Questioning Society discussion
Making It Better
>
FREEDOM OF SCIENCE
message 101:
by
Daisy
(new)
Apr 27, 2009 09:20PM
there are have you not seen the 'wolf children' they have fur! Like monkeys!!1
reply
|
flag
Also it took us 100,000,000s of years to get to this stage so no not every 50 years every 1000 years maybe!
Mod
Wouldn't that be going backwards then, from human to monkey instead of monkey to human?
Mod
"The US scientists found that the appendix acted as a "good safe house" for bacteria essential for healthy digestion, in effect re-booting the digestive system after the host has contracted diseases such as amoebic dysentery or cholera, which kill off helpful germs and purge the gut."
Here are three sites to back this up:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/...
http://soundmedicine.iu.edu/segment.p...
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-sty...
or into a different animal form I suppose plenty of animals have fur.
Mod
Then why don't we learn about evolution in History class? Weren't there human's 1000 years ago to see evolution happen?
Mod
Still going backwards though. Aren't humans the last thing to evolve?
Because Evolution is taught in science, and maybe their were doesn't mean they documented it and I said every 1000 years MAYBE that's iffy
Mod
But what about the missing links? I still don't get why we don't see those.
please define your definition of 'missing links' for the confused person
you know what tell me what you mean and I will talk to you tommorow I have school tommorow
Mod
I mean, as I said, a half human half monkey that came from a monkey therefore showing evolution.
Evolution has a chain showing the evolutionary process, correct? Some sort of list thing. Well, why are there not more? It occurs over millions of years, so are there not more animals in between, to show they process?
No worries about school, I can wait. :)
because it took 100,000,000s of years to create a dang human!
Mod
So a monkey just one day gave birth to a full human?
And I don't just mean from chimps to humans, I also mean from whatever animal the chimp evolved from to the chimp. Did they just one day give birth to a monkey?
Mod
Ninja wrote: "GreenDaisy BlackStem wrote: "or into a different animal form I suppose plenty of animals have fur. "
Still going backwards though. Aren't humans the last thing to evolve?"
"I meant a half ape, half human. Like I said, shouldn't we see a missing link in between the two? An ape didn't give birth to a human, did it? So we should be able to see small changes in animals as they give birth each time. I mean, at least every 50 years or so, shouldn't we see a small change from human to monkey? And like I said, shouldn't there be a link in the middle that looks like both mixed together? If it does take millions of years, why aren't there more links in the animals chain?"Because monkeys of the present didn't give birth to humans. Monkeys AND humans came from one ancestor.
ANd why aren't there half dog half wolves running around? Because the became two separate populations, with TWO DIFFERENT GENE POOLS so there can't be any cross over. We are so far evolved we can't combine.
"Then why don't we learn about evolution in History class? Weren't there human's 1000 years ago to see evolution happen? "Because you need 1,000,000 years to see evolution.
Because people back then hadn't figured out evolution yet.
Because they believed everything religion told them.
And because you cannot see widespread evolution within the history of man, because it just isn't enough time.
And it is possible to devolved. The whales devolved from hippos.
That is awesome!! I will be lonely today I needed a mental health day since I had a breakdown in my shower this morning.
Mod
And yet, you ran with it. Tsk, tsk."
Um, I deleted that comment. It was wrong, I rechecked it. So I deleted it almost right after I posted it.
Lauren wrote: "D:"I can't keep up with this discussion. It'll be about gravity, then the sun, then apes, then deleting a comment. I'll stick to the other ones...
An interview, to get the debate back on track.
From that article."The thing is that if we observe what's been happening through evolution, the higher on the evolutionary scale we are and the more omnivorous animals become, then the smaller and less important the appendix becomes and humans are a good example of that.
"The actual normal flora bacteria within the appendix, as well within our gut, are the same, so we've lost all of those specialised bacteria.
"So it doesn't have that safe house type of function anymore, I don't think.
"It's a vestige of something that was there in previous incarnations, if you like.""
"some aren't literal 7 dayers"=Young Earth Creationists.
You mean, of course, theory in the non-scientific context.
I completely agree, however.
Mod
But as I said, Intelligent Design doesn't mean God. It can mean any higher being, such as aliens. I think people should be able to see both sides of Creationism and Evolution, and then decide which one they think is the most logical and has good proof.
Mod
And this isn't just about Intelligent Design. If you watch Expelled, it talks about how certain scientists aren't supposed to suggest any other ideas other than Darwinism and Evolution. Even if they are just trying to discover facts for Intelligent Design, it's not allowed and they could lose their jobs.
Mod
Mod
Here is another good one: http://www.greensock.com/portfolio/Mi...
See what happens when you microwave....Well, anything!
"But as I said, Intelligent Design doesn't mean God. It can mean any higher being, such as aliens. I think people should be able to see both sides of Creationism and Evolution, and then decide which one they think is the most logical and has good proof."BS. It's a plot to get God into schools, and nothing else.
"It is too new and needs an opportunity to be run through the peer review gamut before it can be taught in a science class."
And they don't want that, because it'll never work.
"2103611 But if, in the future, there was logical evidence for Creationism, would it be acceptable to teach?"
Yes. But it will NEVER have evidence, because there is no proof at all the Bible has anything right.
