Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Creationists have, for the most part, accepted the difficulty in teaching their religious view of biology in public schools. Hence, the invention of "intelligent design" as a pseudoscientific offering of the same ideas, but without the banned religious dogma (wink, wink). This transparent attempt was knocked down in the Dover case, but they keep trying, burning up lots of tax money defending the actions of fundamentalist school board members.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/340#post_3491917
A. Who disputes that? Hundreds of experiments have been done to prove that. I've never heard that the skepticism for global warming lied in this fact.
B. I am not in high school, but the idea was that the history class could spend more time teaching other aspects of WWII AND we would still have enough time to learn about the holocaust in incredible depth as we improved reading and writing skills over a period of years. The sheer amount of time our school spent on the holocaust was amazing, but little of it happened in history classes. It was one of those school board decisions and I rather liked the idea because so much information about the holocaust lies outside of textbooks and inside other forms of literature.
The sun's rays warm the surface of the planet which cause the planet and buildings and stuff to emit infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases trap the infrared radiation which is the most efficient spectrum of the suns rays at heating objects. Most of the heat generated is radiated back to the planet's surface so we don't get a huge change in temp day to night, the Greenhouse Effect. Ok, Great. The people who brought you global cooling in the 70's now say more greenhouse gas leads to more heat because more infrared radiation is trapped rather than radiated out into space. Sounds good on paper except, A good big part of the suns radiation is in the infrared spectrum, more that the visible light we see. The higher concentration of CO2 also blocks more of that infrared from reaching the surface. And remember, infrared is much more efficient at heating objects so with less of that range of light reaching the surface it wont be heated as much. The majority of that radiation is trapped in the upper atmosphere and radiated back out into space. So in short I don't buy that it is having a significant effect on the temperatures. That is one reason I don't buy it. Doesn't mean we don't need to be concerned. If you kept your own reef tank I am going to assume you know what happens to PH when you have elevated levels of CO2 in your home.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/360#post_3491931
Creationists have, for the most part, accepted the difficulty in teaching their religious view of biology in public schools. Hence, the invention of "intelligent design" as a pseudoscientific offering of the same ideas, but without the banned religious dogma (wink, wink). This transparent attempt was knocked down in the Dover case, but they keep trying, burning up lots of tax money defending the actions of fundamentalist school board members.
Yeah. I just think if the teachers take a few minutes to mentions some religions have attempted to explain it though creationism or an advanced being or whatever and then say we are going to study what science believes it solves a lot of those problems. You aren't saying religion is right or wrong, just basically taking it off the table in a respectful way. You aren't ever going to satisfy everyone but I bet the majority of religious and secular people would be satisfied.
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
I've actually never heard the argument from that angle. That's interesting, but yes I'll stop clouding the thread with it. I've learned a lot of things through school that I later found to be false. No harm done. I really don't think it is as big of a deal as it is made out to be.
Intelligent design is a pseudoscience unlike any other pseudoscience. Where all other pseudosciences try to gain acceptance in the scientific community, ID tries to change the nature of science so that it will fit. That's the way I see it anyway.
 
snakeblitz33

snakeblitz33

Well-Known Member
I like how my Biology professors dealt with religion in their classrooms...
"So, what is good science? Well, it's anything that fits the scientific method and can be formed into theories or otherwise proven. What is bad science? Anything that there is no evidence of that can not be theorized or proven, but based on widespread opinion. I.E. Religion.) If you want to discuss religion, take a philosophy class. This is Science - we will discuss Science, not philosophy."
... Or something like that.
 
S

saltymac2012

Guest
Everyone who is concerned with "global warming" may not understand that that isn't really the problem. Its the global cooling that comes afterwards that does the most damage for us.... stoppage of the heat pump of the oceans which will cause bad conditions for growing crops. Which If Im correct there isnt enough food to go around as it is than alone a cycle of years where we cant grow food until the earth warms back up. But I believe everything has a cycle, who knows if the earth goes thro0ugh a warming cooling cycle every couple hundred years. None of us can say either way. Well, maybe one of te scientist on here can tell me different. I'm humble enough to say that I dont know for sure what is correct and which isnt. Just because you "feel" that there is a god (or not) based on books (or feelings) that were written hundreds of years ago (and edited who knows how many times) is not proving anything. I go back to my previous post , if you wnat your kids taught what you believe, then send them to that school and vice versa.
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Start a global warming vs natural cycle thread to continue that discussion.
Religion in science class is totally misplaced, IMO. There are other classes where that can be discussed, and, better, it can be discussed in church or at home with parents.
The way Snake's professor handles it is great. The kids who care (and it will be high school level taking a science class) already know the debate anyway. They didn't get to 14+ without hearing about evolution vs intelligent design.
 
