we're not in kansas anymore :: RunningForums.com

If your faith is so strong and true, why do you need to have the secular governing bodies "protect" your belief with secular laws ?

Isn't it your job as parents, and of your church to instill what your beliefs are ? If your beliefs are true and strong they will "survive the onslaught".

WTR: I do not see or hear of too many groups trying to "force feed" secular humanism on others.

Again, I'll repeat: its the job of the family (YOU the parent) and of your church (whatever it is) to reinforce and protect those beliefs. Its not the secular government's job.

HYPERASHEL wrote:

well first of all evolution does not need millions of years. what it requires is generations. if a lifeform has a life expectancy of of 10 days then evolution can occure literally in a matter of a few years.

Not intending to prove you wrong, but could you cite an example?

Anyone care to answer whether or not gravity should be taught in Science class?

camelia bedelia wrote:

Running Brewer wrote:

Have they scientifically proven evolution yet? I didn't know that they found the missing link.

Should gravity be taught in Science class?

yes, it is a proven law. see below, also it is used in may different applications in applied science.

Is there a law of evolution? Has it been proven?

Sir Isaac Newton wrote:

Law of Gravity
Key Concepts
The two parts (qualitative and quantitative) of Newton's law of gravity:
Gravity is an attractive force between all pairs of massive objects in the universe.
The gravitational force between masses m1 and m2, separated by a distance r, is F = G m1 m2 / r2.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Gravity is an attractive force between all pairs of massive objects in the universe.
An important point is that gravity is an attractive force, tending to bring objects closer together, rather than a repulsive force. (Gravity sucks; it never spews.) Newton is referred to as creating a theory of ``universal mutual gravitation''. UNIVERSAL, because gravity works everywhere in the universe, not just on Earth. MUTUAL, because gravity works between pairs of objects. The gravitational force of a single object is no more real than the sound of one hand clapping.
The force of gravity, Newton realized, depends on

the MASSES of the objects involved (more massive objects feel a stronger gravitational force).
the DISTANCE between the objects involved (objects which are close together feel a stronger gravitational force).
Newton was able to express the gravitational force between a pair of objects in the form of a single equation, given in the section below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) The gravitational force between two objects is given by a (fairly) simple mathematical equation.
The gravitational force between a pair of objects is:
F = G m1 m2 / r2
where
F = gravitational force
m1 = mass of the first object
m2 = mass of the second object
r = distance between the centers of the objects
G = ``universal constant of gravitation''
The ``universal constant of gravitation'' G is a constant of nature; it is the same everywhere in the universe. It has been measured in laboratories, and has a value
G = 6.7 x 10-11 newton meter2/kilogram2. (Remember, the newton is the standard unit of force in the metric system; in more familiar units, 4.41 newtons = 1 pound.)
Gravitational force varies directly with the mass of each object, and inversely as the square of the distance between their centers. For instance, if you doubled the mass of the Earth, and kept its radius constant, you would double the gravitational force experienced by every object on the Earth's surface. If, on the other hand, you kept the mass of the Earth constant, and doubled its radius, the gravitational force experienced by every object on its surface would be 1/4 as large.

Double the distance between objects: Gravitational force 1/4 as large.
Triple the distance between objects: Gravitational force 1/9 as large.
Quadruple the distance between objects: Gravitational force 1/16 as large.
...and so forth...

This relationship between force and distance (F proportional to 1/r2) is known as an ``inverse square law''. In principle, the Earth experiences a gravitational force from every object in the universe. In practice, however, since gravitational forces decrease rapidly with distance, the Earth's gravitational acceleration is determined only by objects which are very close and/or very massive.

Running Brewer wrote:

Is there a law of evolution? Has it been proven?

So only proven laws should be taught in Science class then, right?

camelia bedelia wrote:

Running Brewer wrote:

Is there a law of evolution? Has it been proven?

So only proven laws should be taught in Science class then, right?

We need to banish Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Its only a theory and humans will never get close to the speed of light to prove any of the main tenets.

Once again, I will state: If your faith is strong and true, why do you need a secular government to uphold its tenets ?

Last edited by andydp on 02/10/06 - 10:00; edited 1 time in total

camelia bedelia wrote:

Running Brewer wrote:

Is there a law of evolution? Has it been proven?

So only proven laws should be taught in Science class then, right?

Quote:

Under the bill, only science capable of being tested according to scientific method could be taught as science. Faith-based theories, however, could be discussed in other contexts.

No, there are many theories that are taught, but so far they have not been disproven, all calculations lead to them being true.

How do you test evolution from ape to man? scientifically of course.

andydp wrote:

camelia bedelia wrote:

Running Brewer wrote:

Is there a law of evolution? Has it been proven?

So only proven laws should be taught in Science class then, right?

I have always been taught that it is a theory, not a fact. Thus far all evidence says it's true, and it remains to be disproven. I have no problem with them teaching theory, so long as it is clear that it is a theory and not a fact. But the law that was passed says it must be capable of being tested according to scientific method, is the evolution of man capable of this?

HYPERASHEL wrote:

jrjo wrote:

gretriever wrote:

Running Brewer wrote:

Have they scientifically proven evolution yet? I didn't know that they found the missing link.

The problem I have with the evolution concept is if it takes millions of years for a given species to develop, and the earth is estimated to be 4 to 6 billion years old, how can evolution explain the development from one-cell amoeba (or whatever is lesser in that life form) to humans - it just does not seem there is enough time involved.

