DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Ohio Christian school tells student to skip prom

Quote:

---

Because the ball might weigh an ounce or a pound whereas the earth weighs trillions of tons.
It has to do with mass not the rotation.

---

FYI: Our planet weighs about 6 trillion trillion metric tonnes. I know this is true cuz I looked it up on the internet.

Quote:

---

I have been reading this thread for awhile now, and at no point does anyone call you stupid.

---

Quote:

---

And from your post, It seems like you really don't know much about the scientific stuff.

---

Quote:

---

It sounds as though you are dismissing these theories without a real understanding of what they are about---and that is kind of ignorant. Just saying "I don't buy it," without even considering the evidence is just ridiculous.

---

Quote:

---

Just the way you worded your post about evolution and the big bang---it seems like you don't really have that great of an understanding of either--and you act really defensively when they are presented.

---

Quote:

---

The big bang theory? I am supposed to not believe in creation, which I cannot prove, but I am supposed to believe in something smashing into this earth, and all of a sudden life was formed?

---

Quote:

---

Stupid, ignorant, and illogical.

---

Quote:

---

Homosexuality is not addressed in the New Testament,

---

Quote:

---

Where is the proof of evolution? It takes just as big of a leap of faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in creation.

---

Quote:

---

Evolution doesn't require belief,

---

Quote:

---

Yes it does.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Yes it does.

---

The only belief that it covers (mentioned in my post about 2 pages ago), is a belief in the reality of scientific observation

~Lyuokdea

---

Quote:

---

Where is the proof of evolution?

---

Quote:

---

Am I to believe that earth was just a ball of mass, and then there was a big bang, and all of a sudden people, plants, and animals came about?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Here's the problem as I see it. I fully support your right to believe in whatever the hell you want to believe in. I have absolutely no problem with it, and ordinarily I think we'd be able to leave it at that. The problem I have is that inevitably the same views are shared by US senators and used to pass really illogical laws like Bill Frist's UIGEA or by vice presidential candidates who want to teach creationism in PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

---

So, we should teach evolution only, in your eyes?

---

A resounding yes! I’ll explain why. 

In biology classes across the country, students are taught that basis of science lies in the scientific method, ie the basis by which we discover how things work in our universe. Our observations lead to questions, the questions to hypothesis to experiments to results to discussions of results (short and sweet, I know ). Using this method, we shape our theory of evolution to fit our observations. And at this point, were sure it’s happening, however as little as 75 years ago we didn’t have all the info to make the correct theory. Stating that there is an alternative scientifically based theory is wrong. Creationism isn’t science for the same reasons you’ve pointed out in the past about climate change scientists and the way they prove their theories, they start off with the idea that the thing their studying is occurring, and do their work from there. You’ve stated your lack of scientific understanding, although I’d argue that point, I think you understand the basis of good science at least which is more than most people in the world, but you understand that one can’t start from the end and expect unbiased results.

Quote:

---

When science can prove beyond doubt, without question, that there is no God........

---

I doubt science will be able to ever prove this. If God wants to stay the way he is now, we wont anyway.

Quote:

---

if science can prove beyond doubt that man was once ape

---

I’m well, I guess it depends on how much evidence you need to push you to that idea. We have fossil evidence that shows a transition of apes, to upright apes, to running apes, to something vaguely human, to human. We have genetic maps that show Man and chimps share 98% of their genome. Not just, matching nitrogenous bases, but whole sections of chromosomes are identical. We have apes capable of conscious thought, rationalization, and communication. If that doesn’t prove we share common ancestry (from millions of years ago) then I’m not sure how much more evidence there is.

Also, fossil evidence for many different extant species has shown their own ancestry. For whale evolution, we now have a very good understanding of what it looks like. It was once theorized that they came from a cow-like or hippo-like animal that took full time to the sea. We now know that it was more along the lines of a modern day Capibara. (Heres a link to cetacean evolution outlines) What it shows is an animal that starts off rodent-like, and over millions of years changes into something whale-like and finally whales. The best thing about this is that the first fossil gave us a reference point in time when this evolution was occurring and allowed us to search fossil beds of the correct time period of the correct environments. Those scientific predictions allowed us to find other fossils that gave us a better picture of how whale evolution occurred.

Quote:

---

I have no desire to debate science. Although, if science were proven, in regards to what we are talking about - there would be no discussion, would there? That still wouldn't change my religion, my belief in God, or my feelings.

---

Discussion is a large part of what science is. Anyone can posit a hypothesis about the mechanism by which something works, but getting that to stand up to peer-review is another thing. Science is about checking what other people are doing, and matching it against your own ideas. Does it make sense? How could this be happening? Where do we go from that point someone just proved? Every person in a field of science is an important cog in a machine whose main goal is to explain the currently unexplained. Now what that means is that sometimes, scientists do get it wrong. The important thing is that we change our view to suit the new evidence that is presented. That is what true science is about. Approaching a view without bias, without interest in the outcome, and see if what we theorize and test matches our previous observations.

