quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Keep in mind that the best way to avoid getting pregnant is to not have sex (abstinence).

I want to congratulate you on having done research related to your position.

I am not sure how much research was needed to come to that conclusion. You get pregnant by having sex, if you don't have sex you will not get pregnant. Pretty simple stuff there. Now if DS was saying that teaching abstinence only would help prevent teen pregnancy I would say he was being stupid, but he has already said many time in this thread alone that he does not believe that. So I have to wonder why you keep harping on this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I think gravity and reproduction are much more "settled" science than evolution. The Theory of Evolution isn't just a statement that evolution happens. It's an explanation for how humans evolved from other species. There are enough gaps in the Theory of Evolution for it to not be settled science, so it should be taught that way. I'm not against teaching the Theory of Evolution as the most widely agreed with theory on the evolution of Man. I'm opposed to it being taught that it's settled that this is how Man evolved.

I don't suppose you'll understand that, though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
And, here, you are wrong. I didn't say the Theory of Evolution was wrong, just that it hasn't been proven completely. There is evidence, but there are holes and gaps.
Teaching Evolution as "this is what science thinks happened" and Creation/ID as "here is another theory that others think explains it," doesn't demean either, but it also doesn't teach something as settled science when it isn't settled science.

1. creation/ID isn't a theory.
2. Evolution is a fact. That is settled science.

Every step is known, then?

we don't know if our universe is made of strings or loops but this doesn't invalidate quantic physics, Galileo's trasformation are the limit of lorentz's one as speed approaches 0, the fact we knew a function just in one point doesn't meant there is no function or that point we knew is not valid, it's perfectly valid in the neighbourhood of 0 now we know also other things.
So what we know is known what we don't know is to be discovered but what we know to be false is false. Creatinism is proven to be false so teaching it is fraud.

Creationism has been proven false? Please cite.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Here's the thing, though: we have experiments that demonstrate that gravity works, and we can even demonstrate how to counter gravity. Gravity has been proven to a much higher degree than the Theory of Evolution (which is an explanation of how Man evolved from lower forms). We have yet to prove the Theory of Evolution. We have proven that things can and do evolve, but we have not yet even come close to proving, by experimentation, how Man evolved. We don't have a complete timeline of skeletal records, either. We have some steps along the way, but there are so many gaps in that evolution that makes the Theory of how Man evolved suspect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

It seems to me that the more interesting fact is viruses are dozens of times smaller than semen.
Any condom that admits a failure rate that allows pregnancy would also provide the same or larger chance of contracting aids with an infected partner.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Here's the thing, though: we have experiments that demonstrate that gravity works, and we can even demonstrate how to counter gravity. Gravity has been proven to a much higher degree than the Theory of Evolution (which is an explanation of how Man evolved from lower forms). We have yet to prove the Theory of Evolution. We have proven that things can and do evolve, but we have not yet even come close to proving, by experimentation, how Man evolved. We don't have a complete timeline of skeletal records, either. We have some steps along the way, but there are so many gaps in that evolution that makes the Theory of how Man evolved suspect.

Nope. The ToE is one of the best supported theories out there and if you want to specifically talk about hominid evolution we know a great deal both from the fossil record and from our own biochemistry. You are welcome to present any gaps you think exist and I'll be happy to deal with them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
actually this should be enough to disprove it: conservation of mass

Hmm... not really.

That may not apply, though, eulero. The very first statement in the Wiki would rule out it's application:

quote:

The law of conservation of mass, or principle of mass conservation, states that for any system closed to all transfers of matter and energy (both of which have mass), the mass of the system must remain constant over time, as system mass cannot change quantity if it is not added or removed.

"God" putting the system together means matter and energy were being added, thus, not a closed system.

You can ask where "God" got the matter and energy from in the first place, if you'd like, but I don't know where that came from, nor do I know that it wasn't taken from somewhere else and put into our local system. It's entirely possible that the matter and energy were taken from another system and put here. That would still be conservation of mass, as the "universal" system had no net gain or loss.

