Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And yet, big bang, star birth, and several other items cannot be proven but they're taught as science. Why is the universe taught as science? (Universe = (UNI - Single) (VERSE - SPOKEN SENTENCE) Universe = Single Spoken Sentence)

So in a nutshell you are saying here that science should only be taught when it has been definitively and conclusively proven?

I guess Stephen Hawking should go find a new job.

Perhaps Einstein should have gone into painting and decorating.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

I do find it funny that the lefts' hero Charles Darwin really was a Racist and a Eugenics proponent.

The actual title of his book: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life

All this talk of magic and miracles.... How did space, time and matter come into being? All are either eternal, (matter is eternal?), or they all must have come into existence at the exact same point in time. Because if you have matter and no space; where will you put it? If you have Space and matter, but no time; WHEN would you put it? Most astronomers I've read point to a definite beginning point for the universe as it is expanding, and can be extrapolated to a beginning. (ok big bang) What exploded and when? An infinitesimal region? Really stop and think about it.

Oh dear. Could you seriously let the adults have an intelligent conversation without whining over politics and your lack of reading comprehension here?

If you want the full title, its:

'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.'

It might behoove you to realize that race in the natural sense is defined as something beyond social constructs of human beings.

Lets add Bio 101 to that list of classes for you.

Yes. Its the "i'm smart, you're dumb" argument so prevalent among pinkos. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't get a rise out of me as you'd hoped.

[SMR 368]

An experiment to show that a transition from non-living organic matter to living organic matter could occur without intelligent design. Or an experiment to show that one complex species could become another complex species.

The fact that technology frequently lags behind the theory, doesn't invalidate the theory.

There are a lot of disingenuous arguments like that in Creationist theory - using gaps in current knowledge as proof that the entirety of it is bogus.

It may be true that technology lags behind, but you still haven't said why evolution should be believed without experimentally repeatable evidence but the lack of experimentally repeatable evidence for creation disproves it.

Well that's circular reasoning

Simply put, its the best explanation we have that fits the available evidence.

And as pointed out - there is some experimental evidence to the effect that fundamental building blocks of life can be synthesised from naturally occuring chemical reactions.

How can it be circular reasoning? I made a concession and stated that you haven't answered the original question. No reasoning was involved.

The fact that the building blocks of life could naturally occur is secondary to the fact that no one has observed evolution by natural selection for complex organisms.

Who decided it was the best explanation? Creationism fits all available evidence (admittedly almost by default since the concept of an omniscient, omnipotent God makes a lot of stuff possible).

[HAL 9000 96]

I do find it funny that the lefts' hero Charles Darwin really was a Racist and a Eugenics proponent.

The actual title of his book: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life

All this talk of magic and miracles.... How did space, time and matter come into being? All are either eternal, (matter is eternal?), or they all must have come into existence at the exact same point in time. Because if you have matter and no space; where will you put it? If you have Space and matter, but no time; WHEN would you put it? Most astronomers I've read point to a definite beginning point for the universe as it is expanding, and can be extrapolated to a beginning. (ok big bang) What exploded and when? An infinitesimal region? Really stop and think about it.

Oh dear. Could you seriously let the adults have an intelligent conversation without whining over politics and your lack of reading comprehension here?

If you want the full title, its:

'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.'

It might behoove you to realize that race in the natural sense is defined as something beyond social constructs of human beings.

Lets add Bio 101 to that list of classes for you.

Yes. Its the "i'm smart, you're dumb" argument so prevalent among pinkos. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't get a rise out of me as you'd hoped.

Oh you can leave the 'smart' people out of it. It has nothing to do with smarts and everything to do with ignorance.

[SMR 368]

And yet, big bang, star birth, and several other items cannot be proven but they're taught as science. Why is the universe taught as science? (Universe = (UNI - Single) (VERSE - SPOKEN SENTENCE) Universe = Single Spoken Sentence)

So in a nutshell you are saying here that science should only be taught when it has been definitively and conclusively proven?

I guess Stephen Hawking should go find a new job.

Perhaps Einstein should have gone into painting and decorating.

Steven Hawking's theories aren't taught in public schools and neither were Einstein's until they were backed by experimentally repeatable evidence.

[HAL 9000 96]

An experiment to show that a transition from non-living organic matter to living organic matter could occur without intelligent design. Or an experiment to show that one complex species could become another complex species.

The fact that technology frequently lags behind the theory, doesn't invalidate the theory.

There are a lot of disingenuous arguments like that in Creationist theory - using gaps in current knowledge as proof that the entirety of it is bogus.

