Christians challenge teaching of evolution
Because he wants to. It is his excuse for continuing his rant. He prefers to stay ignorant of the subject and stay mad than to become educated. (24 min ago | post #617)
Should evolution be taught in high school?
Allen, you really should check your facts before spouting off like thisSTOP??? Oh, please, give me a break. Have you ever watched ice skating? Have you seen what happens when the skater goes into a spin. As she pulls her arms in, her rate of spin increases...it does not stop. This is a near perfect example of conservation of angular momentum. As the distance to the center of gravity decreases, the rate of rotation increases. The same happens as gravity pulls a spinning mass in toward its centerAnd there is one BIG point you have ignored here...when you are changing from hydrogen to nitrogen, you are ADDING MASS to the system...mass that is not spinning initially. Spinning mass of turbine + non-spinning mass of nitrogen. Conservation of momentum says rate of spin will decrease. Geez. (11 hrs ago | post #20361)
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Have you even considered that we evolved to fit the conditions of Earth rather than the other way around? (12 hrs ago | post #3979)
Boyle died in 1691. Newton died in 1727. Neither ever heard of Darwin or the theory of evolution. To claim someone held an opinion about something they could never have known is the height of idiocy. (12 hrs ago | post #223)
What if God absolutely truly does exist?
Wiggy... If you really look at what you just said, it all comes down to Christians are no different than anyone else. So, if your religion really makes no difference, why bother? (17 hrs ago | post #332)
Writer overlooks intelligent design
Then, perhaps, you can back up this claim with an example of a scientific observation that runs counter to ToE, and provide an explanation of WHY it runs counter. Waiting...crickets are chirping. (Yesterday | post #1876)
I agree with you completely. What Hanno seems to think is that if it hasn't been disproved, then it is science. This is complete and utter BS. Science has never disproved astrology. Science has never disproved alchemy. Science has never disproved ID. That does not make any of them science. What makes something science is positive evidence FOR the idea. And in each of the cases above (including ID) there is no positive evidence for them. That makes them pseudo-science rather than science. They try to claim the mantle of science, but without evidence they don't make the grade. (Yesterday | post #160)
Hanno...you are full of it. You make claims about science which are quite untrue. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis (actually, several competing hypotheses)...not a theory as you claim. There is some evidence to support these hypotheses, but nothing nearly conclusive. Science admits this...despite what you claim. AS for IC...it will never be science. It makes claims which can not be falsified. Every time a system the ID mavens have claimed was IC, it has been shown that the system was not. And each time, the ID mavens have moved the goal posts. "Maybe this is IC?" "Oh, then maybe that is IC?" "Oh well, I guess something else is IC." Any claim of IC can never be shown to be true. One would have to prove EVERY evolutionary pathway was impossible...even the ones you can't think of. Can't be done. Thus, there will never be positive evidence of IC, and thus it will never be anything other than pseudo-science. BTW, DNA *CAN* be created from an RNA template. That along goes a long way toward disproving your claim of IC. (Yesterday | post #156)
Expelled: a Movie that Exposes the Startling Bias against Intel...
True. The deeper scientists study, the more it appears that human consciousness is the product of emergent properties of our vast neural network called the brain. And those neurons work by the simple laws of chemistry. There is no way to prove the existence of a soul, and science is pointing more and more away from such a concept. It has even been shown that religious ecstasy may be a side effect of physical brain processes. Stimulation to a certain part of the brain can bring about religious ecstasy. This certainly adds further reasons to doubt the whole religious mumbo-jumbo thing. (Yesterday | post #1081)
If the anyone in the school administration knew about the branding, the school system is going to be open to some big lawsuits. Since the allegations have been made, if the school board doesn't take some sort of action and it happens again...well, there's another big lawsuit. The law is pretty clear...if allegations of child abuse have been made, that person is not allowed to interact with children until the situation is cleared up. Children are even removed from the care of their parents in such cases. (Yesterday | post #177)
Depends on who you talk to, but Cro Mags are essentially modern human. If there is any distinction, I would say Cro Mags and today's humans are sub-species of the same species. (Yesterday | post #152)
My pastor and I disagree on a topic...HELP
You're likely right. I didn't catch the IPS address. What a troll. (Yesterday | post #7)
I think it likely that you would be calling for the ouster, or at least suspension, of a teacher accuse of any sort of abuse of a student...if it were anyone other than someone you admired. Keep in mind that the investigators have found the case worth pursuing. Yes, there is a presumption of innocence, but there is also the matter of children's safety. In this case, suspension until the matter is settled in court is appropriate. (Wednesday | post #174)
Writer overlooks intelligent design
Doc" O... Read up on "historical sciences". Astronomy, parts of geology and evolutionary science are included in this category. Observable does not mean that the direct events are observable, but that evidence of those events are observable. Repeatable does not mean the original event can be repeated, but that the observations (sometimes of the aftereffects) can be repeated. For example, a fossil can be repeatedly studied by different scientists. And testable does not mean that the testing must be done in a lab. It merely means that prediction of future observations can be made, whether those observations are in a lab or in the real world. For example, theories of supernovae can not be test in a lab, but observations of future supernovae can be made to see if those observations fit the theory. Tell me something "Doc", if ToE is SOOOOOO wrong as you claim, why is it that every new discovery fits the model of ToE. That has been going on for 150 years (actually longer), with no contrary data. If ToE is realy so wrong, one would expect in that time for something to really stand out. (Wednesday | post #1860)
Like what you see?
Create your own Topix Profile
Olympics