NationStates Jolt Archive

I just wanted to make everyone aware of the Equal Rights for Creationism proposal. It suggests the same rights for creationism as for evolution. To hear exactly what it is go to the proposals page. Please support this proposal and the similar one a page or two later. Thanks

This is exactly why the Right to Learn about Evolution proposal should NEVER have been passed. A general right to freedom of education is enough. We do not need a UN resolution to protect each and every theory and belief out there.

I'm waiting for the "Right to Learn Lamarkism"... :rolleyes:

Evolution is science. Creationism isn't.

So, no, creationism does not merit "equal rights".

One of the reasons that we need to be able to teach Creationism is because of the is view that it is not science. I am not proposing just to talk about religion. I'm saying to bring forth the facts that are out there for creationism nothing more. I don't want to teach religious views, ONLY FACTS. However at this time these facts are shut out of schools because everyone who teaches them is said to be doing it out of "religious motivation." So the only way to actually protect it is to call it creationism while writing the proposal.

Facts? What *physical* evidence is there to prove creationism? (The Bible doesn't count).

If you want evidence try searching irreducible complexity. If that doesn't give you much (because of the seeming ban on creationism by the scientific community try going to www.family.org and typing it in). That's just for starters if you want more I'm the degeba system just telegram me. I've got alot more.

www.family.org

"Our Mission
To cooperate with the Holy Spirit in disseminating the Gospel of Jesus Christ to as many people as possible, and, specifically, to accomplish that objective by helping to preserve traditional values and the institution of the family."

Nice to know the whole webpage dismisses itself.

Since when did information start being rejected because of religious beliefs?
You believe in the work of a lot of Christian scientists. You don't reject information for evolution because it comes from an athiest. But you are eager to reject creationism because it comes from Christians.

Since when did information start being rejected because of religious beliefs?
You believe in the work of a lot of Christian scientists. You don't reject information for evolution because it comes from an athiest. But you are eager to reject creationism because it comes from Christians.

No, I reject creationism because it is claptrap. I reject that website because of it not even faining to hide its fundamentalist objectives.

Really, I know better than to waste my time on some fundie webpage.

Would you rather that the website hide its views and decieve you? If you wanted informations for evolution, wouldn't you go to a site that supports evolution? Did you even look at the information?

Would you rather that the website hide its views and decieve you? If you wanted informations for evolution, wouldn't you go to a site that supports evolution? Did you even look at the information?

As I said, I know better than to waste my time.

Really, if you think you're the first creationist to throw out one of these silly pages of some fundie organisation, then you are mistaken. The internet is full of them. All a waste of time.

Enough.

If you can't put it in NationStates terms, take it to General. This forum is for UN business.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

I find it facinating that you keep refusing to look at any possible evidence or you dismiss is someway or another. This doesn't sound like very good science.

I find it facinating that you keep refusing to look at any possible evidence or you dismiss is someway or another. This doesn't sound like very good science.

IC: You present no evidence. Fassist scientists have dismissed creationism, and thus we will not support your M.O.S.S. proposal.

Ecopoeia does not support.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

I have taken on board the website lised by the member raising the Issue seeking equal staus for the ideal of creationism. I typed a search for "creationism" in the search bar for the site and read the article topping the list.
Citizen Magazine Feature - The end of creationism?
The Human Genome Project poses a threat, all right, but not the way Darwinists have it figured.
http://www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/features/a0012352.cfm


What we have found is this vile putrid sess pit of a web site is actually citing sciences raising of new questions to answer its own statements. Science by its very nature of curiosity and the search for the truth will uncover new questions to be answered. This has been the case since mankind decided not to blindly follow the dogma of the church, which had that not happened we all would still believe the sun orbited this flat earth. It is groups like the one hosting this site that would have this world and its peoples subjugated and ignorant.
We wish the degba systems leaders open their eyes and quit blindly following the sheep for the sake of those people who look to you for guidance.

I find it facinating that you keep refusing to look at any possible evidence or you dismiss is someway or another. This doesn't sound like very good science.

The reason why nobody cares is that this isn't the first time that such "evidence" has been presented - we've already assessed it and deemed it inadequate to persuade us. Quite frankly, creationism doesn't have a leg to stand on as a scientific theory. There have been a few semi-decent questions raised about Darwinist theory - though not nearly enough to discredit it - but there is not one shred of scientifically acceptable evidence in favour of the Genesis creation story. Even if you somehow managed to outright DISPROVE Darwinist theory AND the Big Bang hypothesis, it would still be just as likely that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called The Great Green Arkleseizure as it is that Genesis presents an accurate theory about the origins of the universe. Both hypotheses are based on books, and there's no more evidence that the Bible was divinely inspired than that the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was.

We support a repeal of the current resolution and the implementation of one declaring that no scientific ideas should be suppressed.

Instead of trying to pass a bunch more useless resolutions of limited scope, I've submitted this proposal that guarentees freedom in the classroom while simultaniously repealing the The Right To Learn about Evolution as this proposal should cover its intent.

Post your thoughts!

Free Speech in the Classroom

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Brown Stick Men

Description: DEFINING The Classroom as any place where structured education takes place: including but not limited to, government sactioned primary (or elementary) schools, high schools or other places of secondary education and colleges and universities. As well as privately run counter-parts to the above.

ASSERTING Teachers, professors and other educators will be free from persecution, imprisonment, or other forms of harrassment from the government for what is taught in a classroom setting so long as such teaching or speech is does not violate established laws or limitation on speech in the individual nation.

