Posted on 02/19/2008 5:54:12 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger
Yes humans evolved from the big bang.
“This type of “micro-evolution” is not obviously going anywhere...”
So observable evidence of the evolution of species (Darwin’s point) isn’t evidence?
It seems you believe computers did as well.
You really should read a little before you try to discuss science. If you are genuinely interested in learning, look up the history of the word “soliton” (my screen name) and I will happily correspond with you, step by step, about how nothing becomes something and give you hundreds of real world examples that will prove to you that everything you can see or touch has “evolved” over time.
I am writing a collection of essays for my kids called “the essential meme” that uses “natural selection” as the engine allowing the universe to become aware of itself. It is 90% accepted science and 10% extrapolation.
>> Proofs are proved in observational fit to theory.
As an example: Gravity is proved by such as apples falling or planets in orbits whose dimensions and dynamics that are predicted to a workable enough degree by a theory. And so is Newton’s model proved. <<
Yeah... that was a distinction that shows how the Florida board is at least 100 years behind. Once we understood, in the very early 1900’s that mass, and thus grvaity, varies slightly when the objects are in motion, we realized that Newton’s equations would need modifications for very fast objects.
So Newton’s theory of gravity is absolutely not a fact - it is accurate only limited circumstances.
Fortunately those limited circumstances cover most every day earth behavior so Newton’s theories are still useful. We even have a name for older physics that does not take into consideration modern physics - “Newtonian Physics.”
So, sadly the Florida board just really doesn’t seem to understand facts versus theory.
LOL Oh please. We were discussing your post, and you know it.
Pure nonsense, any differentiation of species will be “lateral” until a selection event takes place. Then it becomes vertical.
>>Why wasn’t his faith a hindrance to his scientific inquiry?
Why didn’t the faith of other great men of science hold them back from making the discoveries they did?<<
I would say its because belief in God and science (including evolution) are not in conflict.
What is in conflict and is something Newton rebelled against is church dogma that makes scientific assumptions not based on evidence. Thus Newton was somewhat at odds with being a conventional English Christian but was a Christian.
For example he may not have believed in the Trinity and was accused of being a Rosicrucian.
In practice there's only so accurate one can be.
That Newton's Theory produces a excellent and practical model of gravity and of planetary motion is a fact.
>>Sounds like they didn’t get the education their parents tax dollars paid for either.
Wasn’t science taught properly 20-40 years ago either?
<<
Biology was certainly not being taught right in Florida and there are apparently no plan to teach it right the next few years.
>>If they don’t know what a theory is, that’s the fault of their science teachers.<<
Maybe. There are a lot of bad science teachers. But there are also a lot of people who wish to oppose evolution on principle who have heard what a theory is and find the actual scientific definition inconvenient and thus don’t use it.
The solution is complete privatization of K-12 education.
With regard to evolution, it is of such insignificance in the daily work of nearly all scientists, and of no use whatsoever in the lives of the overwhelming majority of our population, that the state has NO right to force it on people by threat of police action. ( Or to force taxpayers to pay for it.)
That’s all true but it still doesn’t make Newton’s theory of Gravity into a fact - because it is sometimes not right. Its a theory. A very useful theory from perhaps the most influential Western man in history. But still not a fact.
And that is a distinction that I would expect every science graduate to understand. It would be nice the people who set science education policy understood it too.
Oddly enough I bet they would understand if they were told that find human skeletons that lived and died in the days of the Dinosaurs would keep the current theory of evolution from being a fact.
With regard to evolution, it is of such little significance in the daily work of nearly all scientists, and of no use whatsoever in the lives of the overwhelming majority of our population, that the state has NO compelling reason to force it on people by threat of police action. ( Or to force taxpayers to pay for it.)
If education in the U.S. were completely private all this acrimony over evolution would evaporate like dew on grass on a summer morning.
>>With regard to evolution, it is of such little significance in the daily work of nearly all scientists, and of no use whatsoever in the lives of the overwhelming majority of our population, that the state has NO compelling reason to force it on people by threat of police action. ( Or to force taxpayers to pay for it.)<<
I’ve got plenty of criticisms (many of which I’ve made here) of public schools.
But are really saying k-12 education has no use whatsoever for the majority?.. Its hard to believe U.S. productivity per person would be anywhere near $43,000 a year without the current k-12 system. We can try to make it much better but we do need to acknowledge to current value in order to make a the most useful improvements.
Hmmm ... so it is that since designer-free Evolution can only be called a mere theory and no longer a mighty FACT, we have the deluded now demanding that all facts become “theory”?
LOL! The humanity of it all! Hubris burns eternal.
Aesop spoke of this — see http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_aesop_fox_tail.htm
This synopsis is a reasonable place to start: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
>>Hmmm ... so it is that since designer-free Evolution can only be called a mere theory and no longer a mighty FACT, we have the deluded now demanding that all facts become “theory”?<<
Its really more a problem of not understanding how strong a science theory is.
I have a (non-scientific) theory as to one source of the misunderstanding.
Pretty much everybody goes through high school geometry. In geometry we learn the difference between a theory and a theorum - with a theorum having been proved.
That’s different than science since there is no way to test a theory for all possible conditions. So there is always a possibility that some circumstances will be found that contradict the theory. Even a theory like gravity that is so reliable that we count on it.
My theory is that many non-science people don’t understand that difference.
Next they’ll tell us some crap about global warming being only a theory. Like Al Gore would ever steer us wrong!
What on earth are you talking about? It is the forces of ignorance who have been using fear and intimidation to keep the very word "evolution" out of science standards in Florida for decades. The state school board has finally stood up to this farce and voted to legalize a word that the thought police have succeeded is suppressing for far too long. Celebrate! This is a great victory for academic freedom!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No where in the following did I say that the **entire** concept of a K-12 education was of no value. What am I to do? I can not fight a strawman argument of **your** creation.
I said the following:
“With regard to ***evolution****, it is of such little significance in the daily work of nearly all scientists, and of no use whatsoever in the lives of the overwhelming majority of our population, that the state has NO compelling reason to force it on people by threat of police action. “
Thoughtful readers will clearly see that I restricted my comments to the topic of **evolution** only.
The solution, gondramB, is to privatize universal K-12 education. Do this, and all the acrimony surrounding evolution, and hundreds of other non-negotiable conflicts, will evaporate like water on a hot summer’s pavement.
Personally, we discussed evolution in our homeschool. I don’t have a problem with evolution. I **do** have a problem with the government forcing it on children against their parent’s will. I suppose it’s that pesky Libertarian streak in me.
You know, I think I misread your post. I apologize.
>>Apparently you are misremembering. McCain opposes torture, but he has opposed limiting the CIA in its interrogation techniques to the specific methods outlined in the US Army rules.<<
As a separate issue I have said many times I don’t know where the government would get the authority (certainly not since the 14th amendment limited the states) to forcibly round up all the children and force them to learn whatever the government chooses.
>>Apparently you are misremembering. McCain opposes torture, but he has opposed limiting the CIA in its interrogation techniques to the specific methods outlined in the US Army rules.<<
As a separate issue I have said many times I don’t know where the government would get the authority (certainly not since the 14th amendment limited the states) to forcibly round up all the children and force them to learn whatever the government chooses.
Remember,please, that any government powerful enough to force your ideas about evolution on resistant children and parents is powerful enough to force their ideas on your child.
It isn't freedom to have children of resistant parents forced into a government indoctrination center and then force fed another parent's worldview. This includes hundreds of issues, not just evolution. Remember this the next time the government school takes a stand on an issue with which you don't agree.
What on earth are you talking about?
Government schools are **compulsory** for all those without an alternative. That means police action **will** be taken against the parent or the student, if they don't subject themselves to the government will in the schools.
The solution to all the acrimony over evolution and, by the way, hundreds of other nonnegotiable issues in the government schools, is to privatize universal K-12 education. Do this and this bitter fighting will disappear.
It is the forces of ignorance who have been using fear and intimidation to keep the very word "evolution" out of science standards in Florida for decades.
