No, just teach it as an alternative. Funny how when it's not something you believe, it's FORCING them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Intelligent Design" is not science; it should not be taught in a science class, even as an "alternative". Teaching "Intellegent Design" is the equivalent of telling kids in sex ed that babies come from storks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And lol at forcing kids... So I guess in math we should accept answers besides 2 + 2 = 4 because some kids don't believe in it? :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course it isnt a science, but that doesnt mean the kids cant at least be told there is other ideas out there besides evolution. Just letting the kids know a very breif explination of intelligent design isnt going to hurt anyone. The teacher doesnt have to open up a Bible and start reading, but just at least mention that there are other belifs about the origin of life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And your 2+2=4 analogy was very bad, because 2+2=4 is accepted by just about everyone, but the evolution is obviously not so there should be something else mentioned other than evolution since it isnt as widly accepted as 2+2=4 (unless you have read the book 1984 :P )

Erm... i still dont get why this is going.... why not just, not teach any of this stuff. Untill we acutly find out, just let kids think what they want.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Scientific Theory of Evolution is the core of Biology. It has been sorted out, it's just that some people don't like it because it disagrees with what they believe in. The difference is, the people who are advancing the theory didn't say "This is the theory, and here is the evidence for it." No, they started with the evidence and then came up with the theory to explain it. The people on the other side, however, say "I believe x, y, z, and if anything says otherwise, it is wrong." That second line of reasoning is not scientific; it is nothing more than a rejection of unfavorable truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And the schism isn't really even balanced. 99.9% of the scientific community accepts the scientific theory of evolution. The opposition often tries to puff itself up by showing itself as more widely accepted than in reality. The bottom line is, anti-evolution is hype.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is different from, say, the Special Theory of Relativity versus the neo-ether physics, which both sides have scientific arguments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course it isnt a science, but that doesnt mean the kids cant at least be told there is other ideas out there besides evolution. Just letting the kids know a very breif explination of intelligent design isnt going to hurt anyone. The teacher doesnt have to open up a Bible and start reading, but just at least mention that there are other belifs about the origin of life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution isn't about the origin of life. Look at the name, it is called evolution, which is change over time. Take a human baby for example. Analogous to the Scientific Theory of Evolution would be the observations of the growth of the baby. The baby grows into a child, then an adolescent, and finally an adult. This says nothing about where the baby came from, and, in the same way, the Scientific Theory of Evolution does not deal with how life started.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And like I said, IDiocy is not science, it does not belong in a science class, it should not even talked about in a science class besides a mention that it is bad science and is not accepted nor endorsed by the scientific community.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1984[/i] :P )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just people lots of people believe something doesn't make it true; that's an argumentum ad populum (appeal to popularity; a fallacy).

 

Erm... i still dont get why this is going.... why not just, not teach any of this stuff. Untill we acutly find out, just let kids think what they want.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Scientific Theory of Evolution is the core of Biology. It has been sorted out, it's just that some people don't like it because it disagrees with what they believe in. The difference is, the people who are advancing the theory didn't say "This is the theory, and here is the evidence for it." No, they started with the evidence and then came up with the theory to explain it. The people on the other side, however, say "I believe x, y, z, and if anything says otherwise, it is wrong." That second line of reasoning is not scientific; it is nothing more than a rejection of unfavorable truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And the schism isn't really even balanced. 99.9% of the scientific community accepts the scientific theory of evolution. The opposition often tries to puff itself up by showing itself as more widely accepted than in reality. The bottom line is, anti-evolution is hype.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is different from, say, the Special Theory of Relativity versus the neo-ether physics, which both sides have scientific arguments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LOL perhaps i should of said that diffrent. I am extreamly for evolution, and try and do everythign scientificly. But what im saying is, to satisfy both sides, dont teach anything, let them find out for themselves. Or atlest just say, here this is the big bang and evolutionary theory, and here is ID. Nothing more.

