That is a very simple way of saying you don't actually have any way to prove the evolution theory. If it did, your example would have been on the front page of every news paper in the country at some point, but it isn't. I understand these discussions are probably fruitless, but if there really is proof there'd be a very clearly defined scientific website anyone could point you too, and the discussion would be over.
Since evolution is a belief system to describe something not understood by science, it can be debated.
I accept that as the best current explaination possible at this time due to our limits in gaining full knowledge of what occured!
And you are totally welcome to your belief in this theory, but it should not be forced upon public schools with public tax money.
I reserve beliefs for religion/philosophy, and leave it out of science- it does not belong.
Evolution is a philosophy, as it can't be proved or disproved, only believed or not believed. I agree, it should be left out of science teachings in public schools. Just ID should be left out of public schools.
No, the bacteria from one generation to the next was, on average, just a tiny bit different, even in a control group
Every single living thing that reproduces changes a little in every generation, but they aren't "evolving", unless you are trying to redefine the term.
But the bacteria cultured from the specific condition (repeated partial applications of an antibiotic) resulted in a new group that was nearly invulnerable to said toxin, while the control group could be _completely_ killed by a similar dosage.
This is what you call evolution? Forcing a group of bacteria to survive in a toxic environment? You can do this experiment on yourself with alcohol. The first time you drink a six pack the cells in your body react and have to reject it to survive as the toxicity levels are too high. But, if you condition your body to deal with the hightened level of toxicity after awhile you can easily drink a 6 six pack.
And all you have to do is ask any nurse in a big city that deliver's baby's if any of the traits of a drug abusing parent (as an extreme example) get passed onto the child. This is a very basic concept, but certainly not evolution.
Sure, it states that overall, the entropy of a system increases. However, for arbitrary large stretches of time, it can decrease.
Entropy, the bane of evolution. Describe this for me, how is it even possible for a simple single celled organism (sperm) combine with a human egg, and at the most simple level life gets for mammals and then for a very specific time period entropy goes in reverse (invariably)?
How is it that everything in the universe looses heat through entropy, but living things gain heat? The larger the living element grows, the more heat it contains, defying the concept of entropy. But only living things do this, nothing else.
Considering the fact that scientists cannot explain how adding water to a seed will cause life to enter the seed and it will grow into a plant, (again completely defying thermodynamic entropy) I venture to say we are extemely ignorant of the true inner workings of even a bacteria.
Everything you've said to this point requires decsions to be made to get to the conclusions. Evolution is based on accidents in nature, not externally manipulated breeding enviroments. What you have described is _not_ evolution, selective breeding by definition is controlled by intelligence.
Evolution says that a simple system developes into a more complex system. (let's have a standard definition of evolution to discuss from) What you have described is filtering a quality until it's more pure, not creating something new, and certainly not more complex.
It can be shown that the bacteria collected in the 100th generation is in no way similar to the "normal" bacteria in the original culture.
How is this _any_ different than "I am nothing like my great, great, great.....great grandfather"?
Selective breeding is _not_ evolution.
Most antibiotics are natural. Pencillin is natural.
Natural ingredients have no bearing on the effects when used unnaturally or in unnatural quanities.
It is a testable theory. And many tests have been devised and tried and non have disproven it yet. Remember a theory can generally not be tested as correct, but science can try and prove theories wrong with tests.
None have proved it true either. So if it's not true, and can't be proved false, why are we forcing it into the schools? Isn't this the same problem with ID? How are these any different?
It is a theory about how things 'could have' evolved from simpler life forms into different more complex life forms
This is another reason why it's not provable, it's based on the assumption that life already existed. If it already existed at what stage was this life form? Can we just assume it was a one celled organism? How many assumptions have to be made to believe in this theory?
Superbactieral strains are caused by patients taking incomplete courses of antibiotics
As you have said, this effect was caused by human intervention, the use of antibiotics created the effect. This is not a natural phenomenon, but a human created one.
The specific bacteria that could resist the penicillin already existed, you simply filtered out the ones with the effect.
Filtering out a specific bacteria is not evolving the bacteria.
The THEORY of gravity is not scientifically proven at this point, and if you want to get philisophical, its not provent that life exists either
I am not talking about philosophical ideas, simple facts, period. You can prove gravity exists in grade school science with basic experiments. Evolution is a theory with _no_ proof, only theory.