These forces of ignorance don't agree with you! Only one side will win this fight. There is no neutral position that the government school can take. One side wins. The other loses. Unfortunately, there are non-neutral consequences to either teaching evolution or not teaching it. This is why the fight is so bitter.
Privatize universal K-12 education and all these arguments will go away.
I don’t where it got the authority either.
But,,,,every day, the government rounds up children and forces them to learn whatever the government chooses, whether it be homosexuality, condoms on cucumbers, banishing the words mom and dad from the textbooks, new-new math, or whole word reading, global warming, environmentalism,proper and improper dress, and hundreds of other non-neutral moral, ethical, cultural, political, and religious issues. Is is any wonder that various cultural citizen groups are **always** fighting over the government schools?
Yes, some parents can rescue their children from the government indoctrination camps. I call it **ransom**. These lucky parents get to pay extra in tuition or homeschooling expenses. Another way to phrase it is a “freedom of conscience” tax. The rest must submit to the will of the government or face court, police, and foster care action. Government schools? What bullies!
Privatize universal K-12 education and much of the intramural infighting over evolution and hundreds of other issues will disappear.
In this state, they tried to pass a bill requiring home-schoolers to attend state school if they didn't pass certain requirements.
Your child is not your own, but is chattel-property of the state and can be removed at will.
Just like the communists.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Those defending and running the government indoctrination camps aren’t “just like communists”. They ARE communists and they have plenty of Useful Idiots to help them.
What on earth are you taking about? You display the classic lack of critical-thinking skills that is common to most evolutionists. It is the naturalists who are 'willfully ignorant' and use 'fear and intimidation', not the creationists.
Naturalists 'willfully ignore' any conclusion that is not natural because they have an 'a priori' commitment to the of the philosophy of naturalism. Naturalists having no such choice present that farce as 'enlightenment'.
Once again we see the negative impact of the evolutionary worldview on human critical-thinking skills. There is something about it that just seems to turn people's brains to mush.
>>Remember,please, that any government powerful enough to force your ideas about evolution on resistant children and parents is powerful enough to force their ideas on your child.<<
From the education side, evolution doesn’t really stand out - there is certainly more effort to make children believe in algebra and grammar than anything in science, certainly including evolution.
Read a book about Gallileo.
You should stop getting your talking points from creationist sites and think for yourself. The origin of evolutionary thought was the obvious evolution of complexity in the fossil record. There are thousands of examples of “vertical” steps in evolution. Seek the truth.
>>So Florida is only 153 years behind.
I was watching a History channel program on the recovery of engineering in Italy at the start of the Renaissance.
The cycle was interesting:
Economic recovery
Desire to compete with other successful towns
War as a motivator for advancement
The recovery of Rome as a power
And then with this official blessing for all the building and science advances Rome began to try to limit the advances that did not coincide with dogma.
So the real attempts to control progress came not from desperate straits but from an abundance of success.
It made me think.
I'd lay money on the fact that Sopater is thinking for himself. Just because you don't like the conclusion he came to doesn't mean he isn't.
The problem with evos, is that the only time they think someone is thinking for themselves is if that person comes to the same conclusion about evolution that evos have. Others think that there are other explanations for the fossil record and consider them, something the evos mindset doesn't allow for-considering someone else might have a valid point that explains what we see.
Seek the truth.
If someone is going to seek the truth, then they're not going to find it in science because science isn't about truth, or proof either. It's about the best explanation to fit the data. (as per your compatriots)
No real way to determine if the current explanation is right or wrong. The best explanations change with new data coming in so the previous ones are wrong. So why should we put any stock in something that is likely to be wrong to begin with?
I’m sorry I was foolish enough to get involved in this discussion. It always ends the same way. Creationists criticizing the science that produced the computer that they use for the criticism.
I don’t understand why people of faith hate faith so much that the deny they rely on it for their beliefs.
“Those defending and running the government indoctrination camps aren’t “just like communists”. They ARE communists and they have plenty of Useful Idiots to help them.”
You’re really running up a list. All of us on FR who defend public schools in any way are communists, child abusers, useful idiots, and some others I’m forgetting. You really love insulting people, don’t you.
