Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Okay, I'll take it paragraph at a time:

spendi:

It is not "utterly ridiculous," because science requires confirmation of any theory for it to be accepted.

spendi:

He could have, but didn't make any such claim. Scientific challenges are on-going; it doesn't stop when another theory begins.

spendi:

Science has nothing to do with vanity. You make the claim that "he hasn't a scientifid bone in his body," but fail to tell us what that is. That's typical of creationists' statements. Blather all you want, but it doesn't support anything.

spendi:

If it's BS, please show how and why? You haven't done any of that!

ros:


spendi, Maybe, one day, you'll learn how to debate intelligently, but I don't expect to see any growth out of your ignorance. You challenge, but don't explain. I doubt you'll ever have the capacity to do so.

My personal opinion based on the idea that words have meaning is that 'multi-verse" or 'multiple universes' is nothing more than sloppy use of language. String "theory" is little more than speculative philosophical science as it is untestable.

dys, It's also sloppy to assume we have made conclusions about universes, because we just don't know now. That doesn't mean we won't know in the future. To say "universe" includes everything is also sloppy. String theory only looks at the realm of human knowledge that goes beyond "what is known." Unless we do so, we'll never go beyond what we know now.

Research continues; who knows what humans will find in the future?

Dont be silly. Science is always overturning theories. Anyway, how is that compatible with :

Exactly what level of confirmation do you require for science to have God-like powers ?

universe [ˈjuːnɪˌvɜːs]
n
1. (Astronomy) Astronomy the aggregate of all existing matter, energy, and space
2. human beings collectively
3. a province or sphere of thought or activity
4. (Mathematics & Measurements / Statistics) Statistics another word for population [7]

Nothing sloppy there. What word do YOU think means everything ?

They will find that they are stuck in space and do not have the ability to roam all over. If it is made of matter/energy, it can not go faster than light.

C.I. that's incoherent.

I still say it's sloppy. It doesn't say anything about parallel universes, unknown forms of matter, and extra dimensions.

The definition doesn't explain all of the possibilities.

Does universe explain the 11th dimension?

What does "all" or "everything" mean to you?

dys, Poor wording on my part. My subsequent post explains some of what I mean.

There are no parallel universes.
Unknown forms of matter need only be included when they are known.
Extra dimensions only exist because of shoddy book keeping.

Ionus, Check this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101020/sc_nm/us_science_cern

Thanks, but I dont need to. I am more than familiar if you care to discuss it.

What does "all" or "everything" mean to you?

Depends on the sentence it is used in. We have a very limited world so on average it means a very limited amount. All the buses are on strike. Everything here is damaged by floodwater.

How would you apply those words to something more global?

If leftists would learn the difference between accepted facts and bullshit they wouldn't have as many problems with being rejected.

The way the thing is often presented goes something like:



The real answer is, only if the religion you pick is the RIGHT one. In other words, to have an apples/apples comparision, you'd need a religion which operated on an intellectual level similar to that of evolution, and the only two candidates would be Rastafari and Voodoo. In fact, the only parties in that analogy being insulted are the Rastas and Voodooers; neither Rastafari nor Voodoo requires a trans-finite sequence of outright probabilistic miracles and zero-probability events as does evolution.

Multiple universes, String theory, Big bang, All speculation and theory, who knows for sure what is true and if we'll ever know. The important thing is we are trying to understand, we are exploring possibilities and are open to new ideas and change. That's humanity at it's best.
On the other hand we could go the religious route where everything, was, is and always shall be. No need to explore new possibilities, all the answers are provided for us ancient texts, we can stop thinking now.
So lets hear it for science and enlightenment.

Everything on this planet.

Well dont say it as though there are no problems with it. You have totally ignored the other side ....the humanity.

I know science has nothing to do with vanity. I was talking about ros. Not science.

Of course I told you what that was. It was ros asserting that there are no scientific arguments opposing the teaching of evolution when there are in the three scientific areas I mentioned but which he has himself defined as non-scientific for the purpose of proving his assertion. His circularity is self-evident and implies the closing down of university departments using tax dollars to teach sociology, psychology, anthropology, political science, art and aesthetics of any sort, and any other subject where the principles cannot be explained by the use of instrumentation.

He breaks the first rule of the scientific method. How can anybody propose a hypothesis to somebody who has shut himself off from positions he doesn't want to know about. He has no right to be on a science thread.

If ros lived at an altitude of 5000 ft he would assert that water boils at 202 degrees F. If he has on Ignore people who live at sea level he would say exactly the same thing about them. That there are no scientific arguments against his assertion that water boils at 202F.

If you want people who break the first principle of the scientific method, as all you anti-IDers constantly do, in charge of science education then you will find yourselves opposed. The last thing science needs is bigotry on that grandiose scale. It boils down to science being what you say it is and the rest of us know what that leads to. Bloody totalitarianism is what.

And you still haven't answered my questions on the control of the masses and the effect of the election on the teaching of evolution.

And there's a further question. You said that people who won't answer questions put to them should not be on the thread and you have not answered those questions and they have been put to you more than once.
And ros doesn't take questions at all. So why are you and ros still on the thread?

In fact, hundreds of unanswered questions have been asked of anti-IDers on this thread and the other one of wande's.

The one about control of the masses, your subject, is a crucial question. As you raised it, and not for the first time, perhaps you will be good enough to address yourself to it.

That doesn't mean anything ci. You will never learn to debate intelligently. And a comparison of your posts now to those of 7 years ago demonstrates zero growth in any respect.

I have plenty of capacity to explain but my understanding of anti-IDer's delicacy prohibits me from doing much else but approaching your circularities tangentially. My post on decoding "teaching ID" or "teaching Creationism" or "teaching the controversy" explained that.