Questioning Society discussion

Recently I watched the movie Expelled, and I encourage everyone to watch this. I am posting something I wrote in a Journal on another site.

While it is kind of documentary type, it is scattered with humor to keep it interesting. It talks about science. And how we do not have freedom of science.

Basically the point of the movie is to point out that scientists are not free to think, to have new ideas. Some scientists who even suggest the theory of intelligent design have lost their jobs. Now, I'll let you know that I am a Christian and I do believe in God. However, I believe that people have free right to believe what they want to believe. I believe that Intelligent Design, as well as Darwinism should be taught. It gives people a choice.

Just like people have a choice to be a different religion than I am. If someone wants to be Jew, Mormon, Atheist, or Catholic, etc., then they can be. I respect their decision to be a different religion, just as I don't agree with Darwinism but respect that people are free to believe in it. Just as they should be free to be able to believe in Intelligent Design if they want.

We have freedom in this country to have whatever religion we want. So why shouldn't we be free to have different ideas? We have freedom of thought, sure, that can't be controlled. So we can feel free to believe and think what we want as long keep it to ourselves and shut up about it.

Intelligent Design DOES NOT mean God. Heck, it could mean aliens, if you want to believe that. One guy in the movie said that he believed we could have come "from the backs of crystals".


What do you think? Should other theories be taught in schools? Do you want your children to think and decide what THEY want to believe, or only be allowed to learn and talk about one thing? Today it's science. Tomorrow it's our freedom of speech.

"Some scientists who even suggest the theory of intelligent design have lost their jobs. Now, I'll let you know that I am a Christian and I do believe in God. However, I believe that people have free right to believe what they want to believe. I believe that Intelligent Design, as well as Darwinism should be taught. It gives people a choice. "

The point is, that to be taught in a science classroom, the idea has to be backed up with science. Intelligent Design has no scientific backing. If it had some, they could teach it.

"Just as they should be free to be able to believe in Intelligent Design if they want."

They can believe in is, but they can't teach it unless there is proof behind it. Real, empirical proof.

Intelligent Design implies that the universe could not have life by itself. But it can.

"What do you think? Should other theories be taught in schools? Do you want your children to think and decide what THEY want to believe, or only be allowed to learn and talk about one thing? Today it's science. Tomorrow it's our freedom of speech.
"

That's totally blowing it out of proportion. Say, if I think that Intelligent Falling is better then the Theory of Gravity, but I have no proof. Should I be allowed to teach it as fact? No, of course not. Freedom of speech is good, but school need to stick to facts. And there is no evidence for Intelligent Design.

Lauren wrote: ""Say, if I think that Intelligent Falling is better then the Theory of Gravity, but I have no proof. Should I be allowed to teach it as fact?"


If I said teach it as a FACT, I meant teach it as a THEORY. Darwinism is a theory in itself, not a proven fact either. And like I said, some guy, a scientist, claimed he thought we could have come from crystals. How the heck did we do that? I think THAT is about as believable as an Intelligent Creator, whether that creator is aliens, God, or Allah.

personally i think schools are doing the best they can right now as far as science goes and it's kind of unfair to pick on them

"I meant teach it as a THEORY. Darwinism is a theory in itself, not a proven fact either."

The SCIENTIFIC (i.e. the definition that matters) definition of a theory is a hypothesis that has been proven to be true over and over. Hence, the THEORY of gravity, the THEORY of evolution. It's been proven.

ID is neither a theory nor a fact. It has no proof to back it up. Why would we teach something that is quite probably no true?

"And like I said, some guy, a scientist, claimed he thought we could have come from crystals. How the heck did we do that?"

Did they guy offer any proof, and evidence? And you want to know what that said to me?

ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

"I think THAT is about as believable as an Intelligent Creator, whether that creator is aliens, God, or Allah. "

Meaning all of them are equally UNLIKELY.

GreenDaisy BlackStem wrote: "personally i think schools are doing the best they can right now as far as science goes and it's kind of unfair to pick on them"

Well, ya, they kind of are. They're teaching what they are allowed to in order to keep their jobs.

"Well, ya, they kind of are. They're teaching what they are allowed to in order to keep their jobs. "

They are teaching science, not pseudoscience and superstition.

Because they have families and themselves to think about as well as other people! People have to eat and sleep and they need shelter and to get food and shelter at least in the US you need money so I'm sorry if you want everyone to set everything they have ever done aside and pay attention to you but that isn't going to happen

Lauren wrote: "ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists."

1. We don't have to be created by God (meaning Jesus or Christ), we could have, as I said, been created by aliens or a different higher being. Some people do believe that.
2. I understand what evolution is about. I just don't believe it to be true. Do you have the mental capacity to understand God? Well then I guess evolution and God are both false (in this case), now aren't they?
3. Who came up with this whole argument? And what about thinking that, maybe, we were always just here? No God, no evolution. Just always been here. That throws both ideas out, doesn't it?

