution. What are all your peoples opinions? : :

Since no one has any evidence of how we were created, it's best not to teach children one opinion. It's okay to give them various opinions from the various groups of this world but to teach them one opinion is wrong. Let the children form their own opinions of how they were created.

But evolution is not an opinion. It's like saying that children should not be taught gravitational theory because it's a theory, or that along with that, children should be taught that we are held to the ground due to invisible chords are attached to their shoulders, but they can't feel said chords... : :

Evolution is an opinion that is formed from the study of bones. If bones could speak, they would tell a much different story than an archeologist.
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 9:58:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 9:57:29 AM, E2D2 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 9:55:25 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 9:53:38 AM, E2D2 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 9:43:28 AM, Pase66 wrote:
I think that I.D. should not be taught in the science classroom as a competing theory to evolution. What are all your peoples opinions? : :

Since no one has any evidence of how we were created, it's best not to teach children one opinion. It's okay to give them various opinions from the various groups of this world but to teach them one opinion is wrong. Let the children form their own opinions of how they were created.

But evolution is not an opinion. It's like saying that children should not be taught gravitational theory because it's a theory, or that along with that, children should be taught that we are held to the ground due to invisible chords are attached to their shoulders, but they can't feel said chords... : :

Evolution is an opinion that is formed from the study of bones. If bones could speak, they would tell a much different story than an archeologist.

So you've spoken to bones? Why don't you publish that!? You do realize you would change our entire perception of biology!
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 11:07:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 9:43:28 AM, Pase66 wrote:
I think that I.D. should not be taught in the science classroom as a competing theory to evolution. What are all your peoples opinions?

If it is to be taught, it must at the very least meet the same criteria as all other sciences taught in classrooms:

-are firmly grounded in and based upon evidence
-are logically consistent with other well-established principles
-have been tested in diverse settings and against diverse data
-explain more than rival theories
-have the potential to lead to new knowledge
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 11:25:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 9:43:28 AM, Pase66 wrote:
I think that I.D. should not be taught in the science classroom as a competing theory to evolution. What are all your peoples opinions?

My opinion is that nothing concerning the origin of species should be taught. Scarcely anyone is going to make a living - or have their lives affected one iota - by a policy of teaching the various theories. If someone wants to teach "Oh, matter always existed" or "life sprang from non-life" (neither of which can be proven), then I suppose he'd have to brace himself for other unproven theories.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Defro
Posts: 847
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 11:25:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 9:43:28 AM, Pase66 wrote:
I think that I.D. should not be taught in the science classroom as a competing theory to evolution. What are all your peoples opinions?

My AP biology teacher taught me about intelligent design as a competing theory to evolution. He also taught me a bunch of other competing theories like Directed Panspermia, which claims Aliens created life on Earth.

He taught us the the strengths and weaknesses of each theory, which was good, because now if I have a debate against ID, I actually know what I'm talking about. I already know their arguments and I won't make false accusations. For example many people claim that there is no evidence for ID, but there is some evidence (although many people won't consider this evidence).

I am glad my teacher taught me all the other prominent theories because it made me more open minded and less biased. Most people bash on people who don't believe in evolution because the theory of evolution is the only theory they really understand because it was the only theory taught in textbooks. In fact, the textbooks themselves are biased for not mentioning the theory of evolution's flaws.

For example, did you know that there is a theory called punctual equillibrium that is just as plausible as evolution? Although punctual equilibrium is very similar to evolution, it is never mentioned in textbooks.
Defro
Posts: 847
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 11:28:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 9:45:30 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 9:43:28 AM, Pase66 wrote:
I think that I.D. should not be taught in the science classroom as a competing theory to evolution. What are all your peoples opinions?

Of course it shouldn't be taught in schools. There is a lot of evidence for evolution, but none for 'intelligent design'!