beaslbob

beaslbob

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/360#post_3492002
Start a global warming vs natural cycle thread to continue that discussion.
Religion in science class is totally misplaced, IMO. There are other classes where that can be discussed, and, better, it can be discussed in church or at home with parents.
The way Snake's professor handles it is great. The kids who care (and it will be high school level taking a science class) already know the debate anyway. They didn't get to 14+ without hearing about evolution vs intelligent design.
While that is true, in my case it took until senior years college before I was exposed the logical/philosphical differences between religion and science.
IMHO we would all be better off if such studies occurred much earlier. and in most cases simply occurred at all.
my .02
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBlitz33 http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/360#post_3491946
I like how my Biology professors dealt with religion in their classrooms...
"So, what is good science? Well, it's anything that fits the scientific method and can be formed into theories or otherwise proven. What is bad science? Anything that there is no evidence of that can not be theorized or proven, but based on widespread opinion. I.E. Religion.) If you want to discuss religion, take a philosophy class. This is Science - we will discuss Science, not philosophy."
... Or something like that.
That isn't a bad way to handle it.
 
theclemsonkid

theclemsonkid

Member
I just skipped from page 10 to now, and we're on global warming?!? This is what I get for skipping ahead!
I'll just go ahead and say it: This whole thing is Obama's fault...
 
mantisman51

mantisman51

Active Member
I had to step away for a few days. Had a ton of work and I just got sick of the stuff again. But, global warming hoaxers and evolutionists use the same playbook. 1) We have no proof, but trust us WE ARE REALLY SMART and you can trust us. 2) Anyone who points out the holes and flaws in our theory are flat earthers and holding society back and religious zealots.
 
flower

flower

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/360#post_3492162
I'd also like to point out that this question has been asked several times now and still there has been no answer; not even one riddled with logical fallacies.
You have to be kidding...How can you say nobody has answered your question...Do you not understand what a missing link is? My goodness the whole thread is riddled with comments on the missing link. There are no monkey men...no fossils to support that there was ever a transition between man and ape. The Lucy bones could also be the fossilizsed bones of a child and it proved nothing...Do you honestly not remember those comments?
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flower http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/360#post_3492167
You have to be kidding...How can you say nobody has answered your question...Do you not understand what a missing link is? My goodness the whole thread is riddled with comments on the missing link. There are no monkey men...no fossils to support that there was ever a transition between man and ape. The Lucy bones could also be the fossilizsed bones of a child and it proved nothing...Do you honestly not remember those comments?
What about the multitude of holes in the theory of Creationism? Where's the Ark? Where's the tablets? Where's the proof Jesus was born in Jerusalem, or even existed at all? Where exactly was the Garden Of Eden? The only "physical" proof you have that there's a God is what's written in a centuries-old book. The Lucy bones ARE physical evidence. They are carbon dated to a specific time on Earth. That date pre-dates any of the claims Creationists use to validate their "theories".
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/360#post_3492153
I had to step away for a few days. Had a ton of work and I just got sick of the stuff again. But, global warming hoaxers and evolutionists use the same playbook. 1) We have no proof, but trust us WE ARE REALLY SMART and you can trust us. 2) Anyone who points out the holes and flaws in our theory are flat earthers and holding society back and religious zealots.
Science has proven global warming exists. The "flat earthers" just refuse to recognize the evidence. When the last time you saw a tornado hit New York City? There's been nationwide droughts that haven't been seen in more than 50 years. More violent hurricanes. More violent weather patterns. Artic Shelf melting away. Oh wait, that's right. It's just the Earth "flexing it's muscles" every millenium or so. Just keep thinking you're too smart for those "hoaxers". Meanwhile, don't complain when you have to pay $15/pound for steak, $5/gallon for milk, $3 for a loaf of bread, and $3 for an ear of corn.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/360#post_3492172
Science has proven global warming exists. The "flat earthers" just refuse to recognize the evidence. When the last time you saw a tornado hit New York City? There's been nationwide droughts that haven't been seen in more than 50 years. More violent hurricanes. More violent weather patterns. Artic Shelf melting away. Oh wait, that's right. It's just the Earth "flexing it's muscles" every millenium or so. Just keep thinking you're too smart for those "hoaxers". Meanwhile, don't complain when you have to pay $15/pound for steak, $5/gallon for milk, $3 for a loaf of bread, and $3 for an ear of corn.
Thread derail.
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
The missing link, etc., was discussed and cited by creation believers as the justification for disbelieving evolution, but no one except the creationists (I think) really understood that argument. There are so many links, ape-humans- if that is what you want to call them- that I still don't understand where creationists feel the holes are?? If you want to just say the missing link, ok, but that is not what the science really says. That is why I asked mantis what he thought the holes were. He mentioned fallacies of carbon dating, but that is not really considered a solid form of fossils dating back millions of yrs anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top