Expelled

[roli]

Originally Posted by Women_Of_Reason

If you want to teach science, yes it as to be based on logic ,scientific fact or else it's not science.
Perhaps you want teachers to teach numerology in maths class as well.

So let me see if I'm getting this, science which means "knowledge" is not science if it there are unanswerable facts..intersting,
I guess it would be called ignorance...not a friend of science ,at least one easily admitted

Science certainly has it's place in our complex world, but it's not without gaps and theories, guess work, ignorance. I mean just for example,has science got a full grasp on the answers of the intricacies of the human cell. In their study of it, have they contemplated it's origin because of it's complexity , or do they keep their head in the sand and just say nothing , for fear of being made a laughing stock.

The evolution in which I refer to, that is in which the text books refer

So tell me , who are the proponents who write these teaching materials on evolution found in schools across our nation, I don't mean about the living organisms changing within species, I mean the teaching material that states, millions and millions of years ago, based on our scientific assumptions and mere speculation, there was a big bang and that we evolved from @#$%#%@^**(&**(&>>>>>>...... into living and advanced oragnisms. Something to that affect.

Do you agreee or diaagree that these books in schools around the country are teaching a theory of evolution with inummerable errors and guess work .. it;s amzing they are published

[roli]

Originally Posted by challupa

I still don't understand how any religion can make their God such a narrow concept. Another thing I don't understand is why religion needs to argue with science anyway. They are two different disciplines based on different concepts. Science is a logical and testable discipline and religion is a discipline of faith. When people talk about theories as being assumptions I think they have not understood that theories in science don't usually mean that they haven't been proved. They are more labels or titles of things.

Do you think Jesus defied all the theories of science and natural laws,when he raised people from the dead, or healed them. That is if you agree that Jesus lived.
He confused and totally silenced the higher thinkers in his day and made their god wisdom and knowledge to be nohting more then idol babblings.
Maybe that will have to happen to silence the professing wise in today's age, what a sobering day that would be,I would;nt want to miss it.

Religion can argue with science, or at least defy it's reasoning and logic or it can be it's best freind.
Maybe you need a miracle to confuse all your theories and find tuned scientific reasoning.

[Mestemia]

LOL

Seems Roli has not learned anything from all the threads on this very topic...

[The Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by roli

Do you agreee or diaagree that these books in schools around the country are teaching a theory of evolution with inummerable errors and guess work .. it;s amzing they are published

I agree that, in this single post, you have revealed the extent of your complete ignorance of what science is, how little you understand it, your unwillingness to listen, your imperviousness to education, and your committment to steadfastly remain ignorant.

I can't imagine I'll ever meet someone any more dedicated to insulating themselves from knowledge in the effort to shield their dogmatic faith.

Al Davis, the owner of the Los Angeles Raiders (formerly the Oakland Raiders) has a saying for his organization - "Committment to Excellence".

With your almost desperate refusal to learn what others are trying (futily) to give you, you appear to have modified his saying. You really ought to consider having a bumper sticker made for you car. You could even use it in your signature line on this site: "Committment to Ignorance".

[The Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by roli

Maybe you need a miracle to confuse all your theories and find tuned scientific reasoning.

I'm anxiously awaiting the next miracle.

After more than a 50 year wait, I'm beginning to lose hope.

[mball1297]

Roli, again, I highly suggest you do a little research (it won't take much) before continuing this conversation. You seem to have a lot of misconceptions about evolution, and, if you believed everything they said in the movie, you definitely have to check out the facts about those cases.

The bottom line is that no one is ostracized for believing in ID or even mentioning it. However, ID is not scientific in any way. If someone wants to try to research it scientificaly, they are welcome to (although it would be odd for a scientist not to realize that such an idea cannot be researched). They just can't teach it as science unless they come up with some scientific evidence for it. There is scientific evidence for evolution, and it is taught as a scientific theory.

[Women_Of_Reason]

roli please...

You are making a fool of yourself.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by roli

Let me ask you a question, Do you believe in the probability that scientific professionals such as those... hypothetically exposed in the doc. expelled, are actually facing intimidating pressure from peers or superiors to not mention ID, Creationism, or anything pertaining to a creator for fear of their papers,grants lectures etc would be threaten.
Have you ever heard such things in your vast expereince.

Universities, scientific journals and other instruments of learning tend to frown on people passing off conjecture as fact and theory.

Originally Posted by roli

There is, as I have freely confessed many times in the past," evolutionary change ",if you want to call it that, in the species.

It does'nt take a rocket scientist to comprehend that people change, size, colour, and other physical features...a no brainer!
With me.. it's always what is not being said in this forum concerning evolution, as if there is only one type of evolution theory to define and defend and exclude the evolution that opposses creation.

There is only one type of evolution. The "macro/micro" distinction was invented by people to deceive, as a last-ditch attempt at a sort of creationism of the gaps:

- "Evolution is false! It's based on lies!"
- "No, it's not. Look at artificial breeding: it relies on the same things as evolution: inheritance, random mutation and selection. You agree that we can breed traits into and out of animals, don't you?"
- "Umm... yeah... but... evolution only occurs within species! The Bible says that all creatures descended 'after their own kind'!"
- "But there are plenty of examples of evolution between species. Here are a few."
- "Umm... okay... but a 'kind' is bigger than that. Yeah, that's it."
- "Well then, here are a few more examples. These show pretty wide variation. Does that convince you?"
- "Umm... nope. A 'kind' is bigger than that."
- "Hmm. So what's a 'kind'? The term's not used in biology. Is it a genus? A family? Because we've got examples between different genuses and families."
- "Umm... no, those still aren't evolution between 'kinds'."
- "Well, how big's a 'kind', then? I can show you other examples with some pretty major evolutionary change."
- "Let's just put it this way: a 'kind' is just a bit bigger than the biggest example you ever show me. Biblical Creationism FTW!"

Originally Posted by roli

So let me see if I'm getting this, science which means "knowledge" is not science if it there are unanswerable facts..intersting,
I guess it would be called ignorance...not a friend of science ,at least one easily admitted

Science is the pursuit of knowledge according to certain rules. The ID movement does not follow these rules. ID is a philosophical or theological stance (and even then, not a particularily well-formed one), not a scientific theory.

Originally Posted by roli

Science certainly has it's place in our complex world, but it's not without gaps and theories, guess work, ignorance. I mean just for example,has science got a full grasp on the answers of the intricacies of the human cell. In their study of it, have they contemplated it's origin because of it's complexity , or do they keep their head in the sand and just say nothing , for fear of being made a laughing stock.

I suggest you check out Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins. I know he can be grating to some theists when he's talking about God and atheism, but this book isn't about that. It's about how complexity arose through the gradual change of evolution and what evidence we have for this position.

I hope you look past the fact it's written by someone who has become a sort of spokesperson for anti-theism; he is a professor of evolutionary biology and does know his stuff when it comes to his area of expertise.