| Users Online Now: 2,299 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 1,843,389 | |
| Pageviews Today: 2,552,833 | Threads Today: 624 | Posts Today: 11,855 |
| 07:39 PM | ||
| Users Online Now: 2,299 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 1,843,389 | |
| Pageviews Today: 2,552,833 | Threads Today: 624 | Posts Today: 11,855 |
| 07:39 PM | ||
I see no reason why 'intelligent design' should not be taught in schools alongside 'evolution' | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 72537621  Australia09/04/2016 03:06 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | That would never happen. It would require students to think critically and to compare the 2 theories and come up with their own conclusions... Quoting: DuckNCover If that would ever happen, it would destroy the NWO plan of subjugation. Students might realize that intelligent design is the creation and evolution is the process within a species.... There are hundreds of religions with explanations for existence. If you include one, you've got to include them all. What do you think the result would be? There already is one religion being taught in schools today, the materialistic worldview of science. It bears the hallmark of a cult that does not tolerate any deviations from its basic doctrine, that matter is all there is. OP raises a very good question. Everything about life literally screams intelligent design and yet science does all it can to convince us that it all is just a series of randomly happening chemical processes knocked into course by mutations but cannot even explain let alone prove how life began. Intelligent design is NOT the same as religion, religions can be totally left out of the equation. They are just man's attempts through time at explaining things, just as science is trying to do. We have no idea who or what created this all, but the materialistic scientific doctrine is definitely not the last word on that. Evolutionary biologists never assert that evolution is random. It is governed by the laws of the universe, and by the selective pressures of the environment. Intelligence is something an animal possesses to navigate an environment in order to acquire information and protect its survival. Why would the universal laws require intelligence? The universal laws created intelligence, but being eternal, would have no need for this human trait. Humans have wisdom teeth that cause us problems, we have an appendix that sometimes bursts and kills us, we have a single passage for air and food which allows us to choke. These things, like many others in nature don't seem like the product of intelligence, but the product of gradual development through a natural selection of incremental changes. |
Delight&Delirium  User ID: 49222693 Australia09/04/2016 03:14 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Expose NASA Shills User ID: 24296326  United States09/04/2016 03:20 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | That would never happen. It would require students to think critically and to compare the 2 theories and come up with their own conclusions... Quoting: DuckNCover If that would ever happen, it would destroy the NWO plan of subjugation. Students might realize that intelligent design is the creation and evolution is the process within a species.... There are hundreds of religions with explanations for existence. If you include one, you've got to include them all. What do you think the result would be? There already is one religion being taught in schools today, the materialistic worldview of science. It bears the hallmark of a cult that does not tolerate any deviations from its basic doctrine, that matter is all there is. OP raises a very good question. Everything about life literally screams intelligent design and yet science does all it can to convince us that it all is just a series of randomly happening chemical processes knocked into course by mutations but cannot even explain let alone prove how life began. Intelligent design is NOT the same as religion, religions can be totally left out of the equation. They are just man's attempts through time at explaining things, just as science is trying to do. We have no idea who or what created this all, but the materialistic scientific doctrine is definitely not the last word on that. Evolutionary biologists never assert that evolution is random. It is governed by the laws of the universe, and by the selective pressures of the environment. Intelligence is something an animal possesses to navigate an environment in order to acquire information and protect its survival. Why would the universal laws require intelligence? The universal laws created intelligence, but being eternal, would have no need for this human trait. Humans have wisdom teeth that cause us problems, we have an appendix that sometimes bursts and kills us, we have a single passage for air and food which allows us to choke. These things, like many others in nature don't seem like the product of intelligence, but the product of gradual development through a natural selection of incremental changes. What 'laws' do you speak of? The laws of thermodynamics? Evolution runs completely contrary to those laws of physics, and has no explanation for logic or morality either. live and die for Christ |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 72537621 Australia09/04/2016 03:27 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 72422075 There are hundreds of religions with explanations for existence. If you include one, you've got to include them all. What do you think the result would be? There already is one religion being taught in schools today, the materialistic worldview of science. It bears the hallmark of a cult that does not tolerate any deviations from its basic doctrine, that matter is all there is. OP raises a very good question. Everything about life literally screams intelligent