Understanding that life evolves may not be used in your everyday life, but it is for some people.
Great, then let them study it, but don't force a belief in evolution upon the public with tax money.
Ask anyone at a pharmaceutical company, biologist, heck even your doctor understands that evolutions take place.
Belief in this theory does not mean it is true.
poetry is all theory and isn't used in my everday life.
Poetry is art, evolution/ID are science subjects, there is no comparison.
So, we should teach them nothing about the origins of life? Nothing about gravity? Nothing about life?
You are attempting to bundle proveable scientific fact (life exists, gravity works, etc..) with science fiction (evolution). This argument is not effective.
So, since it is unlikely that we will ever be able to prove how life and the universe began, there's no point in even researching it really.
Research it all you like, just don't try and use tax dollars to support the spreading of theory that has no application to everyday life other than belief in the idea.
I mean, if you're not going to pass that knowledge on by teaching it, there's not much point at all.
Go ahead, teach and research it, but don't force others to listen to the idea through public schools...
You want me to prove things like the theory of relativity, gravity, etc?
1. These things are not being taught in grade school, evolution is.
2. Evolution directly opposes a religious belief set (when taught as a theory of the origins of life), and is also relgious in nature that you have to "believe" in it because there is no proof.
No other element to standard education does this. (math, english, PE, etc...)
Based on the constitution, one sect of religion vs another, whether based on a scientist studies or a preachers teachings, should not be taught in schools. (ie, paid for and supported by the government) This means both ID and evolution.
When you fight to support an idea you have no scientific proof to support, how can it be considered anything but religious?
Evolution isn't being taught to explain to kids how life came about on this planet, it's being taught to show how the modern world was formed and how species evolve.
The modern world was formed from what though? Teaching a theory based on a complete unknown is not scientific at all...
..why exactly does explaining the creation of life have to go hand-in-hand with teaching evolution?
Because many people actually do use evolution to explain the beginning of life? I don't know why they do...
I don't know where you're coming from it's impossible for me to adequately critique your post
My point is that evolution is no more scientific at it's root than ID, so why should it get precidence in the schools teaching ciriculum? Why not just not teach either one?
This is part of the problem, many people believe it is fact.
Lots of things we take for granted every day are not fact.
I challenge you to prove anything that we teach scientifically (math, phyisics, etc...) in school that has not been proved absolutely. This is an issue specifically related to science, teaching, our children and our schools. The one "scientific" element that is not science that is being taught in public schools is evolution.
There is no proof of God
And this is not being taught as fact in our schools that there is/isn't a God or who/what he is if there is one. But evolution is.
or that the sun will come up tomorrow
all of the changes/evolutions we are seeing in organisms around the world
What changes/evolutions? Without proof, this is just fiction.
maybe that's where Robin's extra hair comes from
Robin Williams is not an example of evolution.
aruging that this kind of evolution does not occur makes you look, well, stupid
Again, ad hominem, please stick to provable facts.
Yes, I 100% believe in the theory of evolution.
Does your belief make it a fact?
So far you still have not actually shown any proof, just descriptions of your own logical perspective. If evolution is proveable, there should be evidence of it, not only your personal logic to prove it.
No, its not proof that evolution is what took a single celled organism and produced what we see to day.
This is really the crux of the problem with teaching either evolution or ID in schools, they are both just ideas, not proven facts. Why not leave this to let people decide what they want, since it more a belief issue than a scientific one?
fast-breeding organisms such as bacteria and rats. Both have evolved immunities to various methods used to control them within the life-span of a single human, leading to antibiotic-resistent pathogens and rats that we can't poison
Please explain to me how this happened with any human intervention or design by an outside force. Evolution is totally different, where it states that these changes happened by "accident". This being clarified to the point to exclude all possiblity of an external designer.
1. Your example has no value, as there is an external designer in your example, and these bacteria/rats have not evolved this ability accidently, naturally or by natural selection.
2. Your example is _very_ recent, please provide an example that is more than 100 years old that is even remotely credible, to support this idea lasting so long.
I believe this theory has only lasted so long simply by the hope and faith that some day it could be proved, not that it ever has. Can you say without a shred of doubt that you 100% believe in the theory of evolution?
It most certainly is. If somebody found a dinosaur fossil from 20,000 years ago, or a modern human from 500 million years ago, evolution would need to be rethought.