"2103611 Still, I think the main issue is not even allowing other possibilities to be explored. "
Well if that's the case, EVERY creation myth in the world has to be taught too. It's silly, as none of them have proof.
Mod
BS. It's a plot to get God into schools, and nothing else.
"But if, in the future, there was logical evidence for Creationism, would it be acceptable to teach?"
Yes. But it will NEVER have evidence, because there is no proof at all the Bible has anything right."
But as you just said, you seem to not even want it to be able to be explored at all. How can logical evidence be discovered for it, if there is any, if scientists are not even allowed to try and prove it?
Mod
I am not saying that they shouldn't be explored, but I don't think a 9th grade science class is the place to do it."
Do you mean not be explored or taught in a 9th grade classroom?
Mod
Oh ya, as I said there should be some solid evidence for it first. But I mean, even the Big Bang is a theory, The Big Bang Theory. But if you watch Expelled, even though it mainly talks about Intelligent Design and stuff, it shows that scientists are afraid to express new ideas because they are scared of losing their jobs.
you know big bang theory make my friend be an atheis.
Ninja, did you even look at the website I gave you? I'll give it to you again: www.evolutioniscool.com
Mod
How so?
Mod
Oh sorry, not yet, will do so now but just getting ready to go to sleep.
Ninja wrote: "Cj_ wrote: "you know big bang theory make my friend be an atheis."How so?"
yeah, he thinks tht god is a lie, and everything in this galaxy or in this world is like aomethin tht "taraaaa" happened and after tht revolution is the control.
Mod
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index....
Can I get some proof of the E-Mail from Mark Mathis? Because seriously, you can write down anything you want and put it in italics, but that doesn't make it true.
Also, in the article given for how Shermer found Stine "rude and arrogant", I cannot find that quote anywhere in the article. If you can, please let me know. http://www.scientificamerican.com/art...
And the description taken from Rampant Films website in Spring 2007, can I get any proof of this either? You know, maybe a link or a screenshot? Something?
And this one really gets me: "In an April 19, 2008, interview in the Christian publication World, Ben Stein relates that the concept of Expelled, not the concept of Crossroads, was pitched to him “a couple of years ago”:"
And then it gives a Ben Stein quote. HOWEVER when I went to the link give (when you click on the words "interview in the Christian publication World,"), it leads here, http://www.worldmag.com/articles/13926 with NO Ben Stein quote that I can see. So if you find this quote: "STEIN: I was approached a couple of years ago by the producers, and they described to me the central issue of Expelled, which was about Darwinism and why it has such a lock on the academic establishment when the theory has so many holes. And why freedom of speech has been lost at so many colleges to the point where you can’t question even the slightest bit of Darwinism or your colleagues will spurn you, you’ll lose your job, and you’ll be publicly humiliated. As they sent me books and talked to me about these things I became more enthusiastic about participating.
Plus I was never a big fan of Darwinism because it played such a large part in the Nazis’ Final Solution to their so-called “Jewish problem” and was so clearly instrumental in their rationalizing of the Holocaust. So I was primed to want to do a project on how Darwinism relates to fascism and to outline the flaws in Darwinism generally."
If you find that quote with the article given, PLEASE let me know where. I can accept when I make a mistake and miss reading something.
But they got the site right for Scott's quote (who is on their side) and I found it. This site: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/sci...
Quote: “‘I have certainly been taped by people and appeared in productions where people’s views are different than mine, and that’s fine,’ …"
As usual, biologist Richard Dawkins expressed their collective opinion the most eloquently, in an e-mail to Scott and Myers, August 22, 2007 (quoted with permission):
I feel betrayed and very angry. This has only happened to me once before, in a very long career of doing hundreds of interviews. I find that life is much more pleasant if I assume a reasonable level of trust with everyone I meet. It is extremely easy to take me for a ride. I am actually quite proud of being so trusting. It is frustrating and disillusioning to feel that in future I am going to have to be a lot more suspicious and grudging. The quality of life is sensibly diminished by having to do this."
Funny how the one from Dawkins was "quoted with permission" but the one from Mark Mathis, the 'rival' doesn't seem to be....
yeah, i just want my friend have a religion.but he said, "im forget is my parents ever teach me about tht.lol"
"But as you just said, you seem to not even want it to be able to be explored at all. How can logical evidence be discovered for it, if there is any, if scientists are not even allowed to try and prove it?"People have been trying to prove it. Once they get some EVIDENCE, then science will care. Science doesn't concern itself with superstition.
"But I mean, even the Big Bang is a theory, The Big Bang Theory. But if you watch Expelled, even though it mainly talks about Intelligent Design and stuff, it shows that scientists are afraid to express new ideas because they are scared of losing their jobs.
"
1. Gravity is also a theory. 2. Respected scientists don't consider ID a valid theory. Only a few odd ones will. To anyone that understands it, ID is obviously false.
"Plus I was never a big fan of Darwinism because it played such a large part in the Nazis’ Final Solution to their so-called “Jewish problem” and was so clearly instrumental in their rationalizing of the Holocaust. So I was primed to want to do a project on how Darwinism relates to fascism and to outline the flaws in Darwinism generally.""
That is a lie, Hitler was Catholic, he would not have believe Darwin.
"eah, i just want my friend have a religion. "
Why? There isn't much good that comes from it.
