<p>Let's get this party started, shall we? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>but who designed the designer?</p>
<p>I believe the world and everything in it was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.</p>
<p>//sarcasm</p>
<p>Back it up with SCIENCE and THEN you can teach it in the public schools. Same goes with life beginning at the moment of conception. Violation of the first amendment otherwise, IMHO.</p>
<p>But nothing in science is fact or proven and is just as plausible as there being a god. There is nothing in Science that can be taken for the truth, and nothing can ever prove god's existence or non-existence, so they are equal and should defiantly both be taught.</p>
<p>
[quote]
nothing can ever prove god's existence or non-existence
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's why it isn't science. There's evidence for Evolution.</p>
<p>The sciene behind the origin of life is not empirical they can not back origin up with science. even with the miller-urie experiement it was not under the conditions of the earth at the time life would have begun.
It is easy to prove life begins at conception, when the egg is fertilized it has a nuclues and has the process of replicaation capability. Which means the cells is alive.</p>
<p>Ppl should understand the dichtomoy that Christianity really has with the evolution thing. Many ppl who do not believe in THE LORD use evolution to equate to abiogensis and then say that there is proof. Proof for evolution, yes. Abiogensis, no.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But nothing in science is fact or proven and is just as plausible as there being a god. There is nothing in Science that can be taken for the truth, and nothing can ever prove god's existence or non-existence, so they are equal and should defiantly[sic?] both be taught.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So everything that isn't 100% verifiable fact should be presented on the same footing? So if I say that a cosmic, gigantic elephant took a shit in the form of the earth, that should be taught in science classes? Hey, you can't prove that it didn't happen, you weren't there. Let's rewrite the textbooks!</p>
<p>Science has a process known as the scientific method, ever heard of it? Once creationism makes it through peer-review into a respectable journal, then you could make an argument that it should be taught. Otherwise it's not science, it's faith, and it has no place in a science classroom.</p>
<p>re: "dichtomoy that Christianity really has with the evolution" 'thing'
Wrong!</p>
<p>"In an 22 October 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the Church's openness to the theory of evolution:</p>
<pre><code>"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies -- which was neither planned nor sought -- constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory." (John Paul II, Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution)"
</code></pre>
<p>EXACTLY. That means the conflict is not with evolution, but with abiogensis. That is what I was saying. If we changed over time okay, ppl who believe that can also believe that GOD created us. The problem is abiogensis, not with evolution.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's why it isn't science. There's evidence for Evolution.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>evidence doesn't make something fact, there is evidence for religions also. Depends on what one believes, but neither can ever be know as fact.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So everything that isn't 100% verifiable fact should be presented on the same footing? So if I say that a cosmic, gigantic elephant took a **** in the form of the earth, that should be taught in science classes? Hey, you can't prove that it didn't happen, you weren't there. Let's rewrite the textbooks!</p>
<p>Science has a process known as the scientific method, ever heard of it? Once creationism makes it through peer-review into a respectable journal, then you could make an argument that it should be taught. Otherwise it's not science, it's faith, and it has no place in a science classroom.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>well nothing is a verifiable fact. I could ask you, are you 100% sure you just typed that message, but if you are a rational person, you would know that its possible that such never occurred, just like its possible I am not typing this message right now. I may not even be alive, I could be a mind in a vat. Nobody knows and thus there is no such thing as fact, the only fact in life is that there is no facts. </p>
<p>I see nothing wrong with the idea of a elephant, as long as they train students to be rational decision makers. Students should make up their own mind, not forced into one view.</p>
<p>I am a Engineer, I am very well versed in science and math but that doesn't mean I take it as fact and yeah I am versed in the scientific method. The scientific method is incredibly flawed and is limited by the mind of humans. The scientific method can only produce another "maybe", but none of it is fact and no scientist would consider any of their work or any other portion of science to be fact. Just as no human can state existence is fact, no human can say science is fact and no human can say god is fake or real. Science could be a incredible bluff, or the truth. God could be a bluff or the truth equally as much as science, and nobody knows. </p>
<p>Respectable journals are again made by humans, and we tend to flatter ourselves with what we can do, rather than what we cant or know we cant. It will never occur in the history of man, the time when science can disprove god. </p>
