Extracting acetaminophen from ultracet. Ultracet….

Ultram….

Six Apart started a working group in February 2006 to improve the Trackback protocol with the goal to eventually have it approved as…

I cannot recall exactly how many shows I’ve seen on String Theory, claiming it’s the answer to the Theory of Everything, and the number of academics, mostly physicists, talking about it in various Science talks, shows and yes, even classes today, when String Theory has no more legs than ID from a test standpoint.

So forgive me when I completely ignore the sanctimonious prattle from some of the pro-evolution people here, talking down ID but I’m sure giving free reign to BS like String Theory……

#15: Sherri said:
The scientific method:
1. Observation. (Evolution takes too long to observe).
2. Develop a hypothesis. (It’s Darwin’s THEORY of evolution ya’ll…not Darwin’s PROOF of evolution).
3. Prediction.
4. Perform tests to prove/disprove the hypothesis and prediction.
Evolution does NOT follow the scientific method and is, therefore, unprovable.
Evolution = Bad Science.

While #23 Oligonicella makes a good counter-argument, I felt that one major point was missing:

Sherri – please explain to me how the scientific method, which you attempt to use in order to debunk the theory of evolution, can be applied to trumpet the theory of ID. It seems your argument could be directly used against it, specifically steps 1 and 4:

1. Observation – how does one observe the Intelligent Designer?
4. Perform tests – how does one perform tests on the notion that a being of which we have no scientific proof created everything?

Ultimately, I have to agree with Zombie on this: religion does not belong in science class. Religion is a belief system based entirely on faith in God to explain intangibles, and therefore has no place in a classroom where the subject matter is specifically the process of using tangibles to explain the “everything”. Faith and God have no place in such a process.

“Again, “modern synthesis” is an interpretative term that requires the evaluation of evidence, and the evaluation applied to the evidence is developed from specific unquestioned axioms of the individual.”

So basically, what I hear you saying is that scientific evidence is always subjectivly interpreted and there is no objective reality (or if there is, no way to get at it, due to these “unquestioned axioms”). You are entitled to this view of course, but it dismantles the entire scientific method. Is that what you intend? If so, how do you ever bring yourself to get on an airplane?

“If it merely explained how various forms of life adapt to their environments there wouldn’t be a debate, but the system goes much further in suggesting no supernatural cause was ever necessary, even at the beginning.”

This is pretty telling. Your arguments up to this point ARE about its explanatory power. But that’s not what really bothers you, is it? It’s that it suggests (to you) that no supernatural force is needed for life. (Actually, it is totally neutral on this point, as the supernatural is not a valid area of inquiry for science- by definition.)

“Descent with modification plus mutations over millions of years does not add the necessary genetic information to a common ancestral organism…”

Why not? I’m sorry… but “information” really is not a problem for biology. These arguments almost always rest on assumptions of the frequency of point mutations and ignore larger scale changes and a whole host of other genetic factors.

“He even invented the gene gun, and he is a young earther to boot.”

ummmm, one of those makes him slightly more credible as a scientist (or at least interesting) and the other one makes him a COMPLETE LOON. Which phase was he in when he came up with this “information” problem? I wonder. Also I wonder which research was published in journals like Nature and which in… some obscure computing journal?

“I’ll have to contact my college biology profs to let them know you think they are idiots.”

I’m not sure what you mean… I said remedial was a POOR choice of word, so I think I implied the very opposite of your college professors (?)

“The theory of evolution was a pseudo scientific attempt by Darwin to justify the injustices of the British, aka the Brutish, Empire by positing that some people, mainly the British, were more equal than others. There is no proof to the scientific validity of this theory”
————————
Of all the ignorant statements on this thread, yours is the most ignorant. You obviously have no clue as to what Darwinism even is, or what Darwin demonstrated. It was in fact the OPPOSITE of what you claim. Darwin was the first person to show that humans are not “above” the animals, and that the different races of humans are simply different — not superior or inferior to each other. In fact it was Darwinism that destroyed the pre-existing assumption that humans were the “top” of the evolutionary pile and that the British were the top of the human pile. He showed that every living thing simply has adapted to its environment, and that none can be said to be “better” or “more advanced” than any other. It was actually this aspect of Darwinism that was the most controversial during his lifetime. And here you come along 150 years later and say the exact opposite — that Darwin was concocting things out of thin air in order to prop up colonialist racism. Complete balderdash!

Wherever you learned that load of crap, you’ve been brainwashed. Start from the beginning and learn from scratch what “evolution through natural selection” means, and it will open your eyes. Once you grasp it, it’s like a new dimension of understanding dawning in your head. Some people on this thread “get it,” but many here — and sadly, many across America — do not understand what is even being discussed.