NOTING this resolution does not affect an individual nation's right to set any curriculam they see fit or limit leaders or school officials from ensuring that educators follow established laws.

REPEALS The Right To Learn About Evolution as being too specific and out of the scope of the charter of the UN. The argument being that this resolution does a far better job of protecting all ideas in a classroom regardless of a nation's technical level or cultural, social and religious ideals. With this resolution in place, no nation can completely outlaw any educational idea without outlawing free speech in general, which is already outlawed by various other resolutions.

CONCLUSION The UN should be concerned that all citizens are properly educated, this resolution clarifies that a teacher's speech cannot be limited because of a educational setting.

Post your thoughts!
My main thought is that it's more polite to start your own topic than to piggyback on someone else's.

1) this proposal is self-defeating,
2) unless something has changed significantly in the last couple of weeks, you cannot repeal and enact new things at the same time,
3) use of a double negative in second-last paragraph makes it extremely unclear,
4) this resolution could potentially be used as an excuse to teach completely unacceptable things like racism, fascism etc. under the guise of free speech, and if creationism has a place in the school curriculum then we should also be teaching students that the Sun revolves around the Earth and that fairies live at the bottom of every garden.

My main thought is that it's more polite to start your own topic than to piggyback on someone else's.

My apologies, I'm seeing if there is any support and there are lots of movements to get the other resolution repealed so it seemed to me to relate.

1) this proposal is self-defeating,

So is the evolution one but that didn't stop people from voting with their emotions. At least this one covers a whole range of educational issues.

2) unless something has changed significantly in the last couple of weeks, you cannot repeal and enact new things at the same time,

I've read the rules and I've somehow missed this. Also there are other resolutions (See RBH Replacement) that seem to do this. However if it is a problem I can resubmit it with wording that strikes the previous resolution void instead so a full repeal will have a better chance of passing. I wrote it this way because it is obvious to me that members of the UN feel that certain educational ideas should be specifically protected. My resolution is a compromise that treats all educational ideas as free speech.

3) use of a double negative in second-last paragraph makes it extremely unclear,

What exactly do you find unclear?

4) this resolution could potentially be used as an excuse to teach completely unacceptable things like racism, fascism etc. under the guise of free speech,

Which is why the resolution specifically states that nothing illegal can be taught and that the government can set whatever curriculam it wants in its own schools (and fire teachers accordingly if they don't follow it.) What it does do is make it so that 1.) teaching things that aren't otherwise illegal cannot land one in jail, and 2) ensuring that citizens have the right to educate their children as they see fit in private institutions or home-school if they don't like the government policy.

and if creationism has a place in the school curriculum then we should also be teaching students that the Sun revolves around the Earth and that fairies live at the bottom of every garden.

In RL this is an issue, however in the game some nations may have been formed by a creator or have fantasy elements to their nation. Such ideas should be recognized as being valid without the UN forcing a particular idea on any nation.

Thank you for your thoughts. And again sorry for the threadjack, I'll start a new thread soon.

I just wanted to make everyone aware of the Equal Rights for Creationism proposal. It suggests the same rights for creationism as for evolution. To hear exactly what it is go to the proposals page. Please support this proposal and the similar one a page or two later. Thanks

Which version of "Creationism"? There is more than one.

And yes, this is the very reason the Evolution resolution should never have been passed. I do feel obligated, however, that if the Evolution Resolution has been passed, to endure a fair resolution is passed regarding all the different Creationist theories.... Assuming all are equally protected.

This includes:
- Literal Creationism
- Old-Earth Creationism
- Progressive Creationism/Day-Age Theory of Creation
-and-
- Theistic Evolution - Intelligent Design Evolution

I've read the rules and I've somehow missed this. Also there are other resolutions (See RBH Replacement) that seem to do this.
Reread "Before you make a proposal". No standard proposal can amend or repeal prior resolutions. (RBH Replacement was in fact the reason this rule was instituted, as there is/was no Game Mechanics method to do what RBH required). The only way to repeal an existing resolution is to use the Repeals process that starts on the Past Resolutions pages, and Repeals can do nothing except repeal. If you want to change the law, you must first repeal and then re-propose. It ain't easy.

Hi all! I am very interested about this topic.
Someone earlier said that creation is not a science. Then what is science? Astronomy, biology and all those. Creation has those, God created the stars, people and everything else! Evolution could also be called a "faith". Has anyone of us been there to see it? NO! That is why the Bible should count, it is a eyewitness to it!
Does it make sense for it to be evovled out of nothing? Think of it.
Anyways, I totally beleive creation and if anyone is interested check out
www.AnswersInGenesis.com.
It is an organization that deals greatly with this subject.

I'm waiting for the "Right to Learn Lamarkism"... :rolleyes:


Not sure if you are trying to funny. I should point out that the right to learn evolution proposal was sufficiently broad enough to include Lamarckian inheritance. Indeed neo-Lamarckian research in terms of cultural evolution and extra-genetic (i.e., epigenetic) inheritance is a significant part of the modern study of evolution.

Despite the fact that Lamarkism was disproved in the early 20th or late 19th century?

Hi all! I am very interested about this topic.
Someone earlier said that creation is not a science. Then what is science? Astronomy, biology and all those. Creation has those, God created the stars, people and everything else! Evolution could also be called a "faith". Has anyone of us been there to see it? NO! That is why the Bible should count, it is a eyewitness to it!
Does it make sense for it to be evovled out of nothing? Think of it.
Anyways, I totally beleive creation and if anyone is interested check out
www.AnswersInGenesis.com.
It is an organization that deals greatly with this subject.