There is evidence for intelligent design, although different people interpret it differently.
One argument for intelligent design is the flagellum on bacteria, and its irreducible complexity.
There is also some evidence against evolution.
Defro
Posts: 847
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 11:31:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 9:52:45 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/21/2015 9:43:28 AM, Pase66 wrote:
I think that I.D. should not be taught in the science classroom as a competing theory to evolution. What are all your peoples opinions?

I agree. Unless it gains a significant following in the scientific community, I don't think any time should be spent on it. It's a fringe theory at best, and it seems like a waste of time to go over fringe theory at the highschool level.

Many scientist believe in intelligent design. There is a significant following. I don't think it's a fringe theory. And iven if it is a fringe theory, it is not a waste of time to go over it in high school.

I think prevailing theories ought to be taught and leave fringe theories to upper level undergraduate classes or classes that focus on a narrow field of study.

But prevailing theories AREN'T taught. Evolution is the only one being taught, and many people are ignorant because that's all they know. Please refer to my previous post on this forum.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 11:44:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 11:25:30 AM, Defro wrote:
At 6/21/2015 9:43:28 AM, Pase66 wrote:
I think that I.D. should not be taught in the science classroom as a competing theory to evolution. What are all your peoples opinions?

My AP biology teacher taught me about intelligent design as a competing theory to evolution. He also taught me a bunch of other competing theories like Directed Panspermia, which claims Aliens created life on Earth.

He taught us the the strengths and weaknesses of each theory, which was good, because now if I have a debate against ID, I actually know what I'm talking about. I already know their arguments and I won't make false accusations. For example many people claim that there is no evidence for ID, but there is some evidence (although many people won't consider this evidence).

I am glad my teacher taught me all the other prominent theories because it made me more open minded and less biased. Most people bash on people who don't believe in evolution because the theory of evolution is the only theory they really understand because it was the only theory taught in textbooks. In fact, the textbooks themselves are biased for not mentioning the theory of evolution's flaws.

For example, did you know that there is a theory called punctual equillibrium that is just as plausible as evolution? Although punctual equilibrium is very similar to evolution, it is never mentioned in textbooks.

You need to ditch your teacher.

It's called "Punctuated Equilibrium" and is not a competing theory to evolution. It simply states that a lot of evolutionary change can take place is short period of time. This is not a problem for evolution at all and can be easily demonstrated by a large population of a particular species, through some environmental change, separates a group from the larger population whereupon it undergoes faster evolutionary changes than that of the larger group in a shorter period of time.

And, please do continue bringing up these alleged flaws for evolution.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 11:45:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 11:31:24 AM, Defro wrote:
At 6/21/2015 9:52:45 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/21/2015 9:43:28 AM, Pase66 wrote:
I think that I.D. should not be taught in the science classroom as a competing theory to evolution. What are all your peoples opinions?

I agree. Unless it gains a significant following in the scientific community, I don't think any time should be spent on it. It's a fringe theory at best, and it seems like a waste of time to go over fringe theory at the highschool level.

Many scientist believe in intelligent design. There is a significant following. I don't think it's a fringe theory.

And iven if it is a fringe theory, it is not a waste of time to go over it in high school.

I do. Let's assume it's fringe for the sake of argument. Think of other fringe ideas in other fields of study. In history, you have holocaust deniers and revisionists. In basic highschool classes, do you think time should be spent going over the merits of these various alternative theories?

I think prevailing theories ought to be taught and leave fringe theories to upper level undergraduate classes or classes that focus on a narrow field of study.

But prevailing theories AREN'T taught. Evolution is the only one being taught, and many people are ignorant because that's all they know.

Evolution IS the prevailing theory on the origin of species, isn't it?

Please refer to my previous post on this forum.

Can you give me a link so I don't have to look for it?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 11:46:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 11:31:24 AM, Defro wrote:
At 6/21/2015 9:52:45 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/21/2015 9:43:28 AM, Pase66 wrote:
I think that I.D. should not be taught in the science classroom as a competing theory to evolution. What are all your peoples opinions?

