Amarillo College nixes intelligent de...

Amarillo College nixes intelligent design class

There are 284 comments on the World Magazine story from Dec 23, 2013, titled Amarillo College nixes intelligent design class. In it, World Magazine reports that:

In fall 2013, Amarillo College planned to offer a class entitled "Evolution vs. Intelligent Design" as one of its continuing education courses.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at World Magazine.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#145 Dec 28, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Just never get it huh?... <balance of post deleted due to ignorant content>..
We *DO* "get it".

Apparently you do not.

God is a *SUPERNATURAL* concept.

Definition of "supernatural"?

" of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sup...

God, being a SUPERNATURAL agent, is not available for us to study.

Were YOU to bring us evidence of Deity that created the universe, and all that is in it, please provide it.
defender

Mount Vernon, KY

#146 Dec 28, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>We *DO* "get it".

Apparently you do not.

God is a *SUPERNATURAL* concept.

Definition of "supernatural"?

" of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sup...

God, being a SUPERNATURAL agent, is not available for us to study.

Were YOU to bring us evidence of Deity that created the universe, and all that is in it, please provide it.
Any way you slice the pie you are still dealing with the Supernatural ... Science is not providing the answers... Hawking finally gave up and pinned his famous "spontaneous universe" lol...
All the Abiogenesis hypothesis are like turkeys trying to take flight...
And all the mountains of fossils require BS sketch artist to lie the links together... But yeah tell us all about your evidence... Show us a picture of Ida!!!

“No such thing as ABIODARWINISM”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

No ABIODARWINISTS either!

#147 Dec 28, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Any way you slice the pie you are still dealing with the Supernatural ... Science is not providing the answers... Hawking finally gave up and pinned his famous "spontaneous universe" lol...
All the Abiogenesis hypothesis are like turkeys trying to take flight...
And all the mountains of fossils require BS sketch artist to lie the links together... But yeah tell us all about your evidence... Show us a picture of Ida!!!
Ah, thus spake the FLUFFER for biblical literalism. And lo a hush lay upon the basement and Kleenex began to rain down like manna. Skipping the next three gears the Fluffer didst shift his rod into high gear.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#148 Dec 28, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Any way you slice the pie you are still dealing with the Supernatural ... Science is not providing the answers... Hawking finally gave up and pinned his famous "spontaneous universe" lol...
All the Abiogenesis hypothesis are like turkeys trying to take flight...
And all the mountains of fossils require BS sketch artist to lie the links together... But yeah tell us all about your evidence... Show us a picture of Ida!!!
All of this is denial and bull shit.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#149 Dec 28, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Any way you slice the pie you are still dealing with the Supernatural ... Science is not providing the answers... Hawking finally gave up and pinned his famous "spontaneous universe" lol...
All the Abiogenesis hypothesis are like turkeys trying to take flight...
And all the mountains of fossils require BS sketch artist to lie the links together... But yeah tell us all about your evidence... Show us a picture of Ida!!!
Here you go, Skippy. Regarding abiogenesis research. Dated 12/24/13.

( Phys.org )—One of the biggest questions in science is how life arose from the chemical soup that existed on early Earth. One theory is that RNA, a close relative of DNA, was the first genetic molecule to arise around 4 billion years ago, but in a primitive form that later evolved into the RNA and DNA molecules that we have in life today. New research shows one way this chain of events might have started.

<More at>

http://phys.org/news/2013-12-scientists-close...

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#150 Dec 28, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Here you go, Skippy. Regarding abiogenesis research. Dated 12/24/13.
( Phys.org )—One of the biggest questions in science is how life arose from the chemical soup that existed on early Earth. One theory is that RNA, a close relative of DNA, was the first genetic molecule to arise around 4 billion years ago, but in a primitive form that later evolved into the RNA and DNA molecules that we have in life today. New research shows one way this chain of events might have started.
<More at>
http://phys.org/news/2013-12-scientists-close...
That is a good fairytale story of “we thinks”. They mimicked earth like conditions of 4mya. Really? What was the exact composition of the atmosphere back then? What was the exact composition of earth back then? What was the exact composition of the water back then? Was it fresh water or salt water? Was it cold water or hot water? Did the water temperature matter? Did oxygen exist, I guess it had to being there was water, so how much water was there back then? How much oxygen was there back then? Did life arise in a puddle, a pond, a lake, just how much water was needed for life to arise? Did life only arise in one puddle or did it arise in many?