Of course, I picked the easiest creationism supporter to argue against, but hey, path of least resistance, eh?

Creationism is not a science. Period. The reason? It is taking a premise and trying to find evidence to support it (God created earth). Any evidence that does not support this premise (i.e. almost all evidence that has ever been found) is either discounted as a misinterpretation, or molded to fit the theory. In short, a creationist believes what they believe, and any evidence that contradicts this belief is ignored.

Evolution is a science. The reason? A question was asked (how did animals end up the way they are?). A hypothesis was formed based on a small amount of evidence. As more evidence was gathered, the hypothesis continued to change. This changing is the basis to science. If the evidence doesn't support the hypothesis, the hypothesis is changed, not the evidence.

Evolution is not a complete science. That is why there are some loopholes that are yet to be explained. In the future, more evidence will be gathered. As that happens, the theory of evolution will become more refined as it continues to mold to the evidence. Or, the theory of evolution will be proven wrong with more evidence, in which case a new hypothesis will have to be formed.


No matter what, science is not going to take up creationism. It should never be taught as a science because it is not. Creationism is simply an attempt to mold evidence to fit a theory.


This is why I am against the proposal for "equal rights for creationism".



And an aside: "Does it make sense for it to be evovled out of nothing?" The answer to this question is quite simple. Of course not. It is the creationists who believe something was "evolved" (or created, in this case) out of nothing.

The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain where the first lifeform came from. That is a different science, and one which still has much further to go yet.

I have noticed one reason many creationists refuse to support evolution is that they do not believe that so much could have happened "by chance." What they don't seem to realise is this has been going on for 3 billion years! That's an extremely, mind-boggling long time. I find it harder to believe that an invisible, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being (who's both all-benevolent and unbelievable cruel) created life as we know it as explained in the Bible, while simultaneously believing (as we now know) that the Bible was wrong when it comes to the Earth being the center of the universe, the Earth being flat, etc. If it was wrong about those points, why not about creationism?



Anywho, enough rambling. :)

I refused to support the evolution resolution and I will not support this. The UN is not the place to force these ideals on people. It is the individual nations' right to teach what and how they want.

I voted against the evolution resolution because even though its a mandatory part of the school curriculum here and the vast majority of our secular nation accept evolution as the theory it is but as the truth nontheless, I didn't feel it is the kind of issue the UN needed to be involved with.

Creation falls under the same catagory but with the added bonus of not even being, by any strech of the imagination, science. If we are ever required to allow the teaching of creation there is no way it will be in a science class. Any teacher who wishes to teach creation will have to call their class "mythology" and include the creation stories from all religions, past and present.

What they don't seem to realise is this has been going on for 3 billion years!

The problem with this argument, of course, is that they believe that the universe was created on 24 October 4004BC, or at the vernal equinox on 3929BC, depending on which long-dead Bible-toter you want to believe. And I don't have time to research the other creation myths, so sorry for only insulting Christianity.


What exactly do you find unclear?


With this resolution in place, no nation can completely outlaw any educational idea without outlawing free speech in general, which is already outlawed by various other resolutions.

If this is consistent with the intended meaning, I'd rewrite that to "No nation may outlaw any educational idea without outlawing free speech, an action which is illegal under other [resolution name]."

Note that I also have other quibbles with the wording because creationism isn't an "educational idea", it's a myth. A fairytale you tell kids because it's late and you're too tired to explain the theory of evolution and natural selection to them, just like the stork when they ask where babies come from (though to my parents' credit, they didn't make things up when it was my time to ask the questions).

The Neutral Republic of Aeruillin cannot support this resolution. This has several reasons:

1. Don't mess with our schools. The education system is in charge of bringing up our impressionable young to become critical, non-indoctrinated thinkers. We fear that a resolution to ban any restrictions on what is allowed to be taught to children will open the door not only to Creationism, but to a whole slew of other, more harmful doctrines of thought. The idea of a private school opening up and teaching our children National Aeruillinyan Supremacy, or a cult founding its own daycare center where they can indoctrinate infants with hate is less than savory.

We are a nation of civil liberties in all areas of life, but we don't like to take chances where our education is concerned.

2. Science is our future. As a new era of technology dawns, while carriages are the transport of choice within our capital and majority of our military is on horseback, we are given the choice to progress or perish. Modernization smacks of decay to many, but the fact of the matter is that we have no other option. The Aeruillinyan lands, fertile though they may be, will not support a third billion at their current productivity. Rapid overpopulation accompanied with unchecked industrialization will wreck our environment, leaving our descendants to pay the price. To prevent this, we must advance our research, developing new technologies that are more efficient and less harmful to our environment. To this end, those that we bring up to be scientists must be qualified to know what science is about: A rational approach to empirical evidence, deductive reasoning and conclusive proofs.

When schools stick to archaic "alternative" theories to evolution that, as seen by current evidence, are little more than hogwash, we see our future at risk. The new generation is supposed to take a critical view to social and political issues, issues which indeed cannot be unilaterally described. Where science is concerned, there is no either-or. The theory that best fits the facts is the one we must follow, and none other. If actual evidence should support Creationism and disprove Evolution, we would abandon Evolution in the same way.

This is why we supported the resolution "Right to Teach Evolution", and will not support the resolution "Equal Rights for Creationism".

OOC: UN status is temporarily on a puppet nation. Aeruillin (my only rp-ing nation) will be back in the UN asap, and in the meantime for the sake of debate I'll just pretend it still is.

