Who here believes in intelligent design and believes that it should be taught to kids

[niloroth]

Originally Posted by AJax

First off, the wording of your message seemed to indicate that you had watched it because you said "in the end"...you were replying TO the message I posted saying "check out this debate", so it sounded to me like you are claiming you watched it.

The bottom line is, you have a preconceived notion that ID is nonsense. By your unwillingness to look at the arguments from both sides (in this case it is a debate represented BY two experts of both sides, who get a chance to dissect, to some degree, eachother's viewpoints), your attitude is comparable to the people of Galileo's day, who ignored what Galileo discovered and stuck to their preconceived ideas.

So you agree that phrenology should be taught in school?

[adren@line]

ID is nonsense, because it is based on the assumption that some imaginary God did the designing. This is no more credible than stating that the tooth fairy designed the universe, or Gandolf from Lord of the Rings.

The very premise of ID is flawed and illogical. All it does is introduce another variable and doesn't solve anything. It is also based on dualistic interpretation of reality and linear time, neither of which are absolutes.

Anyone remotely familiar with philosophy, logic, and science will see that ID is nonsensical.

[chardog]

ID should stay in philosophy classes. Evolution.... I dont see the big backing other than it being a religion for atheists. The theory is just that... a theory, untested. The more we see how complex dna is, the more we see that science about our world is way above our heads. We cant even predict the weather, yet we agree how we come to be?

Evolution is our only explanation to the unexplained.



"Darwin is liked by evolutionists because he liberated science from the straitjacket of observation and opened the door to storytellers. This gave professional evolutionists job security so they can wander through biology labs as if they belong there."

[adren@line]

You dont know what you are talking about.

Evolution is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory. The idea that the human body is made-up of cells is also a theory. There is also plate-tectonic theory.

So is gravity a religion also? How about belief that earthquakes are caused by plates?

A scientific "theory" is in no way, shape, or form the same as some religious myth. String theory, which is based on the complex math of physics, is not the same as a beleiving that one gets 72 virgins when they die. One is based on complex mathematics the other on hallucinations and dogma.

Evolution is based on solid science, observations in nature, and logic. Most religions are based on unfounded premises and illogical myths. Not the same thing.

[B-DAWG]

Originally Posted by adren@line

You dont know what you are talking about.

Evolution is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory. The idea that the human body is made-up of cells is also a theory. There is also plate-tectonic theory.

So is gravity a religion also? How about belief that earthquakes are caused by plates?

A scientific "theory" is in no way, shape, or form the same as some religious myth. String theory, which is based on the complex math of physics, is not the same as a beleiving that one gets 72 virgins when they die. One is based on complex mathematics the other on hallucinations and dogma.

Evolution is based on solid science, observations in nature, and logic. Most religions are based on unfounded premises and illogical myths. Not the same thing.

Wait a minute man, that makes entirely too much sense.

Religious folks will probably still be too stupid to see the difference here.

[whiskeyyy]

Originally Posted by chardog

Evolution.... I dont see the big backing other than it being a religion for atheists.

It's funny when morons try to project their own dogmatism onto science. No, it is absolutely nothing like a religion for atheists you dolt.

[wohs145**]

Teach the leading theory and also illustrate the major problems run intp with each theory. List a short paragraph at the end of the chapter on alternate theories and provide a creative thinking question in the chapter review asking, "what do you think?"

[wohs145**]

Originally Posted by adren@line

A scientific "theory" is in no way, shape, or form the same as some religious myth. String theory, which is based on the complex math of physics, is not the same as a beleiving that one gets 72 virgins when they die. One is based on complex mathematics the other on hallucinations and dogma.

Like religion, String Theory also ignores alot of its own problems and is simply an ad hoc idea that has largely been discredited that was created just to allow people to more easily beleive what theyve already decided they want to beleive.

[AJax]

Originally Posted by niloroth

So you agree that phrenology should be taught in school?

Why would I say that when I didn't even say that ID should be taught in schools? I'm up in the air about whether ID should be taught in schools, but I DO think that the negative evidence of evolution should be allowed to be taught in addition to the positive.

That being said, if phrenology did have some real concrete scientific evidence that it is true, then I would absolutely at least consider it.

You seem to be on an entirely different level, because you aren't willing to consider that there even could be evidence that ID has merit. In this topic, I thrive on reading material from both ID promoters AND its proponents. You seem to have established that you aren't willing to read the other side, as is shown by your unwillingness to consider even watching a youtube video. I'd invite you to do so (not just the youtube video but other material as well), as you will find out some things you never knew. I have personally done this and have found it very enlightening.

[MicroBrew]

Hey look at this, a 'flying' / gliding fish.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Fast flying fish glides by ferry