I agree. Unless it gains a significant following in the scientific community, I don't think any time should be spent on it. It's a fringe theory at best, and it seems like a waste of time to go over fringe theory at the highschool level.

Many scientist believe in intelligent design. There is a significant following.

What would you say is the percentage of biologists who subscribe to intelligent design?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 11:52:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 11:31:24 AM, Defro wrote:
At 6/21/2015 9:52:45 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/21/2015 9:43:28 AM, Pase66 wrote:
I think that I.D. should not be taught in the science classroom as a competing theory to evolution. What are all your peoples opinions?

I agree. Unless it gains a significant following in the scientific community, I don't think any time should be spent on it. It's a fringe theory at best, and it seems like a waste of time to go over fringe theory at the highschool level.

Many scientist believe in intelligent design.

Many scientists? Sorry, but only a very tiny minority, less than one percent of scientists believe in ID.

There is a significant following. I don't think it's a fringe theory. And iven if it is a fringe theory, it is not a waste of time to go over it in high school.

Unfortunately, ID does not meet any of the other requirements of the sciences currently taught in high school, as follows:

are firmly grounded in and based upon evidence;
are logically consistent with other well-established principles;
have been tested in diverse settings and against diverse data;
explain more than rival theories; and
have the potential to lead to new knowledge.



I think prevailing theories ought to be taught and leave fringe theories to upper level undergraduate classes or classes that focus on a narrow field of study.

But prevailing theories AREN'T taught.

There are no prevailing theories. That's why none are being taught.

Evolution is the only one being taught, and many people are ignorant because that's all they know. Please refer to my previous post on this forum.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
12_13
Posts: 1,365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 2:18:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 9:43:28 AM, Pase66 wrote:
I think that I.D. should not be taught in the science classroom as a competing theory to evolution. What are all your peoples opinions?

I think it is always best thing for young people that they get options and then can chose what they think is the correct. In my opinion school should not teach absolute truths, but give good knowledge for children so that they can think by themselves what the most reasonable option is. As the history of science shows, it has been wrong often. It can be disservice for children to make them believe current scientific truth rather than give them tools to get even better understanding. Unfortunately it seems to me that nowadays schools want to produce mindless idiots that swallow whatever is taught rather than people who are independent and able to make own reasonable choices.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 2:50:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 2:18:36 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 9:43:28 AM, Pase66 wrote:
I think that I.D. should not be taught in the science classroom as a competing theory to evolution. What are all your peoples opinions?

I think it is always best thing for young people that they get options and then can chose what they think is the correct. In my opinion school should not teach absolute truths, but give good knowledge for children so that they can think by themselves what the most reasonable option is. As the history of science shows, it has been wrong often.

Wrong often? Does that mean science doesn't get things right very often, or maybe never gets anything right? Your computer, internet connection and these forums are the result of science and the hard work of a great of individual scientists.

It can be disservice for children to make them believe current scientific truth rather than give them tools to get even better understanding.

Science reveals facts about the world around us, it helps us to understand things, how is this a disservice for children, that they learn things?

What tools do you suggest they should get that will improve their understanding?

Unfortunately it seems to me that nowadays schools want to produce mindless idiots that swallow whatever is taught rather than people who are independent and able to make own reasonable choices.

No, that's what religions produce. Schools teach things and it is up to the parents of children to encourage them to learn. If you believe school produces mindless idiots, then that's what YOUR children will become.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Defro
Posts: 847
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 10:33:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 11:44:39 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

It's called "Punctuated Equilibrium" and is not a competing theory to evolution. It simply states that a lot of evolutionary change can take place is short period of time.

You're right it's called punctuated equilibrium. I took the course years ago and I forgot. Please don't blame my teacher.

This is not a problem for evolution at all and can be easily demonstrated by a large population of a particular species, through some environmental change, separates a group from the larger population whereupon it undergoes faster evolutionary changes than that of the larger group in a shorter period of time.


