Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

[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.

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

That's why they're different things, Joe.

BTW-

U of Illinois @ Urbana-Champaign has Playboy in its library. Hugh Hefner went to undergrad there.

[HAL 9000 96]

Isn't that what I said in different words?

No, your basis is that it isn't taught because they had no reproducible experimental data. Like I said- I've yet to see a public school science curriculum that delves into the nitty gritty of cosmology. That's some serious math you know.

[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.

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.

Well, in popular jargon, saying something is science means that it is scientific law, which evolution isn't. If you want to say that science is the pursuit of knowledge, then evolution is science, but so is creationism.

[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.

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

Please read your own posts on the topic.

And not science... eh?

Well, in popular jargon, saying something is science means that it is scientific law, which evolution isn't. If you want to say that science is the pursuit of knowledge, then evolution is science, but so is creationism.

You might just want to stop posting nonsense.

[pedroh 21]

nothing is not magic.. that nothing you mention is a provable mathematical singularity, there are several theories about the origin of the big bang, dark matter, etc.. so it's not 'magic'..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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

I said that Did I?

Going to have to disappoint you there - I have no idea how the universe came into being. I do however, have a fairly good idea as to why I don't know that (perhaps you missed it).

Physically, human beings can only comprehend an environment which assumes the existence of time and space. This is because all of our sensory equipment (eyes, ears, nerves, brain etc) operate within a dimensional environment.

Because of this, it is simply put, impossible for us to comprehend the absence of time and space.

[HAL 9000 96]

nothing is not magic.. that nothing you mention is a provable mathematical singularity, there are several theories about the origin of the big bang, dark matter, etc.. so it's not 'magic'..

The Nothing comes to get Pedro...

[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.

Please read your own posts on the topic.

And not science... eh?

Well, in popular jargon, saying something is science means that it is scientific law, which evolution isn't. If you want to say that science is the pursuit of knowledge, then evolution is science, but so is creationism.

You might just want to stop posting nonsense.

Claiming that the credibility of two theories is similar from a scientific standpoint is not that same as claiming that they are the same thing.

Which part of that was nonsense?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well, in popular jargon, saying something is science means that it is scientific law, which evolution isn't. If you want to say that science is the pursuit of knowledge, then evolution is science, but so is creationism.

You might just want to stop posting nonsense.

[pedroh 21]

how could it be similar? science says, we don't know yet what it's causing it, but we're gonna find out.. creationism says ahh God did it, fill the weird gaps with "God did it" that's definitely not even close to a real scientific procedure

[HAL 9000 96]

Claiming that the credibility of two theories is similar from a scientific standpoint is not that same as claiming that they are the same thing.

Which part of that was nonsense?

All of it.

[SMR 368]

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

I said that Did I?

Going to have to disappoint you there - I have no idea how the universe came into being. I do however, have a fairly good idea as to why I don't know that (perhaps you missed it).

Physically, human beings can only comprehend an environment which assumes the existence of time and space. This is because all of our sensory equipment (eyes, ears, nerves, brain etc) operate within a dimensional environment.

Because of this, it is simply put, impossible for us to comprehend the absence of time and space.

A Force which you can't explain nor comprehend and which, by your admission, is incomprehensible, created the universe. Call it God, magic, or anything else you want to. Or refuse to give it a name. Does it make a difference?

[Ban Hammer 14,667]

nothing is not magic.. that nothing you mention is a provable mathematical singularity, there are several theories about the origin of the big bang, dark matter, etc.. so it's not 'magic'..

The Nothing comes to get Pedro...

aiiii a chupacabra!

[SMR 368]

Claiming that the credibility of two theories is similar from a scientific standpoint is not that same as claiming that they are the same thing.

Which part of that was nonsense?

All of it.

Good job not answering the question.

[HAL 9000 96]

nothing is not magic.. that nothing you mention is a provable mathematical singularity, there are several theories about the origin of the big bang, dark matter, etc.. so it's not 'magic'..

The Nothing comes to get Pedro...

aiiii a chupacabra!

Someone summon Falcor please.

Jesus can let him come.