NationStates Jolt Archive

A topic of discussion in various circles and the subject of heated debate in recent years, I am preparing for a debate on this topic, I would appreciate any comments people might have on the subject and if you'd point me in the direction of some reliable information I'd appreciate it immensely!

A topic of discussion in various circles and the subject of heated debate in recent years, I am preparing for a debate on this topic, I would appreciate any comments people might have on the subject and if you'd point me in the direction of some reliable information I'd appreciate it immensely!
It's called evolution.


And no, creationism is the laughing stock of serious scientific inquiry.

Personally I feel neither should be taught as neither has any relevance to the human experience.

No, Darwinism shouldn't be taught. Evolution should though

It is, in Bible History classes (which are increasingly common in public schools) Also, many world history classes go over the beliefs of various religious views on the world. But creationism is not science-related, and therefore should not be taught in the same science classes that explain the theory of evolution...and we all know that is the big issue.

Both should be taught; give both sides a fair chance. Even though creationism's greatest evidence is an out dated, over-emphasized text.

depends on the school and the classes. No, it shouldn't be taught in any science classe. It should be allowed to be taught in religious schools or in any theology class.

And no, creationism is the laughing stock of serious scientific inquiry.

but can you prove its wrong?



let them teach creationism if it makes them happy

it will prepare kids for the real world where two plausible theories are presented and they have to choose the one they believe in

personaly as a Catholic we believe that the garden of eden was a metaphore for palestien and adam and eve were the early jews with the snake representing the snake worshiping religions that seduced many of the jews away from their faith leading to the exile from palestine (the garden) into Iran

but hey, thats what you get for listening to luther

Both should be taught; give both sides a fair chance. Even though creationism's greatest evidence is an out dated, over-emphasized text.

Creationism should NOT be taught in a science class. I agree with teaching it in a Religious History or Theology class, though.

I don't think it should, as Darwins stuff is scientific theory, while creationism is a religous belief. Darwins theories should be taught in Science classes. If creationism is taught at all, it should be taught in the context of religion, which, if taught at all in schools, should include a basic overview of all major and possibly quite a few minor religions.

but can you prove its wrong?

The burden of proof rests upon the accuser. No one NEEDS to prove it wrong, someone needs to prove it period.

let them teach creationism if it makes them happy

Again, they're free to teach it, just not in a science classroom.

it will prepare kids for the real world where two plausible theories are presented and they have to choose the one they believe in

Evolution is a valid scientific theory backed up by evidence. Creationism is a theologistic hypothesis backed up by nothing.

Human origins' theories shouldn't be taught by people who know absolutely nothing about it. Or by people who can't approve any other theory than the one they embrace, for that matter. Creationism sure looks a bit too magical to everyone's liking, but overlooking it is not scientifically rationnal - you have to eliminate each option with proof before you dump 'em for good. Btw, I'm an evolutionist.

if you swear you never heard it from me


to go http://www.learningrefined.com/

register (don't mind all those student questions, i suggest you use Cornell in NY)

go to fall lecture notes BioEE 207

everything you need there to debate the history of evolution VC creationism

enjoy! don't forget to cite (just not me!)

I see no problem with creationism being taught in schools, as long as it's not forced upon students as part of the required curriculum. If students want to learn about something, the chance should at least be given.

but can you prove its wrong?


Yes and No.

Creationism relies on faith. One person's faith in how the Universe may vary greatly from another person's. Both opinions are just that ... opinions.

Opinions can be proven neither wrong nor right by virtue of the nature of opinions.

Hence, Creationism is best left to philosophy classes and not academics.

if you swear you never heard it from me


to go http://www.learningrefined.com/

register (don't mind all those student questions, i suggest you use Cornell in NY)

go to fall lecture notes BioEE 207

everything you need there to debate the history of evolution VC creationism

enjoy! don't forget to cite (just not me!)



o, it is going to ask you to 'purchuse' the notes... but they cost $0.00, so don't worry

Human origins' theories shouldn't be taught by people who know absolutely nothing about it. Or by people who can't approve any other theory than the one they embrace, for that matter. Creationism sure looks a bit too magical to everyone's liking, but overlooking it is not scientifically rationnal - you have to eliminate each option with proof before you dump 'em for good. Btw, I'm an evolutionist.