Actually, all mutations found that supposedly create new life forms, only degenerate the type of life form, it does not change the kind.
We do not believe that life evolved from nothing, it was inteligently designed.
Say you put all the parts for a car in a garage and leave it there for 6,000,000,000 years. Does it become a car? No, how would it? And that even starts with the parts there. But now say there is no parts and nothing to make the parts, how do the parts get made, put in the garage, and become a car? And then even one cell is more complex than a car, how does that happen?
Oh yes, I gave the wrong adress, it is www.AnswersInGenesis.org .

Actually, all mutations found that supposedly create new life forms, only degenerate the type of life form, it does not change the kind.
We do not believe that life evolved from nothing, it was inteligently designed.
Say you put all the parts for a car in a garage and leave it there for 6,000,000,000 years. Does it become a car? No, how would it? And that even starts with the parts there. But now say there is no parts and nothing to make the parts, how do the parts get made, put in the garage, and become a car? And then even one cell is more complex than a car, how does that happen?
Oh yes, I gave the wrong adress, it is www.AnswersInGenesis.org .

Did you even read my post?

First of all, it is quite obvious that you haven't even taken the time to study evolution, whereas many of it's supporters here have taken the time to read the Bible.

Besides the fact that evolution does not even attempt to explain how the first lifeform was created (that is another science altogether, and another reason why evolution does not disprove the existence of God), your argument is moot.

A car is not made of organic compounds, nor is a garage in any way similar to the way early earth is thought to have been like.


Only your first sentence is regarding evolution, and I would like to see a source for it. Of course, we have only been studying this for hundreds of years, evolution has been going on for billions. Why should we expect to see it in progress in our lifetimes!? Of course, I don't believe that "all mutations found that supposedly create new life forms, only degenerate the type of life form." So, I'll patiently wait for a credible source, preferrably reviewed by a peer.


Therefore, regarding the proposal, I will have to completely agree with Waterana.

Actually, all mutations found that supposedly create new life forms, only degenerate the type of life form, it does not change the kind.

Bull - there are plenty of improving mutations observed. We can observe the emergence of new strains of bacteria resistant to antibiotics,strains of rats resistant to warfarin, and strains of insect resistant to DDT. All of these are, from the creature's point of view, improvements. There is less information about the rise of separate species, but that's unsurprising, as it would take quite a while.

[/quote]Say you put all the parts for a car in a garage and leave it there for 6,000,000,000 years. Does it become a car? No, how would it?[/quote]

But say you put a wide selection of chemicals in solution for thousands of years, heat them up, electrify them and let them react randomly. Eventually, some molecules emerge that are capable of replicating. Natural selection can then act on their ability to reproduce to eliminate less competent and advanced forms, until we have a cell.

The difference is, you're not doing anything to drive the combining of the parts, and the car parts can't drive their own assembly.

The science of studying how life could have initially formed, is called Exobiology.

We have, at this point, been able to create amino-acids and organo-metalics, and the other "basic" building blocks of life, by mimicing the proper conditions. Haven't actuall "made" a single cell yet... But we can create conditions, comparible to how the pre-life earth would have been, and creat all of the complex molecules that work together that make a living cell.

Exobiologists have been able to make an enviroment of "Early earth"... composed of a soup of methane, ammonia, water and the like, in the presence of heat, and electricity, complex amino-acids form... sometimes even complex molecules such as RNA.. The organo-metalic molecules that make up cell walls, complex protiens..... It's not hard to see, given the right conditions, these different building blocks working together in the right conditions to form the first bacteria...

I'm a "Theistic Evolutionist"... which means I accept the theory of evolution, while at the same time being a proponent that the evolutionary process is guided by a Creator/God.

For all you scientists out there: I sympathize with you. I know clear well what it's like to know whole heartedly that you're right, and to continually be frustrated by closed-minded people :headbang:. Same goes for you creationists :headbang:. I should like to point out that there is no definitive proof of the validity of either theory. Darwinism is a logical induction---we can't ascertain for certain that it's true. At the same time, it's entirely possible that God didn't create the universe in which most of us reside. Perhaps neither is true. Perhaps elements of both are true. Right now, though, we (by whom I mean humanity in general) don't know.

So chill people. Neither creationism nor evolution is established fact. For the sake of civility, let's try to be open-minded.

Yes, there are beneficial mutations, but the thing that benefits (the bug, animal or bacteria) lose's information that makes it not be killed.
Say there is 20 bacteria. 10 are normal, and 10 are these superbacteria. Then these antbodies come alomg and kill the 10 that are normal, but can't kill the ten super ones because they are immune. So that leave only the ten super ones that have no way of getting new information to become normal again. Therefore these mutations are benificial, but not new information.
And yes I have read on Evolution alot.

Creationism can be defined as a substitute for science, a religous attempt to discredit science and offer an alternate explanation that sounds pseudo-scientific but is bent to support religon.

Anyone who calls Creationism "Science" has only twisted the english language to include in a word a definition that the word's definition excludes.

Creationism should be taught in sunday school, not public school, or in private schools that wish to be accredited.

-Democracian
Radiated Wastelands

So chill people. Neither creationism nor evolution is established fact. For the sake of civility, let's try to be open-minded.

I'm not against what you're saying, but let me point out that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Of course, it officially is only a theory, just like the theory of gravity and the theory of relativity.