You have not presented evidence, only a hopeful event that has not occured.
Do you believe the nation of Ethiopia exists?
First hand accounts, video, documentation, don't you have a better example? Evolution has none of this, just wishful thinking from people that want it to be true.
Ah, so you're just a liar. Thanks for clearing that up.
Ad hominem attacks are not scientific. This is the problem with this debate, since you have no proof you have resorted to non-scientific means of discrediting personality instead of offering facts.
Secondly, if you read my post (that you even copied and pasted), I clearly state my position as one of "belief" not fact, so I am not lying, I do actually believe what I have stated.
Things like the fossil record are evidence that this theory is true.
No they aren't, it's not falsifiable.
Simply because it is an alternate explanation to creationism and ID does not make it a religon.
Aetheists keep Christmas, is it religious or not? Why do you believe in evolution? You have no real proof it happend, you have to take it on faith that it did.
By your logic, anything that is not absolute fact is religion.
I believe evolution is religion because it is the only scientific theory in the mass public's mind that has been trying to be prooved scientifically for last hundred+ years, with _no_ credible results, and tons of lies and deceit to prove that which is unproveable.
I am sure there is a big list online somewhere of all the fradulent "proofs" of evolution. (I even saw some in my own 6th grade science book, remember the faked fetus drawings?)
I am not saying ID is science, but I sure am certainly saying evolution is wild goose chase.
Intelligent design isn't science, therefore it doesn't belong in a science room.
You cannot base one unproven theory on a plethora of other unproven theories and call that science.
Belief in evolution is a form of religion,(definition #4) as it cannot be proved through any scientific methods on how life began and must be taken on faith, as we don't even know the conditions in which the first life came to be, as these are theories too.
Since ID is no different, then neither should be taught in schools...
Jesus says you can't divorce a woman except for fornication. Well... married women do 'Adultery', not fornication.
"Fornication" is an English word, never found in the original text. This may shock you, but language can be ambiguous.
From the Bible:
Mt 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Jesus is pretty cleary here, fornication == adultry && fornication == other sexual perversions (ie, bestiality, etc..) which makes sense as a reason to be able to divorce from a total sexual immorality perspective, not just adultry.
Below is the actual greek words used in the scripture. There appears to be no ambiguity here at all. The actual greek text... the word "fornication" is translated from the greek "Porneia" ( porn...?).
illicit sexual intercourse
adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,
metaph. the worship of idols
of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols
Slashdot Mirror
Since evolution is a belief system to describe something not understood by science, it can be debated.
And you are totally welcome to your belief in this theory, but it should not be forced upon public schools with public tax money.
I reserve beliefs for religion/philosophy, and leave it out of science- it does not belong.
Evolution is a philosophy, as it can't be proved or disproved, only believed or not believed. I agree, it should be left out of science teachings in public schools. Just ID should be left out of public schools.
Every single living thing that reproduces changes a little in every generation, but they aren't "evolving", unless you are trying to redefine the term.
But the bacteria cultured from the specific condition (repeated partial applications of an antibiotic) resulted in a new group that was nearly invulnerable to said toxin, while the control group could be _completely_ killed by a similar dosage.
This is what you call evolution? Forcing a group of bacteria to survive in a toxic environment? You can do this experiment on yourself with alcohol. The first time you drink a six pack the cells in your body react and have to reject it to survive as the toxicity levels are too high. But, if you condition your body to deal with the hightened level of toxicity after awhile you can easily drink a 6 six pack.
And all you have to do is ask any nurse in a big city that deliver's baby's if any of the traits of a drug abusing parent (as an extreme example) get passed onto the child. This is a very basic concept, but certainly not evolution.
Sure, it states that overall, the entropy of a system increases. However, for arbitrary large stretches of time, it can decrease.
Entropy, the bane of evolution. Describe this for me, how is it even possible for a simple single celled organism (sperm) combine with a human egg, and at the most simple level life gets for mammals and then for a very specific time period entropy goes in reverse (invariably)?
How is it that everything in the universe looses heat through entropy, but living things gain heat? The larger the living element grows, the more heat it contains, defying the concept of entropy. But only living things do this, nothing else.
Considering the fact that scientists cannot explain how adding water to a seed will cause life to enter the seed and it will grow into a plant, (again completely defying thermodynamic entropy) I venture to say we are extemely ignorant of the true inner workings of even a bacteria.