That's called speciation I think. The fossil record heavily supports evolution. But one problem is that if evolution were to be true, we would find a buttload more transitional species. But there aren't a lot of transitional species found. Many evolutionist claim that this we've simply had bad luck finding them because finding fossils are hard, which might be true.

However, there are some who became skeptical of evolution, and developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which explains why there is is not many transitional fossils.

The theory of evolution believes that it takes millions of generations for a new secies to evolve. If it takes so long, the there should be an abundance of transitional forms in the fossil record, but there isn't. Punctuated equilibrium doesn't need transitional species because it claims that instead of a million generations, it only takes a few generations, which is so fast, there wouldn't be a transitional species.

I'm basing this off memory so pls correct me if I'm wrong :)

And, please do continue bringing up these alleged flaws for evolution.

I just brought up one of them. Lack of transitional species.
Defro
Posts: 847
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 10:40:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 11:46:27 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/21/2015 11:31:24 AM, Defro wrote:
At 6/21/2015 9:52:45 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/21/2015 9:43:28 AM, Pase66 wrote:
I think that I.D. should not be taught in the science classroom as a competing theory to evolution. What are all your peoples opinions?

I agree. Unless it gains a significant following in the scientific community, I don't think any time should be spent on it. It's a fringe theory at best, and it seems like a waste of time to go over fringe theory at the highschool level.

Many scientist believe in intelligent design. There is a significant following.

What would you say is the percentage of biologists who subscribe to intelligent design?

lol it would be very small. I just said many to sugarcoat it hahaha
E2D2
Posts: 156
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 11:42:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 10:40:58 PM, Defro wrote:
At 6/21/2015 11:46:27 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/21/2015 11:31:24 AM, Defro wrote:
At 6/21/2015 9:52:45 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/21/2015 9:43:28 AM, Pase66 wrote:
I think that I.D. should not be taught in the science classroom as a competing theory to evolution. What are all your peoples opinions?

I agree. Unless it gains a significant following in the scientific community, I don't think any time should be spent on it. It's a fringe theory at best, and it seems like a waste of time to go over fringe theory at the highschool level.

Many scientist believe in intelligent design. There is a significant following.

What would you say is the percentage of biologists who subscribe to intelligent design?

lol it would be very small. I just said many to sugarcoat it hahaha : :

Only the open-minded biologists would believe that an intelligent design took place in creation.
Defro
Posts: 847
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 11:43:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 11:42:28 PM, E2D2 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 10:40:58 PM, Defro wrote:
At 6/21/2015 11:46:27 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/21/2015 11:31:24 AM, Defro wrote:
At 6/21/2015 9:52:45 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/21/2015 9:43:28 AM, Pase66 wrote:
I think that I.D. should not be taught in the science classroom as a competing theory to evolution. What are all your peoples opinions?

I agree. Unless it gains a significant following in the scientific community, I don't think any time should be spent on it. It's a fringe theory at best, and it seems like a waste of time to go over fringe theory at the highschool level.

Many scientist believe in intelligent design. There is a significant following.

What would you say is the percentage of biologists who subscribe to intelligent design?

lol it would be very small. I just said many to sugarcoat it hahaha : :

Only the open-minded biologists would believe that an intelligent design took place in creation.

Not necessarily. There are close-minded biologists who believe in ID as well, like the religious ones.
E2D2
Posts: 156
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 11:52:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 11:43:59 PM, Defro wrote:
At 6/21/2015 11:42:28 PM, E2D2 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 10:40:58 PM, Defro wrote:
At 6/21/2015 11:46:27 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/21/2015 11:31:24 AM, Defro wrote:
At 6/21/2015 9:52:45 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/21/2015 9:43:28 AM, Pase66 wrote:
I think that I.D. should not be taught in the science classroom as a competing theory to evolution. What are all your peoples opinions?

