May 6th, 2012, 9:28 am #31Hannitized
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
May 7th, 2012, 1:09 pm #32
I'm only vaguely aware of theories of life from outside the planet, but I believe that the second meteor theory didn't directly change the DNA in the existing life forms of the planet. Instead it brought in a new organelle complete with its own internal DNA sequence. That organelle started poluting the planet with a very dangerous poison gas. All life forms that could not assimiliate the new organelle and adopt to the new poison were driven to the deepest parts of the planet. The organelle, known as a chloroplast is believed by some to be from outside the earth because it's chemical composition is optmized for a spectrum found more at the orbit of Jupiter than that of Earth. (For the non technical, this is the stuff that makes plants green and that causes oxygen to flood the earth; a highly poisonous gas for anaerobic life forms.)Elmer Fudd: I've been told I could shoot wabbits and goats and pigeons and ducks. Could you tell me what season it weawwy is?
Bugs Bunny: It's baseball season!
May 10th, 2012, 9:36 pm #33Honored Guest
- Join Date
- May 2012
May 15th, 2012, 9:30 am #34Man On The Street
- Join Date
- Apr 2012
June 5th, 2012, 2:38 pm #35
The idea that there is evidence of "design" in nature is not accepted by the scientific community any more than the WBC's protests are accepted by the Christian community. The problem with this bill, aside from the fact that it was waste of time and taxpayer money to enact (and to be subsequently challenged and thrown out), is that it expressly encourages the teaching of controversial "opinions" in science classrooms.
Scientific theories are not "opinions." Scientific theories produced the computer screen that you are staring at, the lights over your head, and the medical cures that defeated the various ailments that would have killed you throughout your life.
When an actual, scientific reason is revealed that calls the theory of evolution into doubt, believe me, the scientific community will be all over it. THEN there will be a controversy to teach to our children.
Also, what does evolution have to do with Atheism?
June 22nd, 2012, 10:52 am #36Honored Guest
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
About 10 years ago, when I was living up in the North Dallas area, a friend of one of my kids came over and asked me if I had any books regarding the scientific evidence supporting the idea that the world was created rather than evolving. I didn't. I hadn't really thought about it much.
It seems his teacher had given the kids the assignment of taking their personal stance on the origin of life and writing a research paper laying out their beliefs in regard to the beginning of life and the development of diversity of life over time. They had to identify the strengths and weaknesses for this position. It had to be based on science.
I thought this was a great way to handle this issue. It spurred me to go out and start researching the issues. I read everything I could find for a few years.
What I remember from college on the topic was one comparative vertebrae class and a general over view of the evidence for evolution. At least one of those pieces of evidence had been revealed to be fraud by the time I was in college but I was still taught it as fact (I discovered this during my research). It had been a piece of evidence that had convinced me that God had used evolution as the means of creating the world. I never had a problem with the idea God could create the world however He choose.
Look if you go out and honestly look at the strengths and weaknesses of current knowledge in the area of origin of life and macro evolution (going from one species to another) you find strengths and weaknesses in current theories.
It makes sense to teach kids to question and to know that in science what seems obvious today maybe silly thinking tomorrow.
Science gets in trouble when people believe you have to just accept something as true even if it doesn't quite work. You see a lot of sloppy science these days because either there is an emotional reason to not question something or more often money is directed toward specific answers because people are willing to fund results if they fit the payers needs. Teach our kids to look at issues by looking at the strengths and weaknesses of a possible solution. Have them hear what are sometimes very convoluted solutions developed when problems are raised in a portion of theory. It might spur them to think about other answers.
Teaching our kids that things are not black and white is a good thing for science. It is bad to teach our kids they must ignore things that don't make sense just because it might cause a house of cards to fall. Or because it was written in some textbook.
Sometimes questioning and studying will bring the person back to accept what is being taught, but sometimes their thoughts on the weakness regarding an aspect of a theory will help them develop a new approach for explaining the phenomena.
June 22nd, 2012, 11:44 am #37We are all interconnected, please be kind.