It may be true that technology lags behind, but you still haven't said why evolution should be believed without experimentally repeatable evidence but the lack of experimentally repeatable evidence for creation disproves it.

Well that's circular reasoning

Simply put, its the best explanation we have that fits the available evidence.

And as pointed out - there is some experimental evidence to the effect that fundamental building blocks of life can be synthesised from naturally occuring chemical reactions.

How can it be circular reasoning? I made a concession and stated that you haven't answered the original question. No reasoning was involved.

The fact that the building blocks of life could naturally occur is secondary to the fact that no one has observed evolution by natural selection for complex organisms.

Who decided it was the best explanation? Creationism fits all available evidence (admittedly almost by default since the concept of an omniscient, omnipotent God makes a lot of stuff possible).

And you are using incongruous logic. Evolution is one thing, that has been observed at molecular and indirect levels (genetic analysis and fossil analysis); while creation is altogether something else.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

And yet, big bang, star birth, and several other items cannot be proven but they're taught as science. Why is the universe taught as science? (Universe = (UNI - Single) (VERSE - SPOKEN SENTENCE) Universe = Single Spoken Sentence)

So in a nutshell you are saying here that science should only be taught when it has been definitively and conclusively proven?

I guess Stephen Hawking should go find a new job.

Perhaps Einstein should have gone into painting and decorating.

I don't have any problem with theories being taught. But I have a problem with many children's science books having the very first sentence start "Billions of years ago... this happened" That is labeling a theory as definitive science when it shouldn't be. Science must be demonstrable, to create knowledge. Science is something that must be known. That is the very definition of science.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

How can it be circular reasoning? I made a concession and stated that you haven't answered the original question. No reasoning was involved.

The fact that the building blocks of life could naturally occur is secondary to the fact that no one has observed evolution by natural selection for complex organisms.

Who decided it was the best explanation? Creationism fits all available evidence (admittedly almost by default since the concept of an omniscient, omnipotent God makes a lot of stuff possible).

Right. If you believe in magic.

[HAL 9000 96]

And yet, big bang, star birth, and several other items cannot be proven but they're taught as science. Why is the universe taught as science? (Universe = (UNI - Single) (VERSE - SPOKEN SENTENCE) Universe = Single Spoken Sentence)

So in a nutshell you are saying here that science should only be taught when it has been definitively and conclusively proven?

I guess Stephen Hawking should go find a new job.

Perhaps Einstein should have gone into painting and decorating.

Steven Hawking's theories aren't taught in public schools and neither were Einstein's until they were backed by experimentally repeatable evidence.

I have yet to see many curricula that offer detailed analysis of cosmology, and black hole dynamics, at the public school level. College, perhaps.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

An experiment to show that a transition from non-living organic matter to living organic matter could occur without intelligent design. Or an experiment to show that one complex species could become another complex species.

The fact that technology frequently lags behind the theory, doesn't invalidate the theory.

There are a lot of disingenuous arguments like that in Creationist theory - using gaps in current knowledge as proof that the entirety of it is bogus.

It may be true that technology lags behind, but you still haven't said why evolution should be believed without experimentally repeatable evidence but the lack of experimentally repeatable evidence for creation disproves it.

Well that's circular reasoning

Simply put, its the best explanation we have that fits the available evidence.

And as pointed out - there is some experimental evidence to the effect that fundamental building blocks of life can be synthesised from naturally occuring chemical reactions.

How can it be circular reasoning? I made a concession and stated that you haven't answered the original question. No reasoning was involved.

The fact that the building blocks of life could naturally occur is secondary to the fact that no one has observed evolution by natural selection for complex organisms.

Who decided it was the best explanation? Creationism fits all available evidence (admittedly almost by default since the concept of an omniscient, omnipotent God makes a lot of stuff possible).

And you are using incongruous logic. Evolution is one thing, that has been observed at molecular and indirect levels (genetic analysis and fossil analysis); while creation is altogether something else.

You are absolutely right here. No one is asking that Creation be called science in the classroom (well ok there are, and there are also those who ask for Playboy to be a highschool subject.). Do you not also call variation and speciation evolution? I think thats what you're referring to.

How can it be circular reasoning? I made a concession and stated that you haven't answered the original question. No reasoning was involved.

The fact that the building blocks of life could naturally occur is secondary to the fact that no one has observed evolution by natural selection for complex organisms.