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#151 Dec 28, 2013
They mimicked earth like conditions of 4bya. Really?(not 4mya).

To mimic those condition they would have to know all the above. Kind of like a recipe. If you don't have all the ingredients and/or the right measurement of those ingredients it will not be the same.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#152 Dec 28, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a good fairytale story of “we thinks”. They mimicked earth like conditions of 4mya. Really? What was the exact composition of the atmosphere back then? What was the exact composition of earth back then? What was the exact composition of the water back then? Was it fresh water or salt water? Was it cold water or hot water? Did the water temperature matter? Did oxygen exist, I guess it had to being there was water, so how much water was there back then? How much oxygen was there back then? Did life arise in a puddle, a pond, a lake, just how much water was needed for life to arise? Did life only arise in one puddle or did it arise in many?
There is no satisfying morons.

Poor replaytime will never understand how science is done or how ti helps advance mankind. Yet he is not afraid to profit from it. He is not afraid to be a hypocrite.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#153 Dec 28, 2013
replaytime wrote:
They mimicked earth like conditions of 4bya. Really?(not 4mya).
To mimic those condition they would have to know all the above. Kind of like a recipe. If you don't have all the ingredients and/or the right measurement of those ingredients it will not be the same.
How long is you god's penis?

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#154 Dec 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>There is no satisfying morons.
Poor replaytime will never understand how science is done or how ti helps advance mankind. Yet he is not afraid to profit from it. He is not afraid to be a hypocrite.
To mimic those condition of 4bya they would have to know all that. Kind of like a recipe. If you don't have all the ingredients and/or the right measurement of those ingredients it will not be the same. You just can't add what you want in the amounts you want and say it is the same.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#155 Dec 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>There is no satisfying morons.
Poor replaytime will never understand how science is done or how ti helps advance mankind. Yet he is not afraid to profit from it. He is not afraid to be a hypocrite.
You know as well as I know science has no clue what the answers are to those questions. Just guesses and speculations.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#156 Dec 29, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
You know as well as I know science has no clue what the answers are to those questions. Just guesses and speculations.
Wrong idiot. Some of the questions that you asked show that you are in no position to judge those scientists. You don't even know what was your most foolish question.

The fact is that they have some idea, they don't know exactly what made up the early atmosphere. But the fact that they do not know everything does not mean that they do not know anything,. That is a sin of projection that creationists make all of the time. They know nothing so they assume that others do not know anything either.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#157 Dec 29, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
To mimic those condition of 4bya they would have to know all that. Kind of like a recipe. If you don't have all the ingredients and/or the right measurement of those ingredients it will not be the same. You just can't add what you want in the amounts you want and say it is the same.
Ah, so you are a bad scientist and a bad cook. You are digging yourself deeper with each and every post.

I am going to be but here is a helpful suggestion, Instead of jumping on scientists for things that you do not understand why don't you do a little research first. You could even type the appropriate questions into your browser and it might find articles that help you.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#158 Dec 29, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong idiot. Some of the questions that you asked show that you are in no position to judge those scientists. You don't even know what was your most foolish question.
The fact is that they have some idea, they don't know exactly what made up the early atmosphere. But the fact that they do not know everything does not mean that they do not know anything,. That is a sin of projection that creationists make all of the time. They know nothing so they assume that others do not know anything either.
The fact is you cannot mimic earth conditions 4bya if you don't know exactly how they were.

Similar conditions do not count if they are trying to see how life arose.

“No such thing as ABIODARWINISM”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

No ABIODARWINISTS either!

#159 Dec 29, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong idiot. Some of the questions that you asked show that you are in no position to judge those scientists. You don't even know what was your most foolish question.
The fact is that they have some idea, they don't know exactly what made up the early atmosphere. But the fact that they do not know everything does not mean that they do not know anything,. That is a sin of projection that creationists make all of the time. They know nothing so they assume that others do not know anything either.
I do believe they were trying to mimic the early conditions. They know they aren't going to be able to duplicate everything exactly, but they can use what is known to mimic conditions.