You're implying that in terms of how well-founded they are, creationism and evolution are about equal in terms of explaining how life came about, when in reality they are very far apart in factual basis. Evolution has been all but proven. Creationism is little more than a fairy tale with extremely stubborn fans.

Yes, there are beneficial mutations, but the thing that benefits (the bug, animal or bacteria) lose's information that makes it not be killed.
Say there is 20 bacteria. 10 are normal, and 10 are these superbacteria. Then these antbodies come alomg and kill the 10 that are normal, but can't kill the ten super ones because they are immune. So that leave only the ten super ones that have no way of getting new information to become normal again. Therefore these mutations are benificial, but not new information.
And yes I have read on Evolution alot.

Uh, no, in fact the bacteria in your example have evolved a resistance to the antibody. Those which were not resistant died - that's natural selection. Evolution and natural selection work together; a beneficial mutation becomes dominant due to natural selection. Eventually the lifeform mutates and mutates, with natural selection killing off bad mutations, until it is different enough from the original that it can be considered a new species.

I don't know what you mean by "new information" but the fact is you have just described evolution at work and seem to be ignoring the elephant in the hall. I suspect you mean genetic information, in which case I don't see how nothing new is created - there is now the genetic formula for resistance to a particular antibody which was not there before. Isn't that "new"?

Yes, there are beneficial mutations, but the thing that benefits (the bug, animal or bacteria) lose's information that makes it not be killed.
Say there is 20 bacteria. 10 are normal, and 10 are these superbacteria. Then these antbodies come alomg and kill the 10 that are normal, but can't kill the ten super ones because they are immune. So that leave only the ten super ones that have no way of getting new information to become normal again. Therefore these mutations are benificial, but not new information.
And yes I have read on Evolution alot.

Ok, this is one possible way that it can work. Say there's a protein, which we'll call alpha, that bacteria produce. It performs some necessary function inside the cell. During one of the many, many cell divisions that occurs over time, the gene that codes for protein alpha undergoes a mutation - i.e. it is copied incorrectly so that the information is changed. This is a NEW allele. The new bacterium produces protein beta, which is very similar to alpha and can do the same job. However, part of its structure is slightly different. Since the new protein doesn't currently confer any advantage or disadvantage, no selection pressure exists on it, so both alleles - the forms of the gene coding for alpha and beta - remain in the population as it grows.

Say we come back at some later date, and we see that there are a few alpha bacteria and a few betas. We then introduce an antibiotic that attacks a specific part of protein alpha, deactivating it and causing the bacterium to die because it can't perform some essential function. However, because the structure of beta is very slightly different, the antibiotic can't deactivate it. So all the alphas die out and the betas are left. They don't need to become "normal" again, they carry on as they are, with the antibiotic-resistant allele being common to the whole colony. I don't know how you got the idea that they need to return to their original state.

Parfaire, creationism is not on an equal footing with Darwinism, simply because there is no supporting scientific evidence for the theory. The best creationists have ever been able to do is to find a couple of things that we can't yet explain through Darwinism - they appear to assume that if only they can disprove Darwinism, then creationism is automatically proven.

The reason why there is no need for the UN to enshrine equal rights for creationism is that it is utterly discredited bunkum. Those who propagate this nonsense masquerading as science seek to raise a generation of unthinking credulous drones. Creationists and their ilk are very antithesis of reason, logic and science. They are a greater threat to our species than any terrorist.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

EDIT: though the Barryist Theory of Creation does seem to have the possibility of a grain of truth

For all you scientists out there: I sympathize with you. I know clear well what it's like to know whole heartedly that you're right, and to continually be frustrated by closed-minded people :headbang:. Same goes for you creationists :headbang:. I should like to point out that there is no definitive proof of the validity of either theory. Darwinism is a logical induction---we can't ascertain for certain that it's true. At the same time, it's entirely possible that God didn't create the universe in which most of us reside. Perhaps neither is true. Perhaps elements of both are true. Right now, though, we (by whom I mean humanity in general) don't know.

So chill people. Neither creationism nor evolution is established fact. For the sake of civility, let's try to be open-minded.

Bah! I hate posts like this!

You are making it seem as if we are on one side of the fence and you are in the middle. You are making it seem as if we are unfairly biased and you can "see both sides of the story."


And many people will use your post (or the reason behind it) to debunk what we are saying about the difference between science and the lack thereof.



By definition, creationism is not a science and evolution is. Period.

There should never be any dispute on whether the above statement is true. Therefore, to consider them as "equal" theories is a mistake.


Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying "creationism is wrong and evolution is right." I'm saying the former should be taught in a religious setting and the latter in the science classroom.

How is it that I have someone in my region that voted for me as delegate but haven't received the UN Delegate position? There's only 2 in my region including me.

How is it that I have someone in my region that voted for me as delegate but haven't received the UN Delegate position? There's only 2 in my region including me.

This doesn't belong in this forum. But I can tell you that the game usually doesn't update these sorts of things until the daily major or minor updates. In other words, wait for a day, and then if it hasn't happened, you should get worried.

But don't get worried here. You'll probably need to go to the "Moderation" forum if it hasn't happened by tomorrow.

creationism is fine, in a religious education class....where evolutionary teaching (in detail) would be a little odd.
evolution....fine for a science class....but a little odd in detail in a religion class.

No problem in mentioning either one in less detail in the other classes, as awareness of other ideas is good for you. But one is a science, the other is a religious belief.

Achuelia formally proposes that the Equal Rights for Evolution and the Equal Rights for Creationism proposals/laws be scrapped and replaced with a resolution that supports the right of national governments to decide which theory is taught in their national territories.
We also note that both theories leave out a third valid option, Pan Genesis. It is entirely plausible that life on this planet is the result of some aliens having a picnic here and leaving some bacteria behind that evolved into the life forms we see today. Or that a microbe rode a meteor to earths surface and survived and we are the end result of that organism having evolved on this planet over millions of years. Evolution is not the only theory that scientists support. There is much support in the scientific community for extraterrestrial origins.
If national soverignty is not to be restored on this matter, we would include a proposal that all theories of origins be given equal weight. But we prefer the national soverignty idea.

Achuelia formally proposes that the Equal Rights for Evolution and the Equal Rights for Creationism proposals/laws be scrapped and replaced with a resolution that supports the right of national governments to decide which theory is taught in their national territories.
We also note that both theories leave out a third valid option, Pan Genesis. It is entirely plausible that life on this planet is the result of some aliens having a picnic here and leaving some bacteria behind that evolved into the life forms we see today. Or that a microbe rode a meteor to earths surface and survived and we are the end result of that organism having evolved on this planet over millions of years. Evolution is not the only theory that scientists support. There is much support in the scientific community for extraterrestrial origins.
If national soverignty is not to be restored on this matter, we would include a proposal that all theories of origins be given equal weight. But we prefer the national soverignty idea.

The ideas you describe do not disagree with Darwinist evolutionary theory. Darwinism does not attempt to explain the origins of life, but the mechanism of its development. In fact you yourself acknowledged this - "leaving some bacteria behind that evolved into the life forms we see today".

The ideas you describe do not disagree with Darwinist evolutionary theory. Darwinism does not attempt to explain the origins of life, but the mechanism of its development. In fact you yourself acknowledged this - "leaving some bacteria behind that evolved into the life forms we see today".
the general disagreement isn't over the mechanism, since even creationism must allow for variation or change over time, if you read Genesis correctly. The disagreement is over how life started.
As for the first part of my statement, no where does the Bible say that God specifically created each seperate individual species. But rather he created a general form and all modern species came from that general form. As when it says that God created fish after their kind. He made one kind of fish and all modern fish are descended from that one fish.
Evolutionists tend to insist there is absolutely no God whatever and that life originated from random chance.

Evolutionists tend to insist there is absolutely no God whatever and that life originated from random chance.
OOC: Er, no.

OOC: Er, no.
Unless you know of a different evolution, then yes. This is what is taught in America's public schools and it is why leftists are bitterly opposed to giving creationism equal time. The difference is over the existence of God and how life originated. I have never heard an evolution say I believe in God. Nor has an evolutionist said, I believe all modern organism are evolved from organisms that were created by God.
This is what the debate is about.
The classic evolution textbook teaches that there is no God and life rose from random chance in a primordial stew.

Some evolutionists believe in God. Stephen Jay Gould, for one.

Some also believe that maybe God may have started life.

Unless you know of a different evolution, then yes. This is what is taught in America's public schools and it is why leftists are bitterly opposed to giving creationism equal time. The difference is over the existence of God and how life originated. I have never heard an evolution say I believe in God. Nor has an evolutionist said, I believe all modern organism are evolved from organisms that were created by God.
This is what the debate is about.
The classic evolution textbook teaches that there is no God and life rose from random chance in a primordial stew.
OOC: You appear to be unfortunate in only experiencing a very narrow range of 'evolutionists'.

Ultimately, there's not much point in any scientist worth his or her salt denying the existence of God outright, since Big Bang Theory leaves the question pretty much unanswerable.

OOC: You appear to be unfortunate in only experiencing a very narrow range of 'evolutionists'.

Ultimately, there's not much point in any scientist worth his or her salt denying the existence of God outright, since Big Bang Theory leaves the question pretty much unanswerable.

I have never heard of an evolutionist of the kind you describe.
Nor have I ever heard of this Stephen Jay Gould fellow. I would like more information on both.

Unless you know of a different evolution, then yes. This is what is taught in America's public schools and it is why leftists are bitterly opposed to giving creationism equal time. The difference is over the existence of God and how life originated. I have never heard an evolution say I believe in God. Nor has an evolutionist said, I believe all modern organism are evolved from organisms that were created by God.
This is what the debate is about.
The classic evolution textbook teaches that there is no God and life rose from random chance in a primordial stew.

This is just plain wrong. The same proportion of scientists believe in God as that of the layperson.

I am a "leftist" and the reason I am opposed to giving creationism equal time is because it is not a science. It should therefore not be taught in science class.

Evolution does not discount the possibility that there is a God. On the contrary, many people who believe in evolution believe that God started it.

Furthermore, evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of the "original" life on earth. This theory, as someone previously stated, is called exobiology.


And in fact, the only reason there is debate right now is because there are some "rightists" like you who either aren't educated, or who believe the Bible literally. If the latter is your case, it's not my fault that evolution goes against the Bible's literal word, but that doesn't change the fact that evolution is a science and creationism is not. It's not like people purposely use evolution to spite religious fanatics. It's a theory which just happens to fit scientific evidence well. Creation does not fit scientific evidence, and will never be considered a science.

I have never heard of an evolutionist of the kind you describe.
Nor have I ever heard of this Stephen Jay Gould fellow. I would like more information on both.
OOC: I suggest Googling Stephen Jay Gould. As for Christians who accept/advocate evolution... try pretty much any Christian in the UK. It seems that - in the Western world - only the US has a problem with evolution.

This is just plain wrong. The same proportion of scientists believe in God as that of the layperson.

I am a "leftist" and the reason I am opposed to giving creationism equal time is because it is not a science. It should therefore not be taught in science class.

Evolution does not discount the possibility that there is a God. On the contrary, many people who believe in evolution believe that God started it.

Furthermore, evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of the "original" life on earth. This theory, as someone previously stated, is called exobiology.


And in fact, the only reason there is debate right now is because there are some "rightists" like you who either aren't educated, or who believe the Bible literally. If the latter is your case, it's not my fault that evolution goes against the Bible's literal word, but that doesn't change the fact that evolution is a science and creationism is not. It's not like people purposely use evolution to spite religious fanatics. It's a theory which just happens to fit scientific evidence well. Creation does not fit scientific evidence, and will never be considered a science.

Do you always troll?

which part of creationism is not science? If you say the part where God created life, then you can't really call the alternative science either. If you speak of the claim that God created each every single individual literally, you would have a point. But I note that such an interpretation is against what even the Bible says.
If you talk about variation, which basically is similar to evolution except it doesn't allow for genera's to create other generas, I think that part of creationism is just as valid as evolution.
If, as you say, that creationism should be banned cause it isn't scientific, then how can you as a scientist say that God created it. Does such a statement not go against your claim? I would think that by saying God started evolution, you are by defacto, giving some support to the creationists.

OOC: I suggest Googling Stephen Jay Gould. As for Christians who accept/advocate evolution... try pretty much any Christian in the UK. It seems that - in the Western world - only the US has a problem with evolution.
The US is even divided. That is because we allow debate on the subject. It would be interesting to see how the Kansas case develops. The evolutionary biologists should not have boycotted it, cause their representative did an atrocious job of presenting their case with his demonizations and character assassinations. If he had presented solely facts, the board might have left evolution intact with little change. But the fact that he didn't present any facts at the hearing but instead engaged in mudslinging and character assassinations, does not bode will for the "evolution only" crowd. Now people in Kansas will think that evolutionists are as loony and extremist as the creationists are.

Do you always troll?

which part of creationism is not science? If you say the part where God created life, then you can't really call the alternative science either. If you speak of the claim that God created each every single individual literally, you would have a point. But I note that such an interpretation is against what even the Bible says.
If you talk about variation, which basically is similar to evolution except it doesn't allow for genera's to create other generas, I think that part of creationism is just as valid as evolution.
If, as you say, that creationism should be banned cause it isn't scientific, then how can you as a scientist say that God created it. Does such a statement not go against your claim? I would think that by saying God started evolution, you are by defacto, giving some support to the creationists.

When I say creationism, I speak of the "variation" part, because that is the only part that evolution contradicts. And yes, there is a contradiction, because as you said, creationism doesn't allow one type of animal to evolve in to another. Of course, when I say "type" I am speaking rather broadly, because the Christian teachings of "types" of animals are different than the evolutionary.


The reason I say evolution is a science and creationism is not is simple: it's all in the method.

A scientist will gather evidence, create a theory, then mold the theory based on any new evidence gathered.

In the case of creation, and most religious dogma, the theory is already in place before any evidence is gathered. On top of that, the theory is considered infallable, and thus cannot be changed when new evidence is introduced.


This is why I say creation should not be taught in a science class. I did not, as you suggest, say that "creationism should be banned." I said it should not be taught in the science classroom, as it does not follow the scientific method. It is perfectly fine to teach creationism in church, or in a religious studies class, because it is a religion. There is nothing wrong with people believing in it.


Evolution and creation are similar types of beliefs. However, one is scientific, the other is religious. Put them in the place they belong.

When I say creationism, I speak of the "variation" part, because that is the only part that evolution contradicts. And yes, there is a contradiction, because as you said, creationism doesn't allow one type of animal to evolve in to another. Of course, when I say "type" I am speaking rather broadly, because the Christian teachings of "types" of animals are different than the evolutionary.


The reason I say evolution is a science and creationism is not is simple: it's all in the method.

A scientist will gather evidence, create a theory, then mold the theory based on any new evidence gathered.

In the case of creation, and most religious dogma, the theory is already in place before any evidence is gathered. On top of that, the theory is considered infallable, and thus cannot be changed when new evidence is introduced.


This is why I say creation should not be taught in a science class. I did not, as you suggest, say that "creationism should be banned." I said it should not be taught in the science classroom, as it does not follow the scientific method. It is perfectly fine to teach creationism in church, or in a religious studies class, because it is a religion. There is nothing wrong with people believing in it.


Evolution and creation are similar types of beliefs. However, one is scientific, the other is religious. Put them in the place they belong.

what say you of scientific creationism?

The US is even divided. That is because we allow debate on the subject. It would be interesting to see how the Kansas case develops. The evolutionary biologists should not have boycotted it, cause their representative did an atrocious job of presenting their case with his demonizations and character assassinations. If he had presented solely facts, the board might have left evolution intact with little change. But the fact that he didn't present any facts at the hearing but instead engaged in mudslinging and character assassinations, does not bode will for the "evolution only" crowd. Now people in Kansas will think that evolutionists are as loony and extremist as the creationists are.

There should be no debate on the issue in the first place. Evolution is a science, and thus should be taught as one. Creationism is part of a religion, and should be taught thusly. This is not saying science is right and religion is wrong, or vice versa. It's saying they are not things that should be debated scientifically. They have different roots, and the only thing to debate is whether you believe Christianity (as literally written in the Bible) or science.

