Should teaching science in schools be banned in favor of religion?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Neither is theoretical physics and areas of astronomy, to name two fields of science.

Bullsh**t, the physical laws have massive experimental evidence.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Neither is theoretical physics and areas of astronomy, to name two fields of science.

Bullsh**t, the physical laws have massive experimental evidence.

Overall, bullsh*t. Yes, there is evidence for GRAVITY and things like that, but scientific inquiry into the origins of the universe are all speculative. Your experimental evidence is mathematics equations that explain how things *could have* happened.

There are certain fundamental laws that have held up to rigorous experimental testing (the only question is what happens at very high energies like 1 nanosecond after big bang). You use the math for calculations assuming these laws. You clearly have no understanding of theoretical physics.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Neither is theoretical physics and areas of astronomy, to name two fields of science.

Bullsh**t, the physical laws have massive experimental evidence.

Overall, bullsh*t. Yes, there is evidence for GRAVITY and things like that, but scientific inquiry into the origins of the universe are all speculative. Your experimental evidence is mathematics equations that explain how things *could have* happened.

There are certain fundamental laws that have held up to rigorous experimental testing (the only question is what happens at very high energies like 1 nanosecond after big bang). You use the math for calculations assuming these laws. You clearly have no understanding of theoretical physics.

And the laws and the math change frequently with a lot of discussion and disagreement, that's what I'm telling you. Stephen Hawking has gone on and on and on about this - this stuff doesn't mean there wasn't a creator, it just might give some indications as to when the creator did what he did.  And you can't test what happens one nanosecond after the big bang, to use your example. This is a bit of a red herring, Fern.

There aren't many disagreements in most areas of physics.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

ID's main problem is that it's not a scientific theory and has no experimental evidence, and instead is just a way to try to attack evolution without sounding like the crazy fundamentalist creationist that you are.

ID's 2nd largest problem is, OK, let's ignore all of the evidence that shows that evolution can incrementally evolve complicated things, and instead buy into this bogus irreducible complexity, which they claim requires an intelligent creator. My only question here is, who created the intelligent creator?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

ID's main problem is that it's not a scientific theory and has no experimental evidence, and instead is just a way to try to attack evolution without sounding like the crazy fundamentalist creationist that you are.

ID's 2nd largest problem is, OK, let's ignore all of the evidence that shows that evolution can incrementally evolve complicated things, and instead buy into this bogus irreducible complexity, which they claim requires an intelligent creator. My only question here is, who created the intelligent creator?

Uh-oh. That comment leveled at me? Appears so.

First, it's irrelevant who created the creator, that's not what ID is about. It is about questioning the shortcomings of evolution. The BIG problems of evolution include that it has been a serious scientific inquiry since the 1850s and it can only present to us fossils, which don't answer all the questions and which don't even prove evolution, and some evidence that supports small scale evolution. It can't account for large scale evolution whatsoever, the missing link bit, and is still largely confecture that fits observations. I personally refuse to accept that by accident I found myself in all of this, like a lot of people.

Now. I have a growing intolerance for people who express open disdain and disrespect for people who have different views. When you grow up, Fern, you hopefully will discover that in dealing with human beings you will be enterting into conversations and having discussions with people who have very different views and backgrounds than you (unless you just sit angrily in front of the computer for the rest of your life). So you better just start dealing with it, because I'm not only in the majority but it appears that ID is a growing trend. Want to talk to people about it? Figure out how you want to approach a conversation with someone with whom you disagree completely. There are a lot of people whose minds you won't change. It's hard to believe that you are a grad student - then again it's pretty easy to act like a brain cell deficient trash talking idiot in a message board in the middle of cycberspace, isn't it? I imagine you could be a real bane to education. And furthermore, if you want to go in the name-calling direction with me, I've been there and done that in more up-close-and personal environments than a message board, and if you want to do that, I'll dust you off.

Gee, forgive me for not liking rabid creationists who are out to destroy science. Funny how you complain about the insults, and then whip out a bunch of them. Face it, you lost, Physics is a science, only you wingnuts think otherwise.