You also reference a disdain for the climate change portion of climate science. While I think you have the right to be, some of the people who did this science have really messed it up for the whole field, I think you’re letting that disdain carry over to the rest of science. In other words, you’re letting a small group set the tone for the rest who quietly keep there head down yet do amazing work.

Quote:

---

Science is good. But science cannot and will not ever be able to explain everything.

---

This I disagree with, I tend to think we will find out how everything works if we’re around long enough.

Thanks for reading

Quote:

---

It's not the scientific observation that concerns me, it's the scientific manipulation that concerns me.

---

Quote:

---

First and foremost...Evolution has NOT been proven. Evolution is a THEORY. If Evolution had been proven it would be a LAW. As in the LAW OF GRAVITY. or the LAWS of PHYSICS.

---

Quote:

---

And there are many in the Evolution Community that are even rejecting Darwin.

---

Quote:

---

Because in order to do so I think they need to find the mechanism. And most likely a commmon mechanism that controls and propels evolution.

---

Quote:

---

Wow, there's something to go on. Keep in mind, scientists used to think the earth was flat.

---

Quote:

---

So, if evolution is proven, and the big bang didn't create life........exactly where, in your scientific opinion, did life begin?

---

Quote:

---

Was there life to begin with, and we evolved out of that? Must be. First came ?, then came apes, then came man? What was the first thing?

---

Quote:

---

See what you and Phil started? It began on the middle of page one and is currently on page 5. The actual topic of this thread has been discussed very little.

Such is the life of being a dawgtalker.

---

Quote:

---

Can you explain, or better, can science explain how life came to be?

---

Well, yes in a sense. We're much closer to understanding how abiogenesis could occur. For instance, I'm probably going to blog about this too , a paper is coming out soon that details the evolution of RNA molecules, enzymes to be exact. That's right, not and organism, not even a virus, but straight genetic material How cool, eh? You can read about it here.

This isn't the only instance of this happening. DNA alone has been shown to do the same thing too. Proving that cells aren't necessary for "life", and that catalysts like these enzymes could be a very reasonable model for what first passed for life on this planet.

But like i said before, just because we dont know now, doesn't mean we can't find it out through scientific inquiry. If you thought the last 30 years were revolutionary, just wait for the next 30

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Science is good. But science cannot and will not ever be able to explain everything.

---

This I disagree with, I tend to think we will find out how everything works if we’re around long enough.

---

Quote:

---

See what you and Phil started? It began on the middle of page one and is currently on page 5. The actual topic of this thread has been discussed very little.

Such is the life of being a dawgtalker.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Homosexuality is not addressed in the New Testament,

---

You may wish to review Romans 1:27.

---

I have read several differing opinions about the translation and interpretation of this. I suppose we all read what we want to......

Quote:

---

Well here's a first... ol' Lampy quotin' the Bible (I had to Google it hahaha).

Romans 1:27 (New International Version)

"27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

See, if I had been writing the Bible, it would have went something like: "If you're not hurting thy neighbour or thy sow, lust after whomever thou lusts after. Do as thou shalt. It's none of my damn business."

---

Now that could be considered righteous stalking.

Oh and learn to spell neighbor!

Quote:

---

Nuttin hoser

---

Watch it GM, lamp might take offense, or would that be offence?

Quote:

---

In science, a theory is the best fit model to explain our observations. That is as good as law.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And there are many in the Evolution Community that are even rejecting Darwin.

---

Can you show me this?

---

Quote:

---

Yeah, and I'm done with it, until someone else calls me stupid, ignorant, and irrational for what I believe.

---

Quote:

---

He is holding 2 pictures of mountains in his hands. And you can see the natual formations of the rock as they pushed up through the ground. You can see the different strata of rock. The other picture is a picture of Mt. Rushmore. Now you know that those formations were not NATURALLY made.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

In science, a theory is the best fit model to explain our observations. That is as good as law.

---

No...A Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven.

---

I'm failing to see how what i said is different from what you said. But this is as good a time as any to expose an ID/creationist talking point. (You do have it mostly correct though for the record)

There are four words in science that are also used in regular speech, they are fact, hypothesis, theory and law. For some, the definition is the same, for other's it isn't. So when an ID/creationist says "Evolution/BigBang is only a theory!" they are using normal vernacular, and not scientific. In regular english a fact is something that is synonymous with "truth." A law is something akin to a fact, but generally not used outside of the justice system. Hypothesis and theory can be used pretty much interchangeably in normal english. Both mean making an assertion based off of previous observation. Such as my dog will wake me up at 5 in the morning to be fed tomorrow. I can say that, but the only thing i have to back it up is that he does it every morning, but he may not also. A theory in layman can be as much right as wrong.