design and yet science does all it can to convince us that it all is just a series of randomly happening chemical processes knocked into course by mutations but cannot even explain let alone prove how life began. Intelligent design is NOT the same as religion, religions can be totally left out of the equation. They are just man's attempts through time at explaining things, just as science is trying to do. We have no idea who or what created this all, but the materialistic scientific doctrine is definitely not the last word on that. Evolutionary biologists never assert that evolution is random. It is governed by the laws of the universe, and by the selective pressures of the environment. Intelligence is something an animal possesses to navigate an environment in order to acquire information and protect its survival. Why would the universal laws require intelligence? The universal laws created intelligence, but being eternal, would have no need for this human trait. Humans have wisdom teeth that cause us problems, we have an appendix that sometimes bursts and kills us, we have a single passage for air and food which allows us to choke. These things, like many others in nature don't seem like the product of intelligence, but the product of gradual development through a natural selection of incremental changes. What 'laws' do you speak of? The laws of thermodynamics? Evolution runs completely contrary to those laws of physics, and has no explanation for logic or morality either. Evolution does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. Do you really think it would be accepted by the majority of scientists if that were the case? Why do you think evolution can't explain logic or morality? If they provide a survival advantage, then why wouldn't they evolve? |
| Expose NASA Shills User ID: 24296326 United States09/04/2016 03:35 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 42716953 There already is one religion being taught in schools today, the materialistic worldview of science. It bears the hallmark of a cult that does not tolerate any deviations from its basic doctrine, that matter is all there is. OP raises a very good question. Everything about life literally screams intelligent design and yet science does all it can to convince us that it all is just a series of randomly happening chemical processes knocked into course by mutations but cannot even explain let alone prove how life began. Intelligent design is NOT the same as religion, religions can be totally left out of the equation. They are just man's attempts through time at explaining things, just as science is trying to do. We have no idea who or what created this all, but the materialistic scientific doctrine is definitely not the last word on that. Evolutionary biologists never assert that evolution is random. It is governed by the laws of the universe, and by the selective pressures of the environment. Intelligence is something an animal possesses to navigate an environment in order to acquire information and protect its survival. Why would the universal laws require intelligence? The universal laws created intelligence, but being eternal, would have no need for this human trait. Humans have wisdom teeth that cause us problems, we have an appendix that sometimes bursts and kills us, we have a single passage for air and food which allows us to choke. These things, like many others in nature don't seem like the product of intelligence, but the product of gradual development through a natural selection of incremental changes. What 'laws' do you speak of? The laws of thermodynamics? Evolution runs completely contrary to those laws of physics, and has no explanation for logic or morality either. Evolution does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. Do you really think it would be accepted by the majority of scientists if that were the case? Why do you think evolution can't explain logic or morality? If they provide a survival advantage, then why wouldn't they evolve? Argumentum ad populum Where do you think your logic comes from? live and die for Christ |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 72537621 Australia09/04/2016 03:53 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 72537621 Evolutionary biologists never assert that evolution is random. It is governed by the laws of the universe, and by the selective pressures of the environment. Intelligence is something an animal possesses to navigate an environment in order to acquire information and protect its survival. Why would the universal laws require intelligence? The universal laws created intelligence, but being eternal, would have no need for this human trait. Humans have wisdom teeth that cause us problems, we have an appendix that sometimes bursts and kills us, we have a single passage for air and food which allows us to choke. These things, like many others in nature don't seem like the product of intelligence, but the product of gradual development through a natural selection of incremental changes. What 'laws' do you speak of? The laws of thermodynamics? Evolution runs completely contrary to those laws of physics, and has no explanation for logic or morality either. Evolution does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. Do you really think it would be accepted by the majority of scientists if that were the case? Why do you think evolution can't explain logic or morality? If they provide a survival advantage, then why wouldn't they evolve? Argumentum ad populum Where do you think your logic comes from? My brain I guess. I'm not saying that evolution doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics because most scientists accept it, I'm just asking you if you think that fact has alluded the majority of scientists. Why do you think that evolution is contrary to thermodynamics? |