 

No, just teach it as an alternative. Funny how when it's not something you believe, it's FORCING them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Intelligent Design" is not science; it should not be taught in a science class, even as an "alternative". Teaching "Intellegent Design" is the equivalent of telling kids in sex ed that babies come from storks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you had read all of my posts I agreed with you, intelligent design is not science. I believe it has its' place in philosophy class.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And lol at forcing kids... So I guess in math we should accept answers besides 2 + 2 = 4 because some kids don't believe in it? :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's a false anology. If evolution was as set as pure math then maybe, but no. There are no countertheories to simple addition. And even if it weren't a false analogy, again, no one is forcing anyone, it's just suggested. No one is telling you to accept anything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I guess it boils down to your definition of intelligent design. My personal belief is evolution at the hands of an intelligent designer to guide the incredibly low-chance phenomena that has happened. I believe there is a personal cause and scientific cause behind the existence of life.

Now, if you do have a problem with teaching the origin of life (nothing to do with Evolution), then bring it about (in a new thread of course).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And what I'm trying to say is, the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution because all self-replicating proto-organisms at the time were in Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium and thus no evolution was occuring.

Immigrants need to speak nothing but english, or not come here at all. Close the borders maybe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've just got to say ... what the hell is wrong with you?

 

 

 

America is and always should be a land of opportunity for immigrants and citizens

IDiocy

 

 

 

Let's cut out the ad hominem. Which is a fallacy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And the schism isn't really even balanced. 99.9% of the scientific community accepts the scientific theory of evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

but...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just people lots of people believe something doesn't make it true; that's an argumentum ad populum

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course it isnt a science, but that doesnt mean the kids cant at least be told there is other ideas out there besides evolution. Just letting the kids know a very breif explination of intelligent design isnt going to hurt anyone. The teacher doesnt have to open up a Bible and start reading, but just at least mention that there are other belifs about the origin of life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution isn't about the origin of life. Look at the name, it is called evolution, which is change over time. Take a human baby for example. Analogous to the Scientific Theory of Evolution would be the observations of the growth of the baby. The baby grows into a child, then an adolescent, and finally an adult. This says nothing about where the baby came from, and, in the same way, the Scientific Theory of Evolution does not deal with how life started.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And like I said, IDiocy is not science, it does not belong in a science class, it should not even talked about in a science class besides a mention that it is bad science and is not accepted nor endorsed by the scientific community.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1984[/i] :P )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just people lots of people believe something doesn't make it true; that's an argumentum ad populum (appeal to popularity; a fallacy).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who cares if its not a science!!! Just at least tell the kids about it. Like Lion_heart said: just tell them about everything and let them figure out for themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I never said that its true just because a lot of people belive in it. But when there are as many people that belive in creation as there are then you could at least mention it as a possibility I really cant see where that would hurt anybody.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(ok and maybe "origin" wasnt the best choice of words, lets say "how life came to be today")

Who cares if its not a science!!! Just at least tell the kids about it. Like Lion_heart said: just tell them about everything and let them figure out for themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then why teach it in a science class if it's not science? My bio book (from 9th grade) mentioned that people have challenged it with creationism. It also described what it was, and explained why it could be possible. It shows both sides, explains both, and doesn't force you to pick one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But you don't see the book making up a new theory. It mentioned both theories and how they conflicted, but didn't combine them into one untested, unscientific theory.