Science uses these words differently and their levels of importance change regarding one another. In everyday use, fact > law > theory > hypothesis. However, in science, theory > law > hypothesis > fact. A fact is still a fact, but usually more specific. "Estrogen plays an important role in male sociosexual behavior" is a good example. A hypothesis in science is literally an idea formulated to explain an observation. A good hypothesis is testable, or better yet falsifiable, because a wrong hypothesis can still tell you a lot about current theory. For instance, and Ly for sure can explain this better than me, the new orbital telescope the Fermi Gamma ray telescope is finding that our predictions on where we expect to find evidence of dark matter, isn't giving up any positive results. The predictions, when put to experiment, are not living up to what is expected. Another notable hypothesis, even though the name is misleading, is String theory. We don't have the capabilities yet to test this. Next is a law. A law in science is a descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances. A great example is the Law of Gravity. We're not sure how it works, but we know it does work. Laws are generally made from many facts/observations and are effectively an elevated level from a hypothesis. Because a law is just a description of how something behaves and it does not explain why it behaves that way, so it is usually considered to be below the level of a theory. A scientific theory then is the pinnacle of scientific endeavor. So when does a hypothesis become a theory? After it has withstood multiple, thousands in evolution’s case, attempts to falsify it. Over time, many experiments show that it is a reasonable answer to encompass all of the current observations. It explains the observations with one or more mechanisms and, because it provides those mechanisms (because it doesn’t have to be just one way, the universe doesn’t work that way), it is considered to be above the level of a scientific law. Other examples of scientific theories that are at least as reputable as the Theory of Evolution are Germ Theory, and the Theory of Relativity. Theories are not debated, but hypothesis within a theory can be to an extent. To this day, there is no reasonable scientific theory to even put a modicum of doubt in the validity of this theory.

Quote:

---

A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven.

---

Well, referencing my above rant , aspects of theories can. Now, which part of the Theory of Evolution is in danger of being disproven?

Quote:

---

What I mean to say that there are evolutionists that are attacking Darwins "Natural Selection" hypotheses and not necessarily the whole of evolution or Darwin himself.

---

Very true, but after 30 years of doing so, there has been no change because their hypothesis don't stand up. It's not bad to attack your forebears, Einstein did it and succeeded, which is one of the major reasons why the world is the way it is today.

Onto the website. This person, although very well-versed in numbers, doesn't do a very good job of showing that they know much about what the Modern Synthesis posits. Firstly, they assume that random mutation literally means that the genome is randomized then put back together. This isn't the case. Large scale mutations don't usually allow the organism to survive. However, scientists have shown that large changes can occur in just a few base pair changes to one gene. Last year, a PhD at Michigan State, Rich Lenski, showed that in roughly 30,000 generations (about 20 years) e. coli bacteria were able to evolve a novel way to use citrate, a molecule not know to be usable by any strain of e.coli, for an energy source. After analyzing the genome of every 500th or so generation, they found that there were three single base pair mutations to the genome that allowed this new type of e. coli to enter into this new, previously unfilled, niche. The second is this:

Quote:

---

The point is that six-hundred million years is not enough time for evolution to have worked.
Even 600 billion years would not be enough.
Even 10^100,000 years would not be near enough time for evolution to have occurred by random mutations of DNA. Not even close.

---

This conclusion comes from, like you said previously, setting out to intentionally prove an outcome. Again, we've seen bacteria gain resistances to drugs in a mere five years. And, as i shared in an above post, RNA is able to exhibit life-like qualities in that it can independently reproduce itself and evolve rapidly to a given environment. I'm sorry, but those stats don't match the current findings of evolutionary scientists.
Change can occur through a minimal amount of non-lethal mutations, over a relatively short (geologically short) time span.

Quote:

---

EVERY SINGLE THING THAT LIVES OR HAS LIVED CONTAINED DNA

---

Don't leave out RNA, RNA viruses have taken more lives than any war of man.

Quote:

---

If things were so random...why no branches off or triple or other shapes???

---

That's akin to asking, why don't we have six digits on our limbs? The truth is, that there are fossils that show six, seven and eight digits all around the same fossil time. Yet all amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals show evidence of having 5. I believe they share the same answer, because at the time, it was the best available and those populations of pre-lifeforms that had the efficiency of double helical genetic material won out over other pre-lifeforms. An accident? No more than having 5 phalanges on each digit.

Quote:

---

I think that Evolution is happening...

---

Great

Quote:

---

but there is something much bigger than all of us that is moving it along..

---

Again, there's no definable evidence either way you approach it to make that statement. Faith is called such for a reason. And science doesn't have the capabilities to prove it. So it's a moot point. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

Quote:

---

because it is far to big to have all just happened randomly.

---

There's a large quantity of natural observations that prove the contrary. You state that there are things I can learn from ID'ers. I would like to know some examples of how a person who starts off with their conclusion and works backwards should have any say in the science field, and more importantly, how science is taught. Creationism and ID have no proof that they are approaching even a scientific hypothesis that they could teach in school. Their only way to get included in the curriculum is for children to "debate" the validity of some of the hypothesis of the Theory, to insert a shred of doubt. That is the only thing ID and creation "science" has done. They have no science to stand on their own. I'm sorry to state it so bluntly, it's not you

If i forgot something, please bring it up

Quote:

---

For instance, and Ly for sure can explain this better than me, the new orbital telescope the Fermi Gamma ray telescope is finding that our predictions on where we expect to find evidence of dark matter, isn't giving up any positive results. The predictions, when put to experiment, are not living up to what is expected.

---