I'm guessing you're a member of the 94%-correlation-is-never-statistically-significant club? I as a member of the reality based community don't hold back on calling the bullsh**t spouted from you members of the faith based fantasy community.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

ID's main problem is that it's not a scientific theory and has no experimental evidence, and instead is just a way to try to attack evolution without sounding like the crazy fundamentalist creationist that you are.

ID's 2nd largest problem is, OK, let's ignore all of the evidence that shows that evolution can incrementally evolve complicated things, and instead buy into this bogus irreducible complexity, which they claim requires an intelligent creator. My only question here is, who created the intelligent creator?

Uh-oh. That comment leveled at me? Appears so.

First, it's irrelevant who created the creator, that's not what ID is about. It is about questioning the shortcomings of evolution. The BIG problems of evolution include that it has been a serious scientific inquiry since the 1850s and it can only present to us fossils, which don't answer all the questions and which don't even prove evolution, and some evidence that supports small scale evolution. It can't account for large scale evolution whatsoever, the missing link bit, and is still largely confecture that fits observations. I personally refuse to accept that by accident I found myself in all of this, like a lot of people.

Now. I have a growing intolerance for people who express open disdain and disrespect for people who have different views. When you grow up, Fern, you hopefully will discover that in dealing with human beings you will be enterting into conversations and having discussions with people who have very different views and backgrounds than you (unless you just sit angrily in front of the computer for the rest of your life). So you better just start dealing with it, because I'm not only in the majority but it appears that ID is a growing trend. Want to talk to people about it? Figure out how you want to approach a conversation with someone with whom you disagree completely. There are a lot of people whose minds you won't change. It's hard to believe that you are a grad student - then again it's pretty easy to act like a brain cell deficient trash talking idiot in a message board in the middle of cycberspace, isn't it? I imagine you could be a real bane to education. And furthermore, if you want to go in the name-calling direction with me, I've been there and done that in more up-close-and personal environments than a message board, and if you want to do that, I'll dust you off.

Gee, forgive me for not liking rabid creationists who are out to destroy science. Funny how you complain about the insults, and then whip out a bunch of them. Face it, you lost, Physics is a science, only you wingnuts think otherwise.

I'm guessing you're a member of the 94%-correlation-is-never-statistically-significant club? I as a member of the reality based community don't hold back on calling the bullsh**t spouted from you members of the faith based fantasy community.

As to what I said - if you want to do insults, we can do that. That's all. Now, what kind of hard drug are you on anyway? OF COURSE physics is still science, no one has said otherwise. I was merely pointing out that there is conjecture in all science.

Wrong on global warming and another ad hominem attack - I believe there is evidence for global warming and I believe at some level human beings may be responsible for it. I don't know how or to what degree or whether it's part of a trend or not and neither do you. You are good at throwing in red herrings, Fern, and this is another.

Faith based wingnut group - that's good. And you're the one displaying crosses and such in your signature? Oh right, because they fit the current agenda. An ad hominem act again if there ever was one - a person who supports ID must be a religious wingnut. Try again.

ID is a science as it predicts evidence that suggests we did not find ourselves in the universe by chance. It is testable from a couple avenues.

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm

I'm also looking for a chapter from a guy's PhD dissertation in biology, I believe. I'll tack it on if I can find it later.

That's just propaganda, I don't see any actual experiments mentioned. They just claim that bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex. However, there have been recent advances in the study of bacterial flagellum, and it appears that evolution has explained it much better now.

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/flagellum.cfm

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Oh boy, the creationist senatortombstone is back. I don't think I'll bother arguing about it this time, though I'm curious as to how creationism is somehow scientific.

Before I explain, why don't you explain how hydrogen evolves into humans.  Because in order for evolution to be true, we had to have evolve from hydrogen.  If you cannot explain, then admit your beliefs are religous and stop masquerading them as scientific.

Here is another good example of how evolutionist can only berate and not debate their opponents.

Fine then. FUSION. Fuse two hydrogen atoms, you get helium. Fuse a hydrogen atom with helium, you get the next element. Fuse two heliums together or one hydrogen with one of the third element you get the fourth element. And so on and so forth. Just noticed Emsworth said the same thing.

I've tried explaining the whole thing to you before but it's like explaining things to a brick wall.

Don't you know that fusion isn't a scientific theory?