 

As opposed to forcing Evolutionism. The issue of how the world came about should just be left to the big bang with a note that the students can think whatever they want happened to cause it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The big bang THEORY is a THEORY based on evidence collected so far. What's more you have completely misrepresented it, in school we were taught about how the world came to be from this one event (hydrogen atoms & ions joining to form other elements, gravitational pulls between particles eventually causing build up of particles and eventually planets), and had you known more than a passing glance at the big bang theory, you'd know that it's not claimed to be one event - it's a cycle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However the arguer from first cause is not comfortable with the notion of an uncaused event (big bang, should you choose it as the start of the cycle) but are quite fine with uncaused entities (god). Yet within that lies another farce - how did said entity come into existence? Surely that would be an event. Pray tell, what did god do before he created the world? Sit around twiddling his thumbs? Typical of religionists to be egocentric in considering the time of our and our planet's existence to be the the very beginning of existence itself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please don't let this topic be hijacked and turned into a massive flame war between Creationists and Evolutionists. (Not saying its you, Herr, but its been happening already).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah real mature, try and stick your ill-thought-out knife in then ask that no one says more on the subject. Clap clap.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was using the big bang as a light example. Forgive me for not being read up on the latest scientific journals, as that is not my area of expertise. Since I'm only two years from teaching history, I try to focus on that instead of passing time pondering the universe (if it isn't broke, dont worry about it...thats my philosophy on the subject).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And your last comment is equally immature. Its simply a kick below the belt after the fight is over.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can believe what you wish to believe, I can believe what I wish. I was simply stating that it is illegal to teach a single side of the issue, and the Supreme Court will most likely overturn Kansas' act. Letting the kids decide is the only way to keep from pissing everybody off.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And to those who say theories are the same as theorum's...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Theory: Tested hypothesis that has not been fully accepted as fact.

 

 

 

Theorum: Tested hypothesis that has been general accepted as fact.

 

 

 

Law: Tested hypothesis that has been proven as fact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Considering physics, science, and math is still mostly guesswork thought up by one guy usually, its easy to see why there are thousands of theories and only a handful of laws. When dealing with the unseen, it takes time and advancing technology to prove it true. It might take hundreds of years, but eventually it will happen.

I really don't see what the big deal is. True I believe in ID but, they are not trying to through evolution out of the picture by presenting it, only offering a different opinion. I personally wouldn't like it if evolution wasn't taught... even though I don't particularly agree with it. Its kind of how government class is suppost to be. A view point from one political party is presented, and another, opposing view point is presented. The teacher isn't saying this is wrong and this is right, but only presenting both sides.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ID is not rewrapped Chrisianity, all it states it that the universe and life forms in it are so complex, that it is only rational to conclude that a higher being created it. Higher being does not necessarily translate into a Christian god.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If your interested, heres some articles from a creationist/id perspective on evolutionary ones in modern day science *note: while i have read most of them, i have not read all of them so i can't exactly answer for all of them :? : http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... =type&ID=8

Exactly, Stevester.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The schools need to present both sides of the issue. It is unfair on both sides to just simply say "I don't believe in it, so it shouldn't be taught".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Several sides of the issue should be discussed, all as theories (since nobody has yet to prove any side correct beyong a shadow of a doubt).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree that what Kansas is doing is wrong, but that really isn't the topic here. The topic is the violence that transpired. That is just the work of a small group of closed-minded people who really did not think about thier actions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LOL perhaps i should of said that diffrent. I am extreamly for evolution, and try and do everythign scientificly. But what im saying is, to satisfy both sides, dont teach anything, let them find out for themselves. Or atlest just say, here this is the big bang and evolutionary theory, and here is ID. Nothing more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I disagree. Even mentioning IDiocy in a science class gives it more credibility than it deserves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you had read all of my posts I agreed with you, intelligent design is not science. I believe it has its' place in philosophy class.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In any case, it is bad philosophy as well; arbitrarily applying epistemology only when it is in your favor is questionable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's a false anology. If evolution was as set as pure math then maybe, but no. There are no countertheories to simple addition. And even if it weren't a false analogy, again, no one is forcing anyone, it's just suggested. No one is telling you to accept anything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The thing is, I'm paying the taxes that give money to those teachers that teach IDiocy. I sure as hell don't want them teaching pseudoscience with my tax dollars thank you very much.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I guess it boils down to your definition of intelligent design. My personal belief is evolution at the hands of an intelligent designer to guide the incredibly low-chance phenomena that has happened. I believe there is a personal cause and scientific cause behind the existence of life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lol... if that low chance didn't happen we wouldn't be here to see it... how could it be any other way? :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's cut out the ad hominem. Which is a fallacy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's not an ad hominem, because it isn't the basis for my claims against IDiocy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And reguarding the second part of your post, when I say accepted by the scientific community, that means that scientists accept it in the same way they do the theory of gravity, or cell theory, or the relativity theory. The point of science class is to teach mainstream scientific thought.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who cares if its not a science!!! Just at least tell the kids about it. Like Lion_heart said: just tell them about everything and let them figure out for themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I never said that its true just because a lot of people belive in it. But when there are as many people that belive in creation as there are then you could at least mention it as a possibility I really cant see where that would hurt anybody.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(ok and maybe "origin" wasnt the best choice of words, lets say "how life came to be today")