Where does "space dust" come from?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Here's the thing, though: we have experiments that demonstrate that gravity works, and we can even demonstrate how to counter gravity. Gravity has been proven to a much higher degree than the Theory of Evolution (which is an explanation of how Man evolved from lower forms). We have yet to prove the Theory of Evolution. We have proven that things can and do evolve, but we have not yet even come close to proving, by experimentation, how Man evolved. We don't have a complete timeline of skeletal records, either. We have some steps along the way, but there are so many gaps in that evolution that makes the Theory of how Man evolved suspect.

Nope. The ToE is one of the best supported theories out there and if you want to specifically talk about hominid evolution we know a great deal both from the fossil record and from our own biochemistry. You are welcome to present any gaps you think exist and I'll be happy to deal with them.

Any gaps I think exist?

Where is the fossil record between major transitions? If it's not there, then, it's assumed to be there, and, well, that takes some element of faith, no?

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
actually this should be enough to disprove it: conservation of mass

Hmm... not really.
That may not apply, though, eulero. The very first statement in the Wiki would rule out it's application:

quote:

The law of conservation of mass, or principle of mass conservation, states that for any system closed to all transfers of matter and energy (both of which have mass), the mass of the system must remain constant over time, as system mass cannot change quantity if it is not added or removed.

"God" putting the system together means matter and energy were being added, thus, not a closed system.
You can ask where "God" got the matter and energy from in the first place, if you'd like, but I don't know where that came from, nor do I know that it wasn't taken from somewhere else and put into our local system. It's entirely possible that the matter and energy were taken from another system and put here. That would still be conservation of mass, as the "universal" system had no net gain or loss.
Where does "space dust" come from?

ok you just do not understand physics or any other science, I don't want to go on answering this off topic, but universe is a closed system by definition, you are doing phylosophy not science here, and a theory is not just "I like to think that...".
By the way even the concept that there must be a beginning is totally arbitrary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
We have fossils that show the transition from invertebrates to vertebrates, fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, dinosaurs to birds, reptiles to mammals, apes to humans and pretty much every other so called "major" transition. Pick one and I'll discuss it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Keep in mind that the best way to avoid getting pregnant is to not have sex (abstinence).

I want to congratulate you on having done research related to your position.

I am not sure how much research was needed to come to that conclusion. You get pregnant by having sex, if you don't have sex you will not get pregnant. Pretty simple stuff there. Now if DS was saying that teaching abstinence only would help prevent teen pregnancy I would say he was being stupid, but he has already said many time in this thread alone that he does not believe that. So I have to wonder why you keep harping on this.

Actually you can get pregnant without having sexual intercourse and you can get STD's without having sexual intercourse. (links and references to this effect were posted earlier.) So that still means abstinence is not 100% effective.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

You are wrong about me. I'm okay with that.

If there being a beginning is totally arbitrary, why has so much importance been placed on it? Why do people fight over it so much?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
We have fossils that show the transition from invertebrates to vertebrates, fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, dinosaurs to birds, reptiles to mammals, apes to humans and pretty much every other so called "major" transition. Pick one and I'll discuss it.

Apes to Humans.

Show the transitions.

quote:

You are wrong about me. I'm okay with that.

If there being a beginning is totally arbitrary, why has so much importance been placed on it? Why do people fight over it so much?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Apes to Humans.

Show the transitions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

You are wrong about me. I'm okay with that.

If there being a beginning is totally arbitrary, why has so much importance been placed on it? Why do people fight over it so much?

Their fucking business, they should concentrate more on connecting gravity with the other fundamental forces.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
We have fossils that show the transition from invertebrates to vertebrates, fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, dinosaurs to birds, reptiles to mammals, apes to humans and pretty much every other so called "major" transition. Pick one and I'll discuss it.

Apes to Humans.
Show the transitions.

Australopithecus shows the first distinctly human traits (including the presence of a gene, the duplicated SRGAP2, that is essential to our brains.)
Homo habilis evolved from one of the australopithecines
About a dozen different species of Homo are known with the the most likely lineage leading to sapiens is habilis to erectus to heidelbergensis to us.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Apes to Humans.
Show the transitions.

The transitions are visible in the comparative genomes. Neo-Darwinism has moved on from worrying about gaps in the fossil records. That's old school. You are looking under rocks while science has mapped the human genome and the genomes of other apes. As for fossils, we are fortunate to have found so many given the conditions necessary for the mineralization of bone to take place. The fossil collection is quite remarkable really. It's just silly to bitch and moan that the fossils of every species have not been found.