There's dozens and dozens of unexplicable leaps in evolutionary theory. Sex for instance. Evolutionists cannot explain sex. If those original amoebas split or budded off the next generations, it was a highly efficient reproductive step. Somewhere along the line (evolutionist can't tell you when) sex was introduced somehow and suddenly it took two of the species to create a new one. Verrry 'anti-evolution' in terms of a species become more adapted and efficient at surviving. I mean really, for those species still in the stages of being able to reproduce by themselves versus the 'new' species that took two animals, of the opposite gender mind you, to create an offspring, the evolutionists have to go against their own survival-of-the-fittest theory to explain how that new weird sexually reproducing species could even continue.
There's other 'holes' in the evolutionary theory. It ain't proven 'science' by any stretch of the imagination.
Like I've said before and I believe it thoroughly, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than creation.

asexual reproduction occurs in multi celled creatures too. then there are creatures rather low in the evolutionary status that have BOTH sexes but yet need another to reproduce. science has explained this already, it's how genetic material get spread out, it's either that or we'd all be hillbilly inbreds with one tooth.

there are animals that can literally change sex. Every Grouper is born a female, they can change to a male as needed to keep the population up. I admit they don't understand the whole preocess yet though. there are other fish that do the same thing to though. Evolution has much more explanation that Creation does.

Actually not. Evolution and sexual reproduction is chasm of postulation. There hasn't been 'proof' or 'scientific method' that shows the when, where, how of why suddenly "spreading genetic material" become an evolutionary advantage. It's a lot of speculation and theory on the part of evolutionists. In 20/20 hindsight, the genetic theory is great beans for explaining it, but in a thriving evolutionary chain of events that life zip-zap began with a single cell and sexual reproduction was supposedly millions of years down the road, it's an evolutionary backwards step to take in an evolutionary life chain that reproduction would at some point take two animals instead of one. The hillbilly analogy is fatally flawed with the supposed millions of years that animals have existed in small pockets of the planet, the genetic diversity would statistically be miniscule.
It's a mortally flawed theory that the 'state' has no right to teach as 'fact'.

Running Brewer wrote:

andydp wrote:

camelia bedelia wrote:

Running Brewer wrote:

Is there a law of evolution? Has it been proven?

So only proven laws should be taught in Science class then, right?

There is TONS of science for testing evolution. Like you said, as all theories, it hasn’t been proven or disproven, but it IS accepted by the vast majority of scientists to be sound scientific theory. Check out Scientists for Steve.

Yes, students should be taught it is a theory. They should also be taught what that means and how most of science is theoretical; always being tested and always being advanced. They should be taught that just because something has parts that are unanswered doesn’t mean it is not valid. They should be taught that questions about one theory is not proof for another. If they don’t have a basic understanding of those principles, they’ll never have a real understanding of what science is.

jrjo wrote:

HYPERASHEL wrote:

jrjo wrote:

gretriever wrote:

Running Brewer wrote:

Have they scientifically proven evolution yet? I didn't know that they found the missing link.

most of these animals have far less genetic chains than we do, much less chances of it mesing up in the duplication process. your example of isolated pockets are exactly what propagated the theory of evolution. very similair animals but with varying degrees of variation. with an adequuette genetic base an species can reproduce without inbreeding. the more complex the genetic code the bigger the base needs to be though. Sexual reproduction does not cause a carbon copy of itself. there are codes made that may end up serving the new life or in fact messing it up. why do you think there are miscarriages, expalin Down's syndrome. IF left to their own demise a Down's syndrome child more than likely not make it to sexual maturity and thus the number of children with DS would then lower, thus bettering the species. evolution is not meant for the individual but for the masses. the hermaphrodites seem a good link to me about going from a total asexual reproduction to becoming a sexual reproduction. in one of my tanks i raise snails an asexual reproduction that requires two different parents though. they are able to store the sperm packet until it's needed. and anyone that has had snails get into thier fishtank will be able to provide testimony how efficient this method of reproduction is. I say nature has given far more answers that have tangible evidence than Creationism has.

camelia bedelia wrote:

They should be taught that just because something has parts that are unanswered doesn’t mean it is not valid.

You've got the makings of a creationist there. Surprised

gretriever wrote:

HYPERASHEL wrote:

Not intending to prove you wrong, but could you cite an example?

the Darwin Finches.

the Flu to be honest any virus but the flu is the most well known one.

bacteria, this is how we end up antibiotic resistant bacteria strains. the standard course of treatment is 10 days of meds. so you take your meds for 7 days and feel good because the level of bacteria is way down, but no gone.. the small percentage that remained were immune to the med due to a genetic "fluke" there was still more than the immune system could handle though and thus you get a sick again, but this time with a strain that is stronger than Penicillin is.

Running Brewer wrote:

camelia bedelia wrote:

Running Brewer wrote:

Is there a law of evolution? Has it been proven?

So only proven laws should be taught in Science class then, right?

Quote:

Under the bill, only science capable of being tested according to scientific method could be taught as science. Faith-based theories, however, could be discussed in other contexts.

No, there are many theories that are taught, but so far they have not been disproven, all calculations lead to them being true.

How do you test evolution from ape to man? scientifically of course.

look at fossil records, look at genetic comparrisons, look at social behavior. the physiological, the biological and the social aspects of the Great Apes, Particulary of the Lesser Chimps, the Bonobos, are so similiar. the Bonobos even use the Matriarchal society, much like a lot of the tribes of early man did.

genetic comparisons - wouldn't an intellegent designer reuse things?

we're not in kansas anymore

LIFEFORM SOCIAL COMMUNITY NETWORK