I agree. Unless it gains a significant following in the scientific community, I don't think any time should be spent on it. It's a fringe theory at best, and it seems like a waste of time to go over fringe theory at the highschool level.

Many scientist believe in intelligent design. There is a significant following.

What would you say is the percentage of biologists who subscribe to intelligent design?

lol it would be very small. I just said many to sugarcoat it hahaha : :

Only the open-minded biologists would believe that an intelligent design took place in creation.

Not necessarily. There are close-minded biologists who believe in ID as well, like the religious ones. : :

Someone who becomes a biologist believing that God created everything won't need to accept any other point of view. An atheist who becomes a biologist and sees these patterns may accept that creation is designed by a creator.

You don't believe in God so you would have to become a biologist to understand what they experience.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 2:12:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 9:43:28 AM, Pase66 wrote:
I think that I.D. should not be taught in the science classroom as a competing theory to evolution. What are all your peoples opinions?

Only if we can teach the intelligent movement of objects as a competing theory to gravity.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 3:05:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 9:43:28 AM, Pase66 wrote:
I think that I.D. should not be taught in the science classroom as a competing theory to evolution. What are all your peoples opinions?

It is not a theory; nor a legitimate scientific hypothesis; nor a useful scientific conjecture.

Therefore it is not science, and has no place in a science class beyond background social context.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 9:38:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 10:33:10 PM, Defro wrote:
At 6/21/2015 11:44:39 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

It's called "Punctuated Equilibrium" and is not a competing theory to evolution. It simply states that a lot of evolutionary change can take place is short period of time.

You're right it's called punctuated equilibrium. I took the course years ago and I forgot. Please don't blame my teacher.

This is not a problem for evolution at all and can be easily demonstrated by a large population of a particular species, through some environmental change, separates a group from the larger population whereupon it undergoes faster evolutionary changes than that of the larger group in a shorter period of time.


That's called speciation I think. The fossil record heavily supports evolution. But one problem is that if evolution were to be true, we would find a buttload more transitional species. But there aren't a lot of transitional species found. Many evolutionist claim that this we've simply had bad luck finding them because finding fossils are hard, which might be true.

Let me correct you on one thing. All species are transitional. Evolution doesn't happen in steps like a digital signal, It's ongoing with minor changes happening all the time. Most of those changes are irrelevant or don't survive long but those that are advantageous survive and help the species. EVERY fossil found is in transition. As for bad luck, it's a small miracle that we've found any at all considering the time between when these creatures died and now. It take a very specific set of circumstances for bones to fossilize and those circumstances don't occur often. If you actually took a biology course that studied this you'd be aware of that.

Yes, that is speciation which is a direct result of evolution, a population adapting to its environment over long periods of time. Let me ask you something. Why do we have fingernails and toenails?

However, there are some who became skeptical of evolution, and developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which explains why there is is not many transitional fossils.

The theory of evolution believes that it takes millions of generations for a new secies to evolve. If it takes so long, the there should be an abundance of transitional forms in the fossil record, but there isn't. Punctuated equilibrium doesn't need transitional species because it claims that instead of a million generations, it only takes a few generations, which is so fast, there wouldn't be a transitional species.

I'm basing this off memory so pls correct me if I'm wrong :)

And, please do continue bringing up these alleged flaws for evolution.

I just brought up one of them. Lack of transitional species.

Invalid argument as pointed out above.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 9:49:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 10:33:10 PM, Defro wrote:
At 6/21/2015 11:44:39 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

It's called "Punctuated Equilibrium" and is not a competing theory to evolution. It simply states that a lot of evolutionary change can take place is short period of time.

You're right it's called punctuated equilibrium. I took the course years ago and I forgot. Please don't blame my teacher.

This is not a problem for evolution at all and can be easily demonstrated by a large population of a particular species, through some environmental change, separates a group from the larger population whereupon it undergoes faster evolutionary changes than that of the larger group in a shorter period of time.