You may be able to confirm this. Don't we know a good deal about ancient atmospheric conditions from geochemistry, trapped air bubbles in ancient ice, core samples and such?

“No such thing as ABIODARWINISM”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

No ABIODARWINISTS either!

#160 Dec 29, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact is you cannot mimic earth conditions 4bya if you don't know exactly how they were.
Similar conditions do not count if they are trying to see how life arose.
You can mimic them. You probably cannot reproduce them exactly. Too mimic is to copy the original. By definition it is not the same as the original.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#161 Dec 29, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I do believe they were trying to mimic the early conditions. They know they aren't going to be able to duplicate everything exactly, but they can use what is known to mimic conditions.
You may be able to confirm this. Don't we know a good deal about ancient atmospheric conditions from geochemistry, trapped air bubbles in ancient ice, core samples and such?
Also we can tell what the atmosphere was like by sedimentary rocks that were deposited at the time. For example iron in the Fe+2 state indicates that there was no appreciable O2 in the atmosphere. I had to laugh at my bitch's question about oxygen being present and then answered it, incorrectly, that there must be oxygen present since there was water. Water is H2O, Oxygen is O2. If you want to ask if an element exists you must ask that question precisely since at the temperature and pressure of the Earth's surface chemistry rules. So we are concerned what chemicals exist, not what elements. A very important difference that nonscientists sometimes do no appreciate.

There are aspects of it that are unknown. But replaytime forgets that a recipe need not be followed precisely to cook a tasty spaghetti and meatballs for example. You can add, substitute or even leave off ingredients at will. Sometimes your creation is worse sometimes it is better.

It is the height of foolishness to claim that we have to know everything to model the Early earth. As long as we get "close enough" that is all that matters.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#162 Dec 29, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact is you cannot mimic earth conditions 4bya if you don't know exactly how they were.
Similar conditions do not count if they are trying to see how life arose.
Why? What evidence do you have that they have to have a precise reproduction of the Early Earth?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#163 Dec 29, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I do believe they were trying to mimic the early conditions. They know they aren't going to be able to duplicate everything exactly, but they can use what is known to mimic conditions.
You may be able to confirm this. Don't we know a good deal about ancient atmospheric conditions from geochemistry, trapped air bubbles in ancient ice, core samples and such?
No. No. It's not the same.

It's only similar or in other words...indistinguishable.

“No such thing as ABIODARWINISM”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

No ABIODARWINISTS either!

#164 Dec 29, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Also we can tell what the atmosphere was like by sedimentary rocks that were deposited at the time. For example iron in the Fe+2 state indicates that there was no appreciable O2 in the atmosphere. I had to laugh at my bitch's question about oxygen being present and then answered it, incorrectly, that there must be oxygen present since there was water. Water is H2O, Oxygen is O2. If you want to ask if an element exists you must ask that question precisely since at the temperature and pressure of the Earth's surface chemistry rules. So we are concerned what chemicals exist, not what elements. A very important difference that nonscientists sometimes do no appreciate.
There are aspects of it that are unknown. But replaytime forgets that a recipe need not be followed precisely to cook a tasty spaghetti and meatballs for example. You can add, substitute or even leave off ingredients at will. Sometimes your creation is worse sometimes it is better.
It is the height of foolishness to claim that we have to know everything to model the Early earth. As long as we get "close enough" that is all that matters.
Thanks. It has been over twenty years since I had any geology and I wasn't sure I remembered rightly.

I agree. As long as they can mimic approximate conditions and adjust as new information is learned, it shouldn't make matter.

The experiment Kong linked seemed like a pretty sound design with some very interesting results. Attacking the conditions they modeled when they weren't completely described sounds like a childish attempt to look smart. Too late for that.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 11 min Knowledge- 11,602
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 35 min Igor Trip 195,521
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 37 min MIDutch 150,612
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 41 min MIDutch 29,521
Science News (Sep '13) 11 hr scientia potentia... 3,621
News Exposing the impotence of the Neo-Darwinian theory (Jan '15) 14 hr asar 12
Posting for Points in the Evolution Forum (Oct '11) 20 hr ChristineM 14,570
More from around the web