Rebuttal to "10 questions to ask your biology teacher"

I came across these 10 questions while reading a news article about a teacher's struggle to teach evolution in a florida classroom. The questions can be found here: http://www.iconsofevolution.com/tools/questions.php3 Also, this is my very first try at using windows movie maker to do a cool slide show type thing, better than the fuzzy resolution my webcam gets right? Oh yeah, towards the end of the video Max started barking out the window at someone, and I didn't notice until it was too late fix. I'll keep him quiet next time ^_^

edit: I found the article that inspired this video series http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/education/24evolution.html?_r=1&oref=sl...

Category:

Education

Tags:

• ten
• questions
• to
• ask
• your
• biology
• teacher
• evolution
• propoganda
• rebuttal
• media
• science
• intelligent
• design

[mikesomething]

would it kill u to spend 20 on a mic ?

[wakeangel2001]

yes, my mic sucked back then, but I have a better one now

[bradmanthethird]

I'm an evolutionist (if there is such a thing) however I must criticise you on implying that the age of the evolution theory is to it's credit, and then turning around to imply that the age of an experiment is to it's discredit...maybe i misunderstood your tone of voice when speaking of these things. but sadly you can't have it both ways...

[wakeangel2001]

The theory of evolution has been around for around 150 years, that is a fact I felt was worth mentioning, but isn't proof of anything. The age of the theory just means it has had a long time to be tested and verified (or proven wrong, which it has not,) and the mention of an experiment from a while ago is there to show that a new one refined the findings, to show how our understanding has improved.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

"Same, you cannot say its a fact that all organisms have a common ancestor, you can believe it but it is not a fact. It is either fact or fiction"

The common ancestry of all life is a fact. There is massive evidence for it from various fields of science and anybody who spends some time researching can easily learn about it.

There is no evidence for the existence of your god, no matter how much you wish it to be true.

[paleosmoker]

"even if you can call it evolution is not evidence that we have evolved from animals." Actually, it is evidence... you mean proof. There is plenty of evidence for evolution.

Please cite your CT barrier comment. I know of no evidence that the entire earth was under water.

You've already claimed that seeing evidence for biblical stories doesn't make people believe in God.

Please address why a world wide flood hasn't been discovered by scientists, if it occurred.

[HateWrecked]

@ethurial That's exactly what I'm getting at. Whether we have the technology to accept or disprove the notion, a scientific theory is a scientific theory. There are thousands of people across the world who are paid to theorize. Of course, some theories (such as the theory of the shape of the universe) will more than likely never reach a conclusion, but does that not make them valid?

When I'm saying that the theories aren't testable, I'm using realistic terms. Hypothetically, they're testable.

[ethurial]

@HateWrecked No, it didn't go over my head. Your questions were dubious, and I simply pointed out your flaws. I looked up GTD, it's interesting. What's your point? Learning, acquiring knowledge is what science is all about. I fail to see how this applies to your argument.

A theory can not be plausible unless from it predictions can be made and observations/experiements to disprove it can be undertaken. Until then they are 'conjecture'. Go look it up so you can start using your words correctly.

[HateWrecked]

@ethurial I wasn't asking what those scientific theories were, and I wasn't questioning their credibilities. That went straight over your head. Also, I'm not religious.

We do not know all we need to know about gravity. We are still learning about gravity. If you want proof, simply look up Gravitational Time Dilation.

Some say the shape of the universe is a hypersphere. Some say it is definitely a truncated icosahedron. Some say it is flat. All are plausible theories. None are testable.

[ethurial]

@HateWrecked

How do you test gravity? - You're kidding right? You just cannot be this stupid.

How do you test evolution? - Get an agar dish, fill it with bacteria, expose them to antibiotic, some live, some die, let them regrow and expose to same antibiotic. Now all live. This is evolution in action. Antibiotic resistance is evolution in action.

For your other questions why don't you USE YOUR FUCKING BRAIN and look it up yourself. Try google, or wikipedia, or journals like Nature or Science.

[HateWrecked]

@ethurial How do you test gravity? How do you test evolution? How do you test magnets? How do you test The Big Bang? How do you test the Kinetic Molecular theory? How do you test the String Theory? How do you test continental drift?

They're all theories. Evidence supports it, but it cannot directly be seen in a test. You cannot see gravity. You can see gravity's effects, but not gravity itself. I hope I am making myself more clear.

[ethurial]

@HateWrecked "Einstein's/Darwin's theories cannot be tested, but as long as they fall within the laws of physics, they are possibilities" This is total cr*p right? Which theories cannot be tested? If something falls within the laws of physics then why would they not be testable?

I just want an example of these theories that cannot be tested.

[ethurial]

@HateWrecked No I understood you. This post, like your last misrepresents what a "theory" is in science. Any theory in science is an attempt at an explanation for observations. This theory is then tested. If it can't be tested then it isn't science. There is no such thing as an untestable/untested scientific theory. If there is, it is called a conjecture. This is a very common mistake that religious people make because they don't understand how science uses language.

[HateWrecked]

@ethurial Perhaps you misunderstood me.

I'm saying that religion says this happens because "Nobody knows. It's just God and his mysterious ways."

And I'm saying that science says "Wait just a minute, now. Let's use logic."

We can come up with many scientific theories that both favor and compete with Darwin's theories. Theories do not need to be tested. Einstein's/Darwin's theories cannot be tested, but as long as they fall within the laws of physics, they are possibilities, unlike God.

[joe80dmanizanerd]

@ethurial simply no. Scientists take evidence and compare the evidence to h0 and h1. If h1 is rejected and the theory still stands, it means that the evidence corroborates with the theory h0 - but that doesn't mean its verified at all. It simply means that te evidence is in line with the theory and that we should not reject it. Thus, if H0 stands, the evidence is corroborated, if h1 stands the theory is falsified.