Evolution says that a simple system developes into a more complex system. (let's have a standard definition of evolution to discuss from) What you have described is filtering a quality until it's more pure, not creating something new, and certainly not more complex.
I absolutely agree, so you can go to private school and learn about evolution. Where as I'd prefer my kids be taught neither at school.
How is this _any_ different than "I am nothing like my great, great, great.....great grandfather"?
Selective breeding is _not_ evolution.
Most antibiotics are natural. Pencillin is natural. Natural ingredients have no bearing on the effects when used unnaturally or in unnatural quanities.
None have proved it true either. So if it's not true, and can't be proved false, why are we forcing it into the schools? Isn't this the same problem with ID? How are these any different?
It is a theory about how things 'could have' evolved from simpler life forms into different more complex life forms
This is another reason why it's not provable, it's based on the assumption that life already existed. If it already existed at what stage was this life form? Can we just assume it was a one celled organism? How many assumptions have to be made to believe in this theory?
As you have said, this effect was caused by human intervention, the use of antibiotics created the effect. This is not a natural phenomenon, but a human created one.
The specific bacteria that could resist the penicillin already existed , you simply filtered out the ones with the effect.
Filtering out a specific bacteria is not evolving the bacteria.
Your example is not an example of evolution.
I am not talking about philosophical ideas, simple facts, period. You can prove gravity exists in grade school science with basic experiments. Evolution is a theory with _no_ proof, only theory.
Understanding that life evolves may not be used in your everyday life, but it is for some people.
Great, then let them study it, but don't force a belief in evolution upon the public with tax money.
Ask anyone at a pharmaceutical company, biologist, heck even your doctor understands that evolutions take place.
Belief in this theory does not mean it is true.
poetry is all theory and isn't used in my everday life.
Poetry is art, evolution/ID are science subjects, there is no comparison.
Just curious what you were expecting by posting on this topic?
I'm not going to try and provide evidence of evolution to you. If you want evidence, to a quick search on the internet
This is partly my point with evolution, there is no obvious proof, where everything else we discussed is readily apparent with many proofs.
We are talking about science, evolution and ID, not social studies or food, so your other are irrelevant to the issue.
So far you haven't provided any facts supporting the theory of evolution. I've shown that evolution can only be "believed" since it can't be proved.
If you feel you can support the idea that we should teach "faith" based science, then who cares if it's ID or evolution?
You are attempting to bundle proveable scientific fact (life exists, gravity works, etc..) with science fiction (evolution). This argument is not effective.
So, since it is unlikely that we will ever be able to prove how life and the universe began, there's no point in even researching it really.
Research it all you like, just don't try and use tax dollars to support the spreading of theory that has no application to everyday life other than belief in the idea.
I mean, if you're not going to pass that knowledge on by teaching it, there's not much point at all.
Go ahead, teach and research it, but don't force others to listen to the idea through public schools...
1. These things are not being taught in grade school, evolution is.
2. Evolution directly opposes a religious belief set (when taught as a theory of the origins of life), and is also relgious in nature that you have to "believe" in it because there is no proof.
No other element to standard education does this. (math, english, PE, etc...)
Based on the constitution, one sect of religion vs another, whether based on a scientist studies or a preachers teachings, should not be taught in schools. (ie, paid for and supported by the government) This means both ID and evolution.
When you fight to support an idea you have no scientific proof to support, how can it be considered anything but religious?
The modern world was formed from what though? Teaching a theory based on a complete unknown is not scientific at all...
Because many people actually do use evolution to explain the beginning of life? I don't know why they do... I don't know where you're coming from it's impossible for me to adequately critique your post
My point is that evolution is no more scientific at it's root than ID, so why should it get precidence in the schools teaching ciriculum? Why not just not teach either one?
What good is it to teach about theories that haven't been proved after over a hundred years of research?
This is part of the problem, many people believe it is fact.
Lots of things we take for granted every day are not fact.
I challenge you to prove anything that we teach scientifically (math, phyisics, etc...) in school that has not been proved absolutely. This is an issue specifically related to science, teaching, our children and our schools. The one "scientific" element that is not science that is being taught in public schools is evolution.