“With regard to evolution, it is of such insignificance in the daily work of nearly all scientists, and of no use whatsoever in the lives of the overwhelming majority of our population, that the state has NO right to force it on people by threat of police action. ( Or to force taxpayers to pay for it.)”
You should stop and think how silly this statement is. It shows that you have no concept of what a real education is, or you’re so blinded by your agenda you’ll argue anything at all.
Good homeschoolers (and public schoolers) teach scads of stuff that by itself is “insignificant.” But those insignificant things come together to create a better understanding of virtually everything.
How many science courses on the undergrad university level, and on the graduate level have you studied? Specifically, how many of them were biology based?
Is your profession in the sciences, and which field of science?
Evolution is **not** of sufficient compelling societal interest that it justifies the government forcing it upon the unwilling, or threatening police action if taxpayers refuse to fork over taxes for it.
Evolution is of **no** consequence to the massive sea of people in the U.S. who create the world’s health and wealth. It has no bearing upon the work of the overwhelming majority of scientists, researchers, and engineers working in the U.S., and their exposure to it on the undergrad level is really very minimal. Even in the field of biology itself, biologists are rarely focused on macro-evolution. Their work is either completely unrelated to evolution or is concerned with micro-evolution, or the biochemistry of cell function.
Macro-evolution is really only important to a tiny, tiny handful of scientists in this entire world!
The solution: Begin the process of privatizing universal K-12 education !
It is time to end the curriculum wars.
...which makes me wonder why crevos are so adamant in defending something that by their own required definition is ultimately...meaningless.
A crevo-cunundrum no doubt.
Evolution is of **no** consequence to the massive sea of people in the U.S. who create the world’s health and wealth. It has no bearing upon the work of the overwhelming majority of scientists, researchers, and engineers working in the U.S., and their exposure to it on the undergrad level is really very minimal. Even in the field of biology itself, biologists are rarely focused on macro-evolution. Their work is either completely unrelated to evolution or is concerned with micro-evolution, or the biochemistry of cell function.
Macro-evolution is really only important to a tiny, tiny handful of scientists in this entire world!
Tell me, why do you oppose the theory of evolution?
Is it for scientific reasons, of for religious reasons?
(If the latter, see tagline.)
>> Therefore life the universe and everything
is meaningless meaningless.<<
It sounds like you have drawn the worst possible interpretation of evolution and then feel you must deny it because if your interpretation were true, it would be bad.
If you could take another look at “meaning” the conclusion might not worry you so much.
I worry about nothing.
Please be mindful of false accusation based upon poor reading comprehension.
The summary I presented is evolution at it’s best...not worse! The best a godless mind can ever hope for is nothing, because everything they believe is based upon it. And nothing has no purpose except to fill vacuous dreams.
But feel free to believe what you wish.
I suppose, based upon your comment, that you have some enlightened and progressive meaning for the term “meaning” that you’d like to share with us all, and that will somehow suddenly give validity to nothingness?
If so, please, share it, so we can all pin our hopes and dreams and belief systems on the value of nothing.
Is it your position that, if you accept the validity of the theory of evolution, you necessarily have a “godless mind”?
What criticizing science?
Check out posts 68, 91, and 97 in this thread.
Then there’s these posts dealing with comments about science not being about truth. That’s not my doing or saying. It comes from the *experts* themselves. If you don’t like it you need to take it up with them.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1838204/posts?page=93#93
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1893428/posts?page=104#104
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1893428/posts?page=36#36
Even supported by organizations like Cal-Tech. Follow the link in the post.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1893428/posts?page=50#50
No, people of faith don’t hate faith. That’s a totally nonsensical statement. The only people who seem to hate it are those who deny having it when they rely on it all the time.
I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.
From the overt nastiness of your reply I see I was in error.
Actually theory is too strong a word for what is really just a religious belief. The idea of one animal changing to another is found in many beliefs including North American beliefs. The idea of an ape human link comes from Tibetan beliefs.
A real theory for provide more specific explanations than vague suggestions about random mutations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.