Who decided it was the best explanation? Creationism fits all available evidence (admittedly almost by default since the concept of an omniscient, omnipotent God makes a lot of stuff possible).

Right. If you believe in magic.

You believe in magic as well. You believe that nothing exploded and created the universe

[SMR 368]

And yet, big bang, star birth, and several other items cannot be proven but they're taught as science. Why is the universe taught as science? (Universe = (UNI - Single) (VERSE - SPOKEN SENTENCE) Universe = Single Spoken Sentence)

So in a nutshell you are saying here that science should only be taught when it has been definitively and conclusively proven?

I guess Stephen Hawking should go find a new job.

Perhaps Einstein should have gone into painting and decorating.

Steven Hawking's theories aren't taught in public schools and neither were Einstein's until they were backed by experimentally repeatable evidence.

I have yet to see many curricula that offer detailed analysis of cosmology, and black hole dynamics, at the public school level. College, perhaps.

Isn't that what I said in different words?

[Chica Yeyé 41]

A message from our sponsors:

[HAL 9000 96]

And yet, big bang, star birth, and several other items cannot be proven but they're taught as science. Why is the universe taught as science? (Universe = (UNI - Single) (VERSE - SPOKEN SENTENCE) Universe = Single Spoken Sentence)

So in a nutshell you are saying here that science should only be taught when it has been definitively and conclusively proven?

I guess Stephen Hawking should go find a new job.

Perhaps Einstein should have gone into painting and decorating.

I don't have any problem with theories being taught. But I have a problem with many children's science books having the very first sentence start "Billions of years ago... this happened" That is labeling a theory as definitive science when it shouldn't be. Science must be demonstrable, to create knowledge. Science is something that must be known. That is the very definition of science.

So the pursuit of knowledge isn't science? Yeah... um hum...

Somehow I think your course schedule is going to get too busy for you with all these intellectual gaffes you're making.

[SMR 368]

An experiment to show that a transition from non-living organic matter to living organic matter could occur without intelligent design. Or an experiment to show that one complex species could become another complex species.

The fact that technology frequently lags behind the theory, doesn't invalidate the theory.

There are a lot of disingenuous arguments like that in Creationist theory - using gaps in current knowledge as proof that the entirety of it is bogus.

It may be true that technology lags behind, but you still haven't said why evolution should be believed without experimentally repeatable evidence but the lack of experimentally repeatable evidence for creation disproves it.

Well that's circular reasoning

Simply put, its the best explanation we have that fits the available evidence.

And as pointed out - there is some experimental evidence to the effect that fundamental building blocks of life can be synthesised from naturally occuring chemical reactions.

How can it be circular reasoning? I made a concession and stated that you haven't answered the original question. No reasoning was involved.

The fact that the building blocks of life could naturally occur is secondary to the fact that no one has observed evolution by natural selection for complex organisms.

Who decided it was the best explanation? Creationism fits all available evidence (admittedly almost by default since the concept of an omniscient, omnipotent God makes a lot of stuff possible).

And you are using incongruous logic. Evolution is one thing, that has been observed at molecular and indirect levels (genetic analysis and fossil analysis); while creation is altogether something else.

Nobody claims that evolution and creationism are the same thing. The point is that neither is science.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And yet, big bang, star birth, and several other items cannot be proven but they're taught as science. Why is the universe taught as science? (Universe = (UNI - Single) (VERSE - SPOKEN SENTENCE) Universe = Single Spoken Sentence)

So in a nutshell you are saying here that science should only be taught when it has been definitively and conclusively proven?

I guess Stephen Hawking should go find a new job.

Perhaps Einstein should have gone into painting and decorating.

I don't have any problem with theories being taught. But I have a problem with many children's science books having the very first sentence start "Billions of years ago... this happened" That is labeling a theory as definitive science when it shouldn't be. Science must be demonstrable, to create knowledge. Science is something that must be known. That is the very definition of science.

Is it? What about scientific inquiry?

As I said earlier I doubt you'll find any field of science that's definitively and conclusively exhausted. The difference between the scientific method and philosophy isn't as clear cut as you might think.

But anyways - kids science books?

So presumably kids shouldn't be reading any of this stuff and the whole science question should be simply glossed over in much the same way as when a pre-schooler asks you where babies come from...

Would it surprise you to know that those kids science books are simplified for the understanding of the reader?

Would it further surprise you to know that science courses at the high-school and college level are similarly simplified in order to teach a manageable curriculum and that there are key pieces of theory deliberately left out for the more advanced academic levels?

Edited September 15, 2009 by Private Pike