<p>Again The existence of God is equally as likely as the fact that Science is true. Its foolish to only teach one way, when it is as likely that the one being taught is just as unlikely as the one not. Teaching pure creationism is is just as truthful as just teaching pure evolution or evidentiary science. So why not enhance students minds with the full picture, instead if protecting them from making a decision on their own.</p>
<p>Guys, topics relating to religion, intelligent design, or evolution are annoying and overused. Seriously, use the search function and you'll come across at least 250 threads relating to these topics. It's like listening to the same, crappy song over and over again. It gets boring.</p>
<p><a href="%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060926862-post6.html%5D#6%5B/url%5D">quote</a> But nothing in science is fact or proven and is just as plausible as there being a god. There is nothing in Science that can be taken for the truth, and nothing can ever prove god's existence or non-existence, so they are equal and should defiantly both be taught...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The cognitive dissonance of the anti-science crowd is amusing. They use the very fruits of science (electricity, programmatic logic, the Internet, computers, etc.) to attack science's contributions to the question of the origin of life via a natural (not super-natrual) process.</p>
<p>The individual asserting an 'intelligent designer' has the responsibility of making the case. Saying it alone does not make it so.</p>
<p>Actually StitchinTime Dr. horse is right. Scienctific theories are only legitmate until they are proved false. If tommorow someone proved that gravity did not exist, then the law of gravity would eventually be tossed. One of the main facets of research is that everything is challengable. Remember when the earth being flat was a fact, it is the same thing, it is true until proven false.</p>
<p>Gravity and evolution are observable (yes, observable) phenomena. They are not theories. The theory of gravity and the theory of evolution are the best attempts at explanations as to why the two occur. No one can prove "gravity" doesn't exist.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Again The existence of God is equally as likely as the fact that Science is true. Its foolish to only teach one way, when it is as likely that the one being taught is just as unlikely as the one not. Teaching pure creationism is is just as truthful as just teaching pure evolution or evidentiary science. So why not enhance students minds with the full picture, instead if protecting them from making a decision on their own.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes! Which is why my Flying Spaghetti Monster theory is just as valid as evolution or creationism, and deserves equal time and attention in the classroom. In fact, not to teach it would be to defraud students of their right to choose a belief. I demand intellectual justice!</p>
<p>
[quote]
the only fact in life is that there is no facts.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>MAJOR internal contradiction.</p>
<p>^^^Well then push to get the flying spaghetti monster taught in schools, this thread has nothing to do with you believing in a spaghetti monster. Go somewhere else.</p>
<p>You really don't get what he's trying to say?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Gravity and evolution are observable (yes, observable) phenomena. They are not theories. The theory of gravity and the theory of evolution are the best attempts at explanations as to why the two occur. No one can prove "gravity" doesn't exist.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First off, Gravity is not as well developed a thought as other scientific theories(Does it span a multiverse?, why is it so weak?, etc). Huge dilemmas are occurring right now in the physics community over it. The Newtonian solution while viable is getting to be further from the usable precived scientific truth daily, in exchange for results found in modern physics. Gravitation is a theory, as it cant be proven and it is considered a natural phenomenon, which pretty much means its mechanics are considered a extraordinary event, understood by people. At least this is what my Physics text says. Still like all Science, it is never considered fact, for good reason. The non science folks tend to consider science fact whereas scientists never do. </p>
<p>Evolution is and always has been said to be the "theory of evolution". Again there is good reason for such. I have many friends in grad school whom study biology, computational biology, medicine, dentistry, etc. While they all have their own views, Ive never met one that takes science to be fact, including evolution. </p>
<p>Well they could explain that gravity does not exist, as you could never prove it does. If they were to use your reasoning you would only base your choice on experience rather than the rational possibilities.</p>
<p>If you choose to go by experience one could say Everything and its complexity is proof of creationism and thus Gods existence, including evolution and gravity. Nobody knows for sure and again according to religions there were divine events on earth, so somebody saw them, just as one sees the result of gravity and evolution. Thus again they are equally plausible. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes! Which is why my Flying Spaghetti Monster theory is just as valid as evolution or creationism, and deserves equal time and attention in the classroom. In fact, not to teach it would be to defraud students of their right to choose a belief. I demand intellectual justice!</p>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree. Students should know its a possibility, it could have been mutant turtles. Who knows.</p>
<p>
[quote]
MAJOR internal contradiction.
[/quote]
<br>
It was put their purposely. Again nothing is fact and me saying there is no facts, is well not a fact in itself. Just like people say. People should live their lives in moderation, well one should then also moderate moderation.</p>