If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Faith school controversy
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Because if this theory were true then it would require an explanation of the creator.
To be taken seriously as science then the theory has to have a full explnation, you cannot credit all of human creation to some all p[owerful intelligent designer the not explain where that designer came form, that would be absurd...........
Well science would suggest some kind of big bang theory I beleive.
I don't pretend that I understand it and I very much doubt that you do either but I beleive that this is the most plausible theopry form current scientific understanding so I am happy to go with that.........
The definition of a species is a distinct group of living organisms that can reproduce fertile offspring. A mule is the classic case of an infertile animal being the product of inter-species reproduction.
So there is no "desperate attempt" - the "different degrees" are entirely logical and it is only your stubborn closed-mindedness that prevents you understanding that fact.
If you allow yourself not to understand how a big bang works, why not accept that you don't know how the world was created?
Of course I do not understand this stuff because I am an economist, not a physicist or biologist........
The argument relates to the state of scientific knowledge, not to any one persons individual knowledge......
It is no good saying evolution is wrong and this is the only other theory so we will go with this when the alternative theory has gaping holes in it as well.
If the debate were reversed and ID was the dominant doctrine it would be all too easy to illustrate the holes in that theory as good 'science' and have it discredited.......
Whats more likely? Evolution by natural process or some mythical sky pixie making everything? You have to go by evidence and scientific method (read up on it) otherwise you might as well argue that the world only popped into existence 5 seconds ago and all our memories were implanted or that we're living in the matrix or whatever. Read up on evolution and the scientific method - it makes far more sense than the Bible being the literal word of the sky pixie.
And individual knowledge cannot increase without teaching - which is what this thread is about. The point of an argument is to show why an opposing view is wrong. The point is that both evolution and intelligent design theories have not been proven beyond doubt. You can say that evolution is "highly likely" or "plausible" or "better science" but that changes nothing. To suggest that intelligent design is wrong just because that theory is reliant on disproving evolution says nothing - of course evolution must be proved wrong if intelligent design is to be shown to be more likely.
You're making a massive catregory error. Evolution cannot be described as "better science" than ID because ID isn't science.
You're the one that beleives in it.
You've heard what? You disagree with what? The scientific method? Who do you think you are Karl Popper or something?
I thought you gave up on this pages ago when I showed that ID isn't science?
You can't predict anything with it, so it's not science. It's an idea, a theory, a hobgoblin and a hook to hang a belief on. It dioesn't follow scientific method, so it isn't science.
No, I am not Karl Popper. Nor am I Karl Kennedy, but I don't see how that's relevant.
So you don't believe in a supernatural being that made the universe then? Make your mind up.
So you disagree with the entire science community and have a radical new interpretation of the scientific method and the philosophy of science? Really?
Do you even know who Karl Popper was?
I won't be drawn into a complex discussion of what scientific method says or what the philosophy of science dicates. Nope. Should I do?
It has already been proven species evolve, and have evolved comprehensively. Hell, there is overwhelming evidence already that man descends from apes. But this is the ultimate offence to Creationists, who like to think man was created by a deity to their resemblance, and they choose to try to disprove the obvious by attempting to find so-called holes or yet-not-backed-with-evidence facts of Evolution.
I really don't know why we're having this debate to be honest. Some people will simply refuse to acknowledge certain facts, and you can bet your bottom dollar that if tomorrow someone came with the ultimate, undeniable, definitive proof of Evolution, Creationists would simply refuse to believe it. At the end of the day that is what they have been doing all along.
No, it's scientists version of what science is. They should know, y'know.
That's nice. While you are doing that, please withdraw the silly assertion that ID is science.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=scientific+method&meta=
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:science
Nowhere does it say - "science is that which we pik'n'mix to back up our shaky philosophy" nor does it say "science can be done just by coming up with wacky assertions and then sticking wityh them in the face of evidence."
You believe in a supernatural being that created the universe. Yes/no?
If something can't be disproved, it isn't science. You're trying to tell me that ID is science when it quite clearly isn't, then you go on to say that you don't know anything about science. No shit, Sherlock.
But this is exactly what you're doing. You're claiming that ID is science, then refusing to actually find out what science is.
Yes you should if you claim to know what is science and what isn't.
no proof whatsoever ...just an idea touted by evolusionists as a truth.
a scale and a feather are a million miles apart from each other.
take a close look at how a feather is so perfectly 'designed' for what it does.
areodynamic ...and very complex.
little hooks and eyes to hold things together ...hollow structure with internal cross members for strength ...just like a modern areoplane wing.
now tell me how a scale turned into a feather ...show me one scrap of evidence apart from it being an idea ...please.
where is this proof i hear of ...or even a little bit of evidence showing man descended from apes ...please.
where is the tiniest bit of evidence to show one species turning into another?
the fittest dog may survive but will still be a dog.
all this proof or even a little evidence which gets spoken of ...show me some ...please.
"mere conjecture"? Look, this discussion is pointless if you refuse to find out what science actually is and how it works.
I rarely talk bollocks on subjects I know nothing about.
Why don't you actually read up on science then get back to us eh?
This thread is about whether evidence for and against evolution should be taught at school, or whether evolution is enough to explain our origins. For someone who is robustly defending a particular definition of science, you must see the irony?