Page 57 of 57 FirstFirst ... 7475354555657
Results 841 to 846 of 846
  1. #841
    Joined
    Feb 2004
    Location
    The forest near Rockville, MD
    Posts
    192
    Originally posted by wardog25 on 04-15-2004 at 08:48 AM
    And examples like this are endless. Why they are all too blind to see that what they believe takes faith, I will never know.
    It is a kind of faith, but not at all like faith in a religion. I believe that, while our studies of the eye neither confirm nor deny evolution, there may be something about it that we haven't figured out yet, which will make it fit in. This is not a blind faith. It's based on many past incidences where there was something that science couldn't explain, then later figure it out.

    For example, we couldn't figure out how bumblebees fly. They don't appear to be aerodynamic enough to maintain lift. Then we researched some more, learned some more about fluid dynamics, and realized that bublebees can fly just fine, they conform to the laws of aerodynamics, we just didn't realize how.

    More on how bumblebees fly

    If science can't explain something, it doesn't mean it is unexplainable, it just means we don't know enough about it to explain it yet.

  2. #842
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wichita, Kansas
    Age
    32
    Posts
    4,717
    at least science TRIES to explain things, most religons just say that "its god's will" when they don't know...
    3v1l l337
    Athlon X2 3800+ @2.6 GHz 1.4 vcore
    TT Big Typhoon
    2x512 DDR 400 2.5-3-3-7 1T@ 216MHz
    Evga NF4 Mobo (rebranded jetway)
    evga 7800GT@stock currently
    80GB SATA


    Dreams are like appendixes. Utterly useless, and rarely deadly...


    WTS "WANG" x1 PST

  3. #843
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    174

    Post

    I believe that, while our studies of the eye neither confirm nor deny evolution, there may be something about it that we haven't figured out yet, which will make it fit in.
    Something like Pax6 ????

  4. #844
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Location
    pittsburgh, pa
    Age
    33
    Posts
    1,185

    Re: Re: Re: Maybe all you evolution advocates can help me with this one.

    Originally posted by wardog25 on 04-13-2004 at 04:40 PM
    Creationism is actually a respected option for the origin of the universe, even in scientific circles. A lot of people believe something created the earth, then evolution picked up from there.

    Why? Because when it comes to the origin of all things, evolution is just as fuzzy as the "myths" you make fun of.

    Just like Orangutan said, evolution is "a change in an allele frequency over time". And that I won't argue.

    But evolution as the origin of all things is hardly ironclad. Scientists change their minds every day on what they think happened several thousand years ago, much less several billion.
    you failed to answer the question. should we teach, all creation myths, not just the christian version.

    the creationist arguement is that if you teach one theory you should teach them all, yet they assume that all means evolution and the christian creation myth... all means all, not just the one you want to try to indoctrinate children with... so should we teach all, or are you just pushing for the christian version...
    TForce550se|brisbane3600@2.4ghz|2x1gb|7900gs@550/800

  5. #845
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    789

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe all you evolution advocates can help me with this one.

    Originally posted by AntiNazi on 04-15-2004 at 04:14 PM
    you failed to answer the question. should we teach, all creation myths, not just the christian version.

    the creationist arguement is that if you teach one theory you should teach them all, yet they assume that all means evolution and the christian creation myth... all means all, not just the one you want to try to indoctrinate children with... so should we teach all, or are you just pushing for the christian version...
    Those are the two most popular views in this country, so I was assuming we could be rational about it rather than dredging up every creation myth that ever existed just so that we can be politically correct.

    but if it is too difficult to teach all of them, then how about none? They'd have to throw out teaching evolution (macroevolution) as well.

  6. #846
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    5,358

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe all you evolution advocates can help me with this one.

    Originally posted by wardog25 on 04-15-2004 at 11:20 PM

    but if it is too difficult to teach all of them, then how about none? They'd have to throw out teaching evolution (macroevolution) as well.

    Evolution is not based on religion, it is based on scientific theories, not on 'faith in God'. Whenever evolution is taught/discussed, of course, the short comings/missing pieces of the puzzle should also be discussed, after all, it is a theory. Teaching the pure, strict 'Creationist view' would not be teaching theories or discussing science, it would be preaching as there simply is no science behind the Creationist view, so why should it have any official status in a science class?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •