ForumGarden

I have a theory: Aliens created life. Living organisms are just too complex to have evolved as Charles Darwin suggested. There are missing pieces in the fossil record that makes me question the evolution of living organisms. I also have a theory that maybe aliens set evolution in motion. But it's just a theory. I don't have any evidence to support the idea.

I'm kidding, of course. But my so-called theory shows how the word is used loosely by everyday people to refer to an unproven idea.

A scientific theory is not the same thing.

A theory in science is supported by strong evidence - Einstein's theory of relativity, quantum theory, mathematical theory, evolution. An idea in science is called a hypothesis, and it has to be tested. Once it is repeatedly tested, it can become a theory - widely accepted and used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

The theory of evolution can't just be dismissed as another idea about how life began.

Yet those who support offering the idea of intelligent design in public classrooms around America are angling for people to believe evolution is just another idea. And they want students in science classes to consider as scientific theory their idea: Certain features of the universe are so complex that the most plausible explanation is that they are products of an intelligent cause or agent.

But intelligent design is not a scientific alternative to evolution. It's no more an alternative than our alien "theory."

Neither has undergone the scientific process to test a hypothesis.

Yet, unless a federal court intervenes, ninth-graders at a school in Dover, Pa., will hear the following this fall in a biology class:

"Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact . . . Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view."

Students are then told a reference book is available if they want to explore intelligent design.

Let them explore. But don't lead them to believe intelligent design is a scientific alternative to evolution. Not in a science class, anyway.

Intelligent design belongs in classes about comparative religions or logic. In logic, for example, students will learn that punching holes in Darwin's theory doesn't mean intelligent design is true. A supposed absence of evidence for one idea doesn't automatically make another valid.

To believe that, short of further scientific testing, students will need faith.

Not science.

Here's some basic info in ID.

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php

I think it’s funny that the idea that sentient beings walk the earth as a result of random chance that began with binary fission makes more sense so some than a theory that another sentient, intelligent being or beings made, or designed, those same sentient beings. It smacks of arrogance greater than that of the religious zealots that would have Darwin burned at the stake.



I have some questions:

* Why is it silly that God or some otherworldly experiment brought about humankind?

* Why is it insulting that we may have monkey blood in our ancestry?

* Where is the fossil linking this random fish that flopped out of the sea and survived, to the mammal, reptile, or bird?

* Why is it so incredibly important? Are we somehow less if we are the result of an extraterrestrial grad student’s genetic thesis?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Amusingly, this link was at the top of the page when I you’re your post: http://www.trueoriginofman.com/



THE THEORY OF DARWINIAN EVOLUTION IS NOW DEAD!!!



A New

Recently Discovered

& Validated Law

of Nature and Life

Totally Discredits Darwinism

and his Theory of Evolution!!!



The Darwinian Evolution Community of Scientists is asking for scientific proof of Intelligent Design even though Darwinian Evolution offers no scientific proof. The Intelligent Design camp has several inferences that show design, but Darwinian Evolution has a much bigger pile of inferences. Thus, the scientific community that controls our universities and colleges are not compelled to change their view on Darwinian Evolution to date.



However, this situation has now been changed. A new discovery of the application of a true natural law of science to this controversy offers proof that there is an Intelligent Design of the universe. This true natural law of science, which is as valid as the law of gravity, etc., can be demonstrated to directly apply to the question of Intelligent Design with irrefutable results.



This new discovery was first noticed by our ministry in 1998. Since then there has been over six (6) years of further research and numerous applications of the law to accepted or verified measurements and parameters of planet earth along with the universe.



This new discovery also has a direct application to the controversy of whether Intelligent Design should be included in the science curriculum of our secondary schools and colleges. All of the previous challenges in court have been lost concerning Intelligent Design because religious dogma cannot be part of the argument. Now, a court case could be won demanding or ordering that Intelligent Design be taught along with Darwinian Evolution or even replace it, because no religious dogma or Genesis creation issues will need to be raised whatsoever to win.

Now, a court case could be won demanding or ordering that Intelligent Design be taught along with Darwinian Evolution or even replace it,


Scary....... Though comforting that the word "could" was expressed.



because no religious dogma or Genesis creation issues will need to be raised whatsoever to win.


Yup, sounds like ID to me.

Scrat wrote: Evolution is real. There is a type of crab that lives off of the Japanese coast. Their carapace look like the scowling Samurai we see in pictures. Why? Because 100s of years ago there was a battle between 2 armies. One lost and the Samurai king threw himself into the ocean rather than surrender. After that the local fishermen believe that the soul of the king was reincarnated as a crab and any crab with a scowling Samurai on its back was thrown back into the sea.

Now they all have scowling warriors faces on their carapaces.
That pretty well wraps it up. Scrat you’ve made the case for evolution. Samurai king genetically linked to crabs...what more evidence could we ask for? I'll bet the Alaskan king Crab is actully a descendant of King Neptune. It's all making sense now.

Thanks Scrat:yh_giggle

Scrat wrote: Evolution is real. There is a type of crab that lives off of the Japanese coast. Their carapace look like the scowling Samurai we see in pictures. Why? Because 100s of years ago there was a battle between 2 armies. One lost and the Samurai king threw himself into the ocean rather than surrender. After that the local fishermen believe that the soul of the king was reincarnated as a crab and any crab with a scowling Samurai on its back was thrown back into the sea.



Now they all have scowling warriors faces on their carapaces.
*quoting so people can read it again, now that they've had their laugh - me included *

Okay, that makes the point for natural selection changing a species, even if in this case it's survival of the ugliest rather than fittest. But where is the evidence of a protozoa to a fish? reptile to a bird? etc. to an etc.?

Accountable wrote: But where is the evidence of a protozoa to a fish? reptile to a bird? etc. to an etc.?


the aliens got hungry. ate 'em all.

kinda like what the cowboys almost did to the Bison

chonsigirl wrote:


that was taken when.... Regan was in office???:wah:

sure, whatever, as good a theory as ive heard, why not