There is no proof of God
And this is not being taught as fact in our schools that there is/isn't a God or who/what he is if there is one. But evolution is. or that the sun will come up tomorrow
Why should the "leading theories" be taught. The leading theories from a hunderd years ago are insanity now.
Who gets to determine what "leading theory" is? politicians, judges, teachers...?
What changes/evolutions? Without proof, this is just fiction.
maybe that's where Robin's extra hair comes from
Robin Williams is not an example of evolution.
aruging that this kind of evolution does not occur makes you look, well, stupid
Again, ad hominem, please stick to provable facts.
Yes, I 100% believe in the theory of evolution.
Does your belief make it a fact?
So far you still have not actually shown any proof, just descriptions of your own logical perspective. If evolution is proveable, there should be evidence of it, not only your personal logic to prove it.
This is really the crux of the problem with teaching either evolution or ID in schools, they are both just ideas, not proven facts. Why not leave this to let people decide what they want, since it more a belief issue than a scientific one?
Please explain to me how this happened with any human intervention or design by an outside force. Evolution is totally different, where it states that these changes happened by "accident". This being clarified to the point to exclude all possiblity of an external designer.
1. Your example has no value, as there is an external designer in your example, and these bacteria/rats have not evolved this ability accidently, naturally or by natural selection.
2. Your example is _very_ recent, please provide an example that is more than 100 years old that is even remotely credible, to support this idea lasting so long.
I believe this theory has only lasted so long simply by the hope and faith that some day it could be proved, not that it ever has. Can you say without a shred of doubt that you 100% believe in the theory of evolution?
The rest of your post is ad hominem.
You have not presented evidence, only a hopeful event that has not occured.
Do you believe the nation of Ethiopia exists?
First hand accounts, video, documentation, don't you have a better example? Evolution has none of this, just wishful thinking from people that want it to be true.
Ah, so you're just a liar. Thanks for clearing that up.
Ad hominem attacks are not scientific. This is the problem with this debate, since you have no proof you have resorted to non-scientific means of discrediting personality instead of offering facts.
Secondly, if you read my post (that you even copied and pasted), I clearly state my position as one of "belief" not fact, so I am not lying, I do actually believe what I have stated.
No they aren't, it's not falsifiable.
Simply because it is an alternate explanation to creationism and ID does not make it a religon.
Aetheists keep Christmas, is it religious or not? Why do you believe in evolution? You have no real proof it happend, you have to take it on faith that it did.
By your logic, anything that is not absolute fact is religion.
I believe evolution is religion because it is the only scientific theory in the mass public's mind that has been trying to be prooved scientifically for last hundred+ years, with _no_ credible results, and tons of lies and deceit to prove that which is unproveable.
I am sure there is a big list online somewhere of all the fradulent "proofs" of evolution. (I even saw some in my own 6th grade science book, remember the faked fetus drawings?)
I am not saying ID is science, but I sure am certainly saying evolution is wild goose chase.
You cannot base one unproven theory on a plethora of other unproven theories and call that science.
Belief in evolution is a form of religion,(definition #4) as it cannot be proved through any scientific methods on how life began and must be taken on faith, as we don't even know the conditions in which the first life came to be, as these are theories too.
Since ID is no different, then neither should be taught in schools...
definitely 64 character, definitely. I'm an excellent driver, definitely.
Ooooh, no, ooooooh no. It's not 64 CHARACTERS!!! *beats head* There's 6 spaces, I'm an excellent driver.
It's a very funny joke, definitely NOT 64 characters, definitely 80 characters, definitely 80.
Mt 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication , and shall marry another, committeth adultery : and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery
Jesus is pretty cleary here, fornication == adultry && fornication == other sexual perversions (ie, bestiality, etc..) which makes sense as a reason to be able to divorce from a total sexual immorality perspective, not just adultry.
Below is the actual greek words used in the scripture. There appears to be no ambiguity here at all. The actual greek text... the word "fornication" is translated from the greek "Porneia" ( porn...?)
FORNICATION:
porneiva Porneia (por-ni'-ah);
Word Origin: Greek, Noun Feminine, Strong #: 4202
illicit sexual intercourse
adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,
metaph. the worship of idols
of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols
ADULTRY:
moicavw Moichao (moy-khah'-o);
Word Origin: Greek, Verb, Strong #: 3429
to have unlawful intercourse with another's wife, to commit adultery with