GreenDaisy BlackStem wrote: "Because they have families and themselves to think about as well as other people! People have to eat and sleep and they need shelter and to get food and shelter at least in the US you need money so..."


Hey, I TOTALLY get it if they want to be quiet and keep their job. I mean, jobs are a bit hard to come by right now. And people do have families and they do need money. I get that. I just feel that they shouldn't have to keep quiet.

1. and some people don't

2. No actually I don't because I don't understand how ONE man can control and run everything in the whole world so no I can't understand god

3. We would've been eaten or the survivors would've been found in fossils

PS: you have no right to change what I say

but this goes back to having religion and prayer in school


Okay, I must head off to my religion free public school now! YAY!!

GreenDaisy BlackStem wrote: "1. and some people don't

2. No actually I don't because I don't understand how ONE man can control and run everything in the whole world so no I can't understand god

3. We would've been eaten or ..."



What do you mean? If I changed something I REALLY REALLY didn't mean too!

GreenDaisy BlackStem wrote: "3. We would've been eaten or the survivors would've been found in fossils"


You lost me. What did we get eaten by?

GreenDaisy BlackStem wrote: "but this goes back to having religion and prayer in school


Okay, I must head off to my religion free public school now! YAY!!"


What's wrong with having religion in school? We have freedom of religion in the US, so why can't we practice our beliefs in school? ALL religions, not just one.

NinjaFanpire wrote: "GreenDaisy BlackStem wrote: "ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't..."


I didn't write that! Lauren did!!

DINOSAURS DUH!

GreenDaisy BlackStem wrote: "DINOSAURS DUH!"

Then how would there be survivors if we all got eaten? You said the survivors would have been found in fossils. By who?


Oh, and I am so sorry about the misquote! I will edit it! Sometimes when I hit the reply button I hit it for the wrong person. Again, really sorry about that, didn't mean anything by it.

"I understand what evolution is about. I just don't believe it to be true. "

If you truly understood it, you would realize it's true. What do you think evolution is?

"No God, no evolution. Just always been here. That throws both ideas out, doesn't it?"

But, if there is no God, then evolution is the only alternative that has any credibility.

"Okay, I must head off to my religion free public school now! YAY!! "

lol

"You lost me. What did we get eaten by?"

Dinosaurs are only explainable by evolution. There were dinosaurs. So, more credit to evolution, less to religion.

"hat's wrong with having religion in school? We have freedom of religion in the US, so why can't we practice our beliefs in school? ALL religions, not just one."

Because of the Separation of Church and State. Any government funded program cannot endorse any religion. That included taking valuable time away from school to pray to someone who doesn't exist.

Lauren wrote: ""to pray to someone who doesn't exist. "

Someone YOU don't believe exists. Many people believe that there is a God and a creator. Science cannot prove everything. Check out this website: http://www.particleadventure.org/inde...

It has some unsolved mysteries. Science cannot and has not proved and disproved everything. Not everything in the world is known and set in stone.

"Many people believe that there is a God and a creator. "

That doesn't make it true.

"Science cannot and has not proved and disproved everything. Not everything in the world is known and set in stone."

Once people though that science couldn't get us to the moon, no matter what. Now look.

Lauren wrote: """Many people believe that there is a God and a creator. "

That doesn't make it true. "


Many people believe in evolution, that doesn't make it true.

"Many people believe in evolution, that doesn't make it true."

hahaha, but who do the facts and evidence support? A proven process, or the sky faerie?

I don't need to believe in gravity, it's just there. Same with evolution.

She asked what we would've all gotten eaten by if we were there in the first place. I said dinosaurs, I meant that if we had been there in the first place we wouldve all been eaten by them and would not be here today if any survived they probably died of disease and such and would be fossils

If we had been here first, there would be no fossils before us. That is false, so creationism is false.

Lauren wrote: "If we had been here first, there would be no fossils before us. That is false, so creationism is false. "

I didn't say we were here first, I meant every species. No evolution, we were just always here. With every creature.

Lauren wrote: ""
I don't need to believe in gravity, it's just there. Same with evolution. "


But I just don't see facts for evolution.

"I didn't say we were here first, I meant every species. No evolution, we were just always here. With every creature. "

Then why is there a 65 million year gap between the first dinosaur fossils and humans?

"But I just don't see facts for evolution. "

These are my school notes

B. Evidence of Evolution
1. Fossil Records-a timeline of all existing fossils, displaying the changes in orgainisms over time, with Carbon-14 dating, and it’s radioactive. Another way to tell is how deep it is in. physical proof of evolution, very concrete
2. Biochemical, DNA similarities
a. if similar proteins are in two species, then they had a common ancestor at one point in time. They evolved away from each other.
b. organisms of similar decent have similar biochemistry, in DNA sequences.
3. Homologous structures
1. same structures, with a different function.
2. analogous structures-different structure same function. NOT evidence of evolution
3. Vestigial structures- useless structure, that at one point in the past had a function, but is no longer needed.
4. Embryology
1. organisms with embryos so similar you can’t tell them apart, are related. Organisms with similar embryos have similar ancestors. The further apart they are, the quicker their differences develop.
5. Evidence of Ancestry
1. Darwins Finches-finches all same sixe, except for the beaks. Similar ancestor is implied. Specices evoloved to create new one, due to changes in environment, habitat and feeding patters
2. Hawaiian honey creeper-all te same except for one trait


Pardon my spelling. It's hard to type and keep up with the teachers.

Lauren wrote: ""Then why is there a 65 million year gap between the first dinosaur fossils and humans?"

Using carbon copy dating, or whatever the term for that is? It's been shown that that dating system may be incorrect.

Now, what you said about the birds, I can understand that. But guess what? They are all still birds. It may show the evolution of ONE species, but what about from one species to another? Isn't that what evolution is, how animals evolved from one creature to another?

"Using carbon copy dating, or whatever the term for that is? It's been shown that that dating system may be incorrect. "

Radioactive Carbon-14 isotope dating. And where did you hear that, because

http://www.howstuffworks.com/carbon-1...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocar...

They agree, that the earth is very old. New-earth creationism (the earth is less then 10,000 years old) is totally wrong, as objects have been dated to 55,000 years old.

"They are all still birds. It may show the evolution of ONE species, but what about from one species to another? Isn't that what evolution is, how animals evolved from one creature to another?"

There are two types of evolution, microevolution (the small differences of bird) and macroevolution. Macroevolution is the result of many small micros adding up over a very long period of time. And example, it's been suggested and supported that dinosaurs are the distant relative of birds, due to similar hip structure in bipedal species and the fossil archaeopteryx which is basically a dinosaur with feathers, a distinctive bird feature. The fossil record is the only true example of macroevolution, because it takes so much longer the the human life span. But microevolution is easily seen. The moths of England changed color, because soot in the air made all their landing spots dark. Light moths died, and dark moths were the only ones to survive.

Evolution is not just species, it's any change is gene frequency in a gene pool. We are in the process of evolution. Things like tail bones are not evidence of design, but an organ we have which we no longer need. Vestigial organs.

Any other questions? :)

But they have also used the carbon dating in modern times, to test things that they knew the age of. However, it said that they were much older than they really were.
High school science teacher told me about that.

Evolution states that we all came from water organism creatures right? I mean, in the very beginning.

"But they have also used the carbon dating in modern times, to test things that they knew the age of. However, it said that they were much older than they really were.
High school science teacher told me about that. "

It depends, what substance was it? Who conducted the test, and what were the conditions? You can't trust everything your teachers say.

"Evolution states that we all came from water organism creatures right? I mean, in the very beginning."

There was no water at the beginning of life, but yes, life in the sea developed first, because of the rich environment. It later moved to the land. And some moved back to the sea. The whale have vestigial hipbones that make it's ancestor the hippo.

Why did they move back to the see?

Their environment probably flooded, and only the ones who could survive were the water inclined. Everyone else would die. Slowly, all would become water dwellers.

Lauren wrote: "Their environment probably flooded, and only the ones who could survive were the water inclined. Everyone else would die. Slowly, all would become water dwellers. "

And then they evolved back to land dwellers again? But I thought the land was flooded, where did all the water go?

No, as in the shifting of the continents created a body of water, connected to the ocean.

Lauren wrote: "No, as in the shifting of the continents created a body of water, connected to the ocean. "

So were the animals on an island? I am just confused as to why they couldn't just run away from the water further onto the land.

An island could have created geographic isolation.

Or, something drew them into the water, like food. If they found better food in the sea, they would go after it, and could become sea dwelling.

It's all speculation, of course. But there are only so many possibilities.

Lauren wrote: "Or, something drew them into the water, like food. If they found better food in the sea, they would go after it, and could become sea dwelling."

I thought creatures evolved for survival, not for wants?


And if there was a sudden flood, and evolution takes billions of years, how did animals evolve fast enough?

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof...
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/doe...

"I thought creatures evolved for survival, not for wants?"

If an animal can survive better in the water and get more food, they are inclined to move there.

It's not a sudden flood. Continents drift only inches a year. It might only take 10,000 years for them to move to the sea.

"Concept and design necessitate an intelligent designer. The presence of intelligent design proves the existence of an intelligent designer."

There is no evidence of design on earth.

Lauren wrote: ""There is no evidence of design on earth. "


Then why is every human unique?

Because they developed themselves that way. Technically every different way of thinking and everything about us is birth defects

Lauren wrote: ""There is no evidence of design on earth. "


The complexity of humans, our minds, our nature, what's inside of us. That doesn't seem to have a shred of design to it?

The sun, being the perfect space from the earth so we don't freeze or burn to death?

We've adapted

NinjaFanpire wrote: "Lauren wrote: ""There is no evidence of design on earth."


Gravity just happened to come into existence, so that we all don't float away into oblivion? The sun just happened to be there when the earth came into being, because we needed the warmth from it in order to survive? Oxygen, the ozone layer, water, all these things just coincidence?

Gravity existed in the first place!!