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It shouldn't be mentioned because it gives it false credibilty and leverage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really don't see what the big deal is. True I believe in ID but, they are not trying to through evolution out of the picture by presenting it, only offering a different opinion. I personally wouldn't like it if evolution wasn't taught... even though I don't particularly agree with it. Its kind of how government class is suppost to be. A view point from one political party is presented, and another, opposing view point is presented. The teacher isn't saying this is wrong and this is right, but only presenting both sides.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But this isn't politics. In science, there IS a right answer, and a wrong answer. Either Newton's theory of gravity could correcly predict Mercury's orbital deviation or it couldn't. Either the Michaelson-Morley experiment proved the theory of ether or it didn't. Evolution can be disproved thus by pointing out a chimaera, or a population which is not in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium but still does not change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intelligent Design CANNOT be disproven, it does not belong in the science class, it should not even be mentioned as "an opposing theory".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ID is not rewrapped Chrisianity, all it states it that the universe and life forms in it are so complex, that it is only rational to conclude that a higher being created it. Higher being does not necessarily translate into a Christian god.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right... it doesn't necessarily point to the Christian god... except that to join the Discovery Institute (where the idea of IDiocy came from), you must be a Bible believer. Ever notice that there aren't any non-Christians that promote IDiocy? And life forms are NOT too complex, lmao. And, Intelligent Design fails to explain the nature of the creator, who created the creator, ad inifinitum? It doesn't predict anything, it is not science, how many times do I have to reiterate this?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intelligent Design... yeah, it's so brilliant that virus and so many other pathogens were perfectly created for us huh? :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If your interested, heres some articles from a creationist/id perspective on evolutionary ones in modern day science *note: while i have read most of them, i have not read all of them so i can't exactly answer for all of them Confused : http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... =type&ID=8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

eh, hardly objective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I like http://www.talkorigins.org/ much better.

 

 

 

 

If your interested, heres some articles from a creationist/id perspective on evolutionary ones in modern day science *note: while i have read most of them, i have not read all of them so i can't exactly answer for all of them Confused : http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... =type&ID=8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

eh, hardly objective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I like http://www.talkorigins.org/ much better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

meh i must say, their video's and museum is much better :? ... i just posted that out of possiible interest for some people, not to take their claims as my own argue ments about evolution

Unless ID can find some kind of sceientific basis for it, it has no place what so ever being taught in a science class.

 

 

 

If they want ID to be taught in schools, think up of some ciriculm for a RE subject and let anyone who wants to swing that way do it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really don't see what the big deal is. True I believe in ID but, they are not trying to through evolution out of the picture by presenting it, only offering a different opinion. I personally wouldn't like it if evolution wasn't taught... even though I don't particularly agree with it. Its kind of how government class is suppost to be. A view point from one political party is presented, and another, opposing view point is presented. The teacher isn't saying this is wrong and this is right, but only presenting both sides.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.But this isn't politics. In science, there IS a right answer, and a wrong answer. Either Newton's theory of gravity could correcly predict Mercury's orbital deviation or it couldn't. Either the Michaelson-Morley experiment proved the theory of ether or it didn't. Evolution can be disproved thus by pointing out a chimaera, or a population which is not in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium but still does not change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.Intelligent Design CANNOT be disproven, it does not belong in the science class, it should not even be mentioned as "an opposing theory".