| Expose NASA Shills User ID: 24296326 United States09/04/2016 02:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Expose NASA Shills What 'laws' do you speak of? The laws of thermodynamics? Evolution runs completely contrary to those laws of physics, and has no explanation for logic or morality either. Evolution does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. Do you really think it would be accepted by the majority of scientists if that were the case? Why do you think evolution can't explain logic or morality? If they provide a survival advantage, then why wouldn't they evolve? Argumentum ad populum Where do you think your logic comes from? My brain I guess. I'm not saying that evolution doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics because most scientists accept it, I'm just asking you if you think that fact has alluded the majority of scientists. Why do you think that evolution is contrary to thermodynamics? When you say the 'majority of scientists', you mean the ones who get the government grants, not the creationists. You do not hear about the creationists, because they have been slowly put into an intellectual Siberia since the late 60s. They work in privately funded institutions and do not get public tax dollars. The first law of thermodynamics, aka conservation of energy, is violated by the big bang. Everything cannot come from nothing. The second law states that everything tends to disorder. Evolution needs the opposite, it needs everything to somehow become ordered from a state of disorder and nothingness. People will come back and say these laws only apply to closed systems, but that closed system is our observable universe. Hence the word, 'law'. There are laws of logic which exist, like the law of non-contradiction, and these laws did not arise within our brain, they are not made by brain chemicals. The law of non-contradiction applies to everything in our observable universe. live and die for Christ |
| Boes User ID: 72078454  Netherlands09/04/2016 02:31 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 72537621 Australia09/04/2016 05:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 72537621 Evolution does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. Do you really think it would be accepted by the majority of scientists if that were the case? Why do you think evolution can't explain logic or morality? If they provide a survival advantage, then why wouldn't they evolve? Argumentum ad populum Where do you think your logic comes from? My brain I guess. I'm not saying that evolution doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics because most scientists accept it, I'm just asking you if you think that fact has alluded the majority of scientists. Why do you think that evolution is contrary to thermodynamics? When you say the 'majority of scientists', you mean the ones who get the government grants, not the creationists. You do not hear about the creationists, because they have been slowly put into an intellectual Siberia since the late 60s. They work in privately funded institutions and do not get public tax dollars. The first law of thermodynamics, aka conservation of energy, is violated by the big bang. Everything cannot come from nothing. The second law states that everything tends to disorder. Evolution needs the opposite, it needs everything to somehow become ordered from a state of disorder and nothingness. People will come back and say these laws only apply to closed systems, but that closed system is our observable universe. Hence the word, 'law'. There are laws of logic which exist, like the law of non-contradiction, and these laws did not arise within our brain, they are not made by brain chemicals. The law of non-contradiction applies to everything in our observable universe. The majority of scientists are not Creationists, so when I say majority of scientists I mean it in the literal sense. The Big bang is not part of Evolution so I won't bother addressing that part of your argument, and you completely butchered the second law, which is not violated by wolves becoming dogs, just as it is not violated by evolution in a natural setting. I understand the law of non contradiction. You asked where MY logic comes from, not the logical laws and absolutes. It was a simplistic question so I gave you a simplistic answer. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 72789170  Belgium09/04/2016 07:32 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | My brain I guess. I'm not saying that evolution doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics because most scientists accept it, I'm just asking you if you think that fact has alluded the majority of scientists. Why do you think that evolution is contrary to thermodynamics? When you say the 'majority of scientists', you mean the ones who get the government grants, not the creationists. You do not hear about the creationists, because they have been slowly put into an intellectual Siberia since the late 60s. They work in privately funded institutions and do not get public tax dollars. The first law of thermodynamics, aka conservation of energy, is violated by the big bang. Everything cannot come from nothing. The second law states that everything tends to disorder. Evolution needs the opposite, it needs everything to somehow become ordered from a state of disorder and nothingness. People will come back and say these laws only apply to closed systems, but that closed system is our observable universe. Hence the word, 'law'. There are laws of logic which exist, like the law of non-contradiction, and these laws did not arise within our brain, they are not made by brain chemicals. The law of non-contradiction applies to everything in our observable universe. The majority of scientists are not Creationists, so when I say majority of scientists I mean it in the literal sense. The Big bang is not part of Evolution so I won't bother addressing that part of your argument, and you completely