That's called speciation I think. The fossil record heavily supports evolution. But one problem is that if evolution were to be true, we would find a buttload more transitional species. But there aren't a lot of transitional species found. Many evolutionist claim that this we've simply had bad luck finding them because finding fossils are hard, which might be true.

However, there are some who became skeptical of evolution, and developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which explains why there is is not many transitional fossils.

The theory of evolution believes that it takes millions of generations for a new secies to evolve. If it takes so long, the there should be an abundance of transitional forms in the fossil record, but there isn't. Punctuated equilibrium doesn't need transitional species because it claims that instead of a million generations, it only takes a few generations, which is so fast, there wouldn't be a transitional species.

I'm basing this off memory so pls correct me if I'm wrong :)

And, please do continue bringing up these alleged flaws for evolution.

I just brought up one of them. Lack of transitional species.

LOL. That's it? That's your argument? Not enough transitional fossils?

Dude, evolution can be shown to be a fact with or without the fossil record, Perhaps, you need to learn something about evolution, which clearly your useless half-witted teacher didn't teach you.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Defro
Posts: 847
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 9:57:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 9:38:41 AM, dhardage wrote:

Let me correct you on one thing. All species are transitional. Evolution doesn't happen in steps like a digital signal, It's ongoing with minor changes happening all the time. Most of those changes are irrelevant or don't survive long but those that are advantageous survive and help the species. EVERY fossil found is in transition.

Yes, every fossil found is in transition. I'm aware of that. What's your point?
I'm simply trying to explain that one of the flaws critics like to point out in the theory of evolution is the LACK of transitional fossils that we SHOULD HAVE AN ABUNDANCE of. Say Species A evolved into Species C, and we've found the fossils of both these species. If the theory of evolution is true, we should also have found Species B. That is the flaw that critics like to point out.

As for bad luck, it's a small miracle that we've found any at all considering the time between when these creatures died and now.

If we found fossils of Species A and then its decedent Species C, the fossils of A would be found in layers of rock deeper than Species C, because they were buried first. Therefore, we should easily be able to find Species B in between the layers in which we found A and C.

It take a very specific set of circumstances for bones to fossilize and those circumstances don't occur often. If you actually took a biology course that studied this you'd be aware of that.

I am fully aware of that. But even putting those under consideration, we should still be able to find more transitional fossils, assuming evolution takes millions of years.

I fully believe in Evolution btw. I'm just trying to put myself in other people's shoes.
Defro
Posts: 847
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 9:59:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 9:38:41 AM, dhardage wrote:

Let me correct you on one thing. All species are transitional. Evolution doesn't happen in steps like a digital signal, It's ongoing with minor changes happening all the time. Most of those changes are irrelevant or don't survive long but those that are advantageous survive and help the species. EVERY fossil found is in transition.

Yes, every fossil found is in transition. I'm aware of that. What's your point?
I'm simply trying to explain that one of the flaws critics like to point out in the theory of evolution is the LACK of transitional fossils that we SHOULD HAVE AN ABUNDANCE of. Say Species A evolved into Species C, and we've found the fossils of both these species. If the theory of evolution is true, we should also have found Species B. That is the flaw that critics like to point out.

As for bad luck, it's a small miracle that we've found any at all considering the time between when these creatures died and now.

If we found fossils of Species A and then its decedent Species C, the fossils of A would be found in layers of rock deeper than Species C, because they were buried first. Therefore, we should easily be able to find Species B in between the layers in which we found A and C.

It take a very specific set of circumstances for bones to fossilize and those circumstances don't occur often. If you actually took a biology course that studied this you'd be aware of that.

I am fully aware of that. But even putting those under consideration, we should still be able to find more transitional fossils, assuming evolution takes millions of years.

I fully believe in Evolution by the way. I'm just trying to put myself in other people's shoes.