 

 

 

1. In science you would know, there are unknowns. When observations/conclusions/and theories are made about those unknowns, we cannot quickly assume that they are right because they appear right. In science, there are some areas where there is not a right and wrong answer only because not enough is known to really make a definite conclusion.

 

 

 

2. Almost how evolution can't be tested? :?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ID is not rewrapped Chrisianity, all it states it that the universe and life forms in it are so complex, that it is only rational to conclude that a higher being created it. Higher being does not necessarily translate into a Christian god.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Right... it doesn't necessarily point to the Christian god... except that to join the Discovery Institute (where the idea of IDiocy came from), you must be a Bible believer. 2.Ever notice that there aren't any non-Christians that promote IDiocy?3. And life forms are NOT too complex, lmao.4. And, Intelligent Design fails to explain the nature of the creator, who created the creator, ad inifinitum? It doesn't predict anything, it is not science, how many times do I have to reiterate this?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.Intelligent Design... yeah, it's so brilliant that virus and so many other pathogens were perfectly created for us huh? :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Just because the origin of the idea can from a place where you must believe in the bible, does not mean that this is the same for all other cases. The rules of the source does not translate into the laws of all others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. While I wouldn't state that there "arn't any" non-Christians that believe in ID, the majority of ID believers are Christian. Also, ID is most relavent to Christianity, its almost apologetics in a way. Then again, I haven't seen very many non-Christian apologetical arguements. Im not saying they arn't out there, just I haven't come across any.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. So when do life forms "become too complex" in your views? It doesn't matter as its only subjective truth.. that is truth pending upon your views and not on fact. Saying that life forms "arn't too complex" has no relavency, as it's impossible to really state when they have become too complex. After carefully examining the process of dna replication and the inter-cellular motor required to move the flagellum in many unicellular organisms, I have come to that conclusion. Obviously you have not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. And evolution does? Please.. :?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. Im not God and I can't state why he did or didn't create certain organisms. When considering pathogens, a few have said that its God's way of testing mankind, or his way of punishing certain people, or his way of making sure certain species don't overbreed... I really can't say.

The teacher isn't saying this is wrong and this is right, but only presenting both sides.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It isn't as simple as that, it's presenting one theory based on empirical observations, and another based on nothing more than what someone said once which can't be questioned. To question theories and attempt to disprove them is the only way to find out what is really true, and when one is not even formed empirically in the first place...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps you should read my reply on the other religion topic, about the spartan meritocratic and baroque monarchical worldviews. When one is above question, how are we to ever progress in knowledge?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Almost how evolution can't be tested? :?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course it can be tested, it's in line with the scientific evidence we have so far, and as new evidence comes to light it is constantly reevaluated. Just because you don't see on the news "evolution still valid theory: shock horror" doesn't mean that it's not subject to rational enquiry. On the other hand - Vatican accepts evolution theory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. And evolution does? Please.. :?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NO! The whole idea behind ALL the scientific theories regarding existence is that the time the world was created was NOT the beginning of time itself! It seems like all proponents of IDiocy like to ignore the fact that THE BIG BANG THEORY IS NOT ONE OF ULTIMATE CREATION. I guess it's because they find it difficult to understand that they aren't the centre of the universe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can't be bothered any more, topics like this just sadden me, to see what the world is coming to at the hands of theists with blinkers on.