This is why the scientists boycotted. Why should they debate whether a non-scientific idea should be taught in science class? It's obvious that only science should be taught in the science class.

what say you of scientific creationism?

I say I've never heard of it. Care to enlighten me?

I say I've never heard of it. Care to enlighten me?

http://www.scientificcreationism.org/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html

you can google for more information

I'm currently in the process of reading and easily debunking this as a science. It may take a bit of time, but I haven't gone away yet.

http://www.scientificcreationism.org/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html

you can google for more information

I'd love to point out all the problems and lack of science the first site has to offer, but for the sake of time I'll whittle it down to a few.


1) Evidence against evolution is not the same thing as evidence for creationism.


2) The site makes the false claim that big bang theorists are evolutionists. These are two very different sciences.


3) I can see that these people don't understand science. This is a quote from them, stating a reason why God must have created the universe:

"Nuclear reactions require specific conditions for them to work. For example, fusion reactions require some way to keep the hydrogen/helium from escaping (gases always expand to fill avalable space unless something is preventing them from doing so) and heat (millions of degrees) to start and sustain the reaction. This would be an obvious contradiction of the first law of thermodynamics, which states energy cannot be created or destroyed without conversion of matter to energy"

Now, it looks to me like they are talking about stars. What I believe they are trying to say (though they're not making it very clear) is that energy is required to keep the hydrogen/helium from escaping, and that energy cannot come from nowhere. Well, it's a force, and it's called gravity.

I'd also like to once again reiterate, evidence against evolution is not the same thing as evidence for creationism.


4) The statement that "[F]eathered dinosaurs, even if they exist (which is questionable), are far different from feathered birds" is regarding homology. It is, however, not true. There are many similarities in the bone structure of dinosaurs and birds.


5) The statement that "Homology has led evolutionists to propose false evolutionary "histories" of animals" does not disprove evolution. It just shows that everyone makes mistakes.


6) In the section "The Fossil Record," we are told that "In fact, the fossil record is better used as evidence for intelligent design." Then they proceed to give no evidence of this, only evidence to debunk the evolutionary theory.

I might add in once again that evidence against evolution is not the same thing as evidence for creationism.


7) Every point that is made to debunk evolutionists in "The Fossil Record" is flawed. Let's go through them one by one.

- 1. Evolutionists and creationists both have the same data. Their views effect how they interpret data a lot. Many supposed transitional forms can be explained as a misinterpretation by evolutionists.

Everyone has the same fossil data. Scientists interpret it the way they do because they follow the "Scientific Method." In other words, they gather the evidence then mold the theory to fit it. Creationists are not scientists. They use the evidence to support the theory or debunk the evidence. If it doesn't fit the creationists' theories, it's thrown out. If it doesn't fit the scientists' then the theory is changed.

- 2. The fossils may not even be the correct age to be a transitional form. For example, evolutionists cannot prove that archaeopteryx existed before birds. In order to even be considered as a transitional form, it must have existed before birds - if they existed at the same time as birds, logically, they couldn't be intermediate between dinosaurs and birds.

Dating methods are not perfect. Though the margin of error isn't huge, it is still impossible to tell the difference between something that's 64 million years old and something that's 65 million years old. This is the only reason "evolutionists cannot prove that archaeopteryx existed before birds."

- 3. It is very uncommon to find fossils completely intact and undamaged

Of course, and that's exactly why we haven't found all the "missing links" in the first place. However, there are still things scientists can tell from partial fossils.

- 4. The fossils of two species are often strikingly similar and easy for even a well-trained professional paleontologist to confuse.

I don't see any source for this. Nor do I see a source for any of this, which is why I can so easily debunk. It's not science!

- 5. Even if the supposed transitional forms were really transitional forms, there are so few that only a few steps are shown. For example, "transitional forms" only "show" one "step" in-between dinosaurs and birds.

Number three answered this for us. They are almost being hypocritical.


8) From the site:

A classic example of "evolution" is the finches on the Galapagos Islands. Droughts caused seeds to harden. The birds that had stronger beaks had a large advantage, so more survived. This does not prove that finches could turn into something other than a bird, or even another type of bird. In fact, the ability to adapt to environmental changes displays good design by God, whereas it would demonstrate poor design if they couldn't adapt to their environment (which they can)

This is an example of the "idea" of evolution. It is not evolution in progress. Evolution happens over a much longer period of time.




Okay, that's enough for the "Section 2: Evidence against the theory of evolution" ... though there is plenty more to argue about.

I'd like to end this section by once again saying evidence against evolution is not the same thing as evidence for creationism.

On to "Section 3: The Evidence Supporting the Accuracy of the Bible" ... I can't wait to see how unscientific this is.

1) Well, I can see by the title of this section that it is not scientific. "The Universality of the Belief in God as Evidence for Divine Existence."

Just because more people believe it doesn't make it true. This is not scientific in any way. Just because in early America, a majority thought that slavery was okay, does that make it true?


2) All the rest of the arguments "for creationism" are based on the Bible, and that is religion, not science.




Just because you call something "Scientific Creationism" does not make it scientific. If this site is the gist of that movement, it only serves as proof that this is not scientific.


In fact, this only strengthens my resolve that evolution should be taught in science class and creationism in religious studies.

http://www.scientificcreationism.org/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html

you can google for more information

Also, the second link, which I have just looked over, is against creationism as a science! I am wondering why you posted this. Were you trying to be balanced?

Well, the second link you gave actually describes the situation perfectly, and it would do anyone who believes creationism is a science well to read it.