Proof of Intelligent Design: Moses is attacked by a ferocious Velociraptor,
thus proving that dinosaurs did indeed exist only a few thousand years ago.
Posted on 10/05/2007 6:26:08 AM PDT by SubGeniusX
not true pigeons and similar birds in auatrialia ... being identicle now is a simple factor of them comming over on ships and such ... but the native species such as Kangaroos etc... definately lean toward evo
Of course it’s true about pigeons being the same in Australia and NYC! And they are clearly widely separated regardless of how many you want to pretend are making boat rides between the two places!
elpadre wrote: Kids can’t handle it??
No, that's not why. I think kids can handle it, but they won't handle it the way you think. But I'll save that for later.
There are two arguments to be made here. First, you state that scientific education should include possible contrary views. By most measures, most flavors of ID/Creationism are impossible and therefore not suitable for classroom teaching. Second, even those forms of ID/C that are remotely possible (e.g. Last Thursdayism) are so poorly supported and so unproductive as to be worthless in science pedagogy.
I taught HS math and coached in my younger years and have worked with young people off and on all my life and IMHO they would like to know.
When I was young, I wanted my teachers to competently instruct me in their subjects. All too often I found myself arguing with them over their literary or social theories. If science teachers begin teaching ID/C en masse, it won't be long before students like me have start shredding them in front of the entire class; cell phone videos will be available on YouTube.
I have heard stories of when a student asks a teachers in some schools about creationism, the teacher cuts them off and tries to make a fool of them. That is not teaching.
No, the teacher should explain succinctly what's wrong with creationism and let the student's peers make a fool of him if he insists on interrupting the class.
You are confusing that which is popular, Evolution, over that which is correct, Intelligent Design.
Evolution can't explain modern transgenic animals, for instance. In fact, the actual explanation for those DNA-modified lab animals is Intelligent Design.
...so you'd be hard-pressed to mock a teacher who was explaining the above to you in class.
The fact of the matter is that once Evolution becomes unpopular, most "believers" in it, like yourself, will quietly abandon it for more rational explanations of DNA data storage, data processing, data copying, code re-use, generational code skipping, etc.
In probability math, for instance, you are unlikely to find an intellectual way to embarrass a math professor who shows you the odds of large amounts of data self-sequencing with no external bias.
The student who mistakenly confuses ID with Creationism will be mocked...not the teacher who points out the differences between the two (something that you won't post, by the way).
I have - twice - and got re-statement of a nonsensical sentence:
"ID can only exist where there is bias."
I'll ask a third time: how is ID falsifiable ?
Please reply in English. If all you can do is reiterate the same sentence, the "Na, na, na..." remark is entirely appropriate.
Intelligent kids in a serious discussion, don’t mock or try to make someone out a fool, but will in their own way ask that another advancing a new theory to justify why it is to be considered.
In an out of control classroom, of course, anything goes, feeling are hurt and education goes down the tube.
It’s a pretty simple sentence. Perhaps you are feigning ignorance of English?
ID can not exist without bias.
I mean, that’s entirely comprised of one and two syllable words.
I did not say Hitler didn’t believe in evolution. Even Ken Ham believes in some evolution.
What Hitler and Ken Ham share is the belief that humans could not have evolved from “lower” animals.
“From Hitler’s Tischgespraeche for the night of the 25th to 26th 1942 ‘Woher nehmen wir das Recht zu glauben, der Mensch sei nicht von Uranfaengen das gewesen , was er heute ist? Der Blick in die Natur zeigt uns, dass im Bereich der Pflanzen und Tiere Veraenderungen und Weiterbildungen vorkommen. Aber nirgends zeigt sich innherhalb einer Gattung eine Entwicklung von der Weite des Sprungs, den der Mensch gemacht haben muesste, sollte er sich aus einem affenartigen Zustand zu dem, was er ist, fortgebildet haben.’”
I can’t translate this, so you can feel free to get your own translator or accept the following translation:
“’From where do we get the right to believe that man was not from the very beginning what he is today.
A glance in Nature shows us , that changes and developments happen in the realm of plants and animals. But nowhere do we see inside a kind, a development of the size of the leap that Man must have made, if he supposedly has advanced from an ape-like condition to what he is’ (now)”
http://stevencarrwork.blogspot.com/2006/08/hitler-creationist.html
One could say the same of Americans, with their Easter bunnies and Christmas trees.
The fact is that Hitler put Christian symbols and slogans on all kind of Nazi paraphernalia. He hobnobbed and had photo ops with bishops and cardinals.
I am not asserting he was sincere; I am asking why his supporters who were Christian fell for it.
Do you really think he cared anything about ideas other then whether they could be paraded to further his aims?
Re-statement using the same words.
You have no argument. ID is not falsifiable.
I thought I'd seen you post coherent, cogent arguments before. Apparently I was wrong. Or else this time, knowing the futility of advancing your point, you don't discuss, you just pontificate.
I'm done, thanks.
ID is falsified in any system that is shown to exist without bias.
You have made this unsupported claim throughout this thread.
A google of exist without bias and ID shows nothing relevant to this discussion.
Isn't it time you supported this statement with something other than just your repeated claim?
Otherwise, what are we to expect from a claim that is so esoteric that it doesn't even show up on google?
Statements stand on their own, or not, with or without Google.
If you claim that a system without bias can have ID, then support your claim.
I state otherwise: that a system without bias can *not* have ID. Certainly known examples of ID such as lab pigs that have had their DNA altered to grow human hormones would support my view that bias was responsible for their creation/modification.
You have physical examples supporting your own counter-claims, one presumes. So phrase your argument and support it.
If you claim that a system without bias can have ID, then support your claim.
I state otherwise: that a system without bias can *not* have ID. Certainly known examples of ID such as lab pigs that have had their DNA altered to grow human hormones would support my view that bias was responsible for their creation/modification.
You have physical examples supporting your own counter-claims, one presumes. So phrase your argument and support it.
Here you are making some of the most outlandish claims on the internet, claims which can't even be found on a google search, and you think the burden of proof is on those who disagree with you?
Here's a competing claim: You're claims are a joke!
Disprove that.
(Good night. I'll check back in the morning after some strong coffee. Make it good.)
Yawn...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