Intelligent Design... yeah, it's so brilliant that virus and so many other pathogens were perfectly created for us huh? Rolling Eyes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes it is. Even these little viruses are life forms, and they were put on Earth for a purpose. Most likely to keep down population and reduce food consumption. Sorry if it offends you to think of humans as numbers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's a place for everything and everything is in it's place. At least according to Intelligent Design.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And just because you dont agree with a theory does not mean you can go around making fun of it (ie IDiocy). We are not flaming Evolutionism, please return the favor.

In any case, it is bad philosophy as well; arbitrarily applying epistemology only when it is in your favor is questionable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wha? Who said only applying it when it is in my favour?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lol... if that low chance didn't happen we wouldn't be here to see it... how could it be any other way?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, I would say with an Intelligent Being overseeing evolution, it's not really random chance anymore, is it? If I cook a meal, no one is going to say, "Wow! Crazy how those ingredients randomly came together and ended up in an oven like that!", are they? (but again this is origin talk)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IDiocy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fine then. It's a loaded term, or a red herring, or just plain disrespect. Goes to show that science can't do everything for people.

In a way I'm sort of dissapointed that you lot felt obliged to turn this into yet another religious discussion in stead of discussing the actual news article - someone getting beaten for what he wants to teach - but I'll play along...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First of all, science has provided a very plausible theory for the origins of life, backed up with scientific findings. I don't know if you're familliar with the Miller device, it's basically a replica of the circumstances on earth 3.8 billion years ago, and it proves that the gasses in the atmosphere and the chemical components of the primordial seas, combined with high the high temperatures and high-voltage thunderstorms can create the nucleotides that formed the DNA of the first eukaryot bacteria, who gave earth it's unique oxygen-rich atmosphere and made the rest of evolution possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for evolution itself, tracing mitochondrial DNA has provided very clear proof about 'family lines'. Mitochondrial DNA is DNA found in the mitochondria of a cell. Due to the reproductive process it contains only maternal genetic information, and the rate of mutation is extremely low. This DNA proves, for example, that approximately two million years ago the human race almost went extinct.

it's basically a replica of the circumstances on earth 3.8 billion years ago, and it proves that the gasses in the atmosphere and the chemical components of the primordial seas, combined with high the high temperatures and high-voltage thunderstorms can create the nucleotides that formed the DNA of the first eukaryot bacteria, who gave earth it's unique oxygen-rich atmosphere and made the rest of evolution possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Miller's experiment did not replicate the atmosphere in which the first cell was "formed". Miller used a fixed atmosphere that was very condusive to life, whereas the atmosphere he should have used is very abraisive to life. Furthermore, Miller's experiment, even if used with the correct atmosphere only creates the building blocks for life, they still have to somehow randomly shove into each other.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And my apologies on the OTness, I'll step out.

Since abiogenesis is scientifically disproven, life couldn't have formed from non-life. To say otherwise when there is no evidence supporting it, is not being scientific, is it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Miller's experiment did not replicate the atmosphere in which the first cell was "formed". Miller used a fixed atmosphere that was very condusive to life, whereas the atmosphere he should have used is very abraisive to life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just for the record, the "life condusive" athmosphere Miller used was the one popularly believed to be the real-deal in the 1950's. He used the one belonging to a valid scientific theory, he did not chose them randomly, nor chose one that would intentionally discredit any religious beliefs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Secondly, modern scientists believe Earth's early athmosphere contained considerable portions of free oxygen. Must confess I don't see how an athmosphere already containing oxygen is somehow more abraisive than the one Miller did use; Methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(And 2+2=4 is only true under a number of conditions we're all willing to follow but are by no means absolutes; The meaning of + is defined. The way = works is also defined, and we can screw that up by changing the relation it represents to allow a/b where b=0. Even assuming we keep those as they "are" we're also automatically using the base ten, which also isn't an absolute. Counting in base 3, 2+2=11. Maths are many things, but absolute facts is a part rarely mentioned.)

Im the only person to live in kansas and i know what is the real situation. everyone is just blowing steam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O RLY?

 

 

 

Then please, oh knowledgeable one, enlighten us.