butchered the second law, which is not violated by wolves becoming dogs, just as it is not violated by evolution in a natural setting. I understand the law of non contradiction. You asked where MY logic comes from, not the logical laws and absolutes. It was a simplistic question so I gave you a simplistic answer. Can evolution theory work without 'the big bang'? Is the theory of relativity part of evolution theory? If you can't be bothered to address an argument, why are you replying? |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 72537621 Australia09/05/2016 01:01 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 72537621 My brain I guess. I'm not saying that evolution doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics because most scientists accept it, I'm just asking you if you think that fact has alluded the majority of scientists. Why do you think that evolution is contrary to thermodynamics? When you say the 'majority of scientists', you mean the ones who get the government grants, not the creationists. You do not hear about the creationists, because they have been slowly put into an intellectual Siberia since the late 60s. They work in privately funded institutions and do not get public tax dollars. The first law of thermodynamics, aka conservation of energy, is violated by the big bang. Everything cannot come from nothing. The second law states that everything tends to disorder. Evolution needs the opposite, it needs everything to somehow become ordered from a state of disorder and nothingness. People will come back and say these laws only apply to closed systems, but that closed system is our observable universe. Hence the word, 'law'. There are laws of logic which exist, like the law of non-contradiction, and these laws did not arise within our brain, they are not made by brain chemicals. The law of non-contradiction applies to everything in our observable universe. The majority of scientists are not Creationists, so when I say majority of scientists I mean it in the literal sense. The Big bang is not part of Evolution so I won't bother addressing that part of your argument, and you completely butchered the second law, which is not violated by wolves becoming dogs, just as it is not violated by evolution in a natural setting. I understand the law of non contradiction. You asked where MY logic comes from, not the logical laws and absolutes. It was a simplistic question so I gave you a simplistic answer. Can evolution theory work without 'the big bang'? Is the theory of relativity part of evolution theory? If you can't be bothered to address an argument, why are you replying? Yes, evolution theory can absolutely work without the big bang. In fact, the big bang theory was proposed by a catholic priest more than 50 years AFTER 'the origin of species' was written. Evolution deals with biology. More specifically, evolution is change of gene frequency within a breeding population over successive generations. The process itself is observable. Even if the big bang was disproved tomorrow, it would have no impact what so ever on evolution theory. I shit you not. No, the theory of relativity deals with physics, it's not part of evolution theory. The topic of this forum is evolution, I didn't want to let you take me on a tangent about big bang cosmology. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 72789170 Belgium09/05/2016 05:05 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Expose NASA Shills When you say the 'majority of scientists', you mean the ones who get the government grants, not the creationists. You do not hear about the creationists, because they have been slowly put into an intellectual Siberia since the late 60s. They work in privately funded institutions and do not get public tax dollars. The first law of thermodynamics, aka conservation of energy, is violated by the big bang. Everything cannot come from nothing. The second law states that everything tends to disorder. Evolution needs the opposite, it needs everything to somehow become ordered from a state of disorder and nothingness. People will come back and say these laws only apply to closed systems, but that closed system is our observable universe. Hence the word, 'law'. There are laws of logic which exist, like the law of non-contradiction, and these laws did not arise within our brain, they are not made by brain chemicals. The law of non-contradiction applies to everything in our observable universe. The majority of scientists are not Creationists, so when I say majority of scientists I mean it in the literal sense. The Big bang is not part of Evolution so I won't bother addressing that part of your argument, and you completely butchered the second law, which is not violated by wolves becoming dogs, just as it is not violated by evolution in a natural setting. I understand the law of non contradiction. You asked where MY logic comes from, not the logical laws and absolutes. It was a simplistic question so I gave you a simplistic answer. Can evolution theory work without 'the big bang'? Is the theory of relativity part of evolution theory? If you can't be bothered to address an argument, why are you replying? Yes, evolution theory can absolutely work without the big bang. In fact, the big bang theory was proposed by a catholic priest more than 50 years AFTER 'the origin of species' was written. Evolution deals with biology. More specifically, evolution is change of gene frequency within a breeding population over successive generations. The process itself is observable. Even if the big bang was disproved tomorrow, it would have no impact what so ever on evolution theory. I shit you not. No, the theory of relativity deals with physics, it's not part of evolution theory. The topic of this forum is evolution, I didn't want to let you take me on a tangent about big bang cosmology. I see now. I always had this feeling you were very smart. |