Incorrect. A hypothesis must be backed up by evidence before it can be considered valid, otherwise the Last Thursday Theory would be taught in Science classes instead of Philosophy where it belongs.

The burden of proof rests upon the accuser. No one NEEDS to prove it wrong, someone needs to prove it period.

in that case, prove to me that evolution is correct

Again, they're free to teach it, just not in a science classroom.

so why dose your theory, which has never been proven right get a monopoly in the class room?

Evolution is a valid scientific theory backed up by evidence. Creationism is a theologistic hypothesis backed up by nothing.

evolution is backed up by some evidence which could also support creationism

Oh, but there are some physical evidences, such as seashells and a harbor - found as high as 5000m above sea level, where there's no actual sea. That doesn't "prove anything", but if you can guess what I'm talking about...

Oh, but there are some physical evidences, such as seashells and a harbor - found as high as 5000m above sea level, where there's no actual sea. That doesn't "prove anything", but if you can guess what I'm talking about...

Actually, those are explained by the dynamic nature of the Earth. Mountain ranges have not always been there, nor have they always been dry.

but can you prove its wrong?



let them teach creationism if it makes them happy

it will prepare kids for the real world where two plausible theories are presented and they have to choose the one they believe in

personaly as a Catholic we believe that the garden of eden was a metaphore for palestien and adam and eve were the early jews with the snake representing the snake worshiping religions that seduced many of the jews away from their faith leading to the exile from palestine (the garden) into Iran

but hey, thats what you get for listening to luther

Creationism can, and has, been proven false. Look at the fossil record, look at modern genome research, look at any evidence at all.

Evolution is NOT a matter of belief, it is only a matter of science.

Creationism is NOT a matter of science, only of religion.

Teaching creationism along with evolution in a biology class would be the equivalant of teaching the theory of gravity along with the theory that spirits of God draw objects towards the earth. Science class is for teaching of scientific theory only; nothing more, nothing less.

Edit: Also, if you want to see evolution do your self a favor. Go to the Smithsonian Museum of Natural history in DC, go to the display of horse leg fossils. You can literally see the formation of a modern species from an earlier one.
Here's a picture giving a rough idea of whats there.
http://www.mun.ca/biology/desmid/brian/BIOL3530_W2003/DB_Ch15/fig15_12.jpg

but can you prove its wrong?



let them teach creationism if it makes them happy

it will prepare kids for the real world where two plausible theories are presented and they have to choose the one they believe in

personaly as a Catholic we believe that the garden of eden was a metaphore for palestien and adam and eve were the early jews with the snake representing the snake worshiping religions that seduced many of the jews away from their faith leading to the exile from palestine (the garden) into Iran

but hey, thats what you get for listening to luther


I respect your wish to believe in the "Talking Snake" theory, but requiring creationism to be taught alongside evolution is counter-productive. If I were in charge of a scientific institution, college, or company, I would be wary of a person coming from a school that believes creationism is a viable and plausible explanation on how life evolved.

I would also like to remind you of certain things.
1) the people who wrote this book believed that the world was flat
2) they also believed that the sun revolved around the earth, and not the other way around
3) the Pope supports evolution. I find it sad that so many catholics are still denouncing something the pope endorses.

in that case, prove to me that evolution is correct

http://www.talkorigins.org/

That site has everything you'll ever need on the subject.


so why dose your theory, which has never been proven right get a monopoly in the class room?

Evolution as the source of modern biodiversity is no less proven than the theory of gravity.

Are you one of those people who doesn't know the scientific meaning of theory?

evolution is backed up by some evidence which could also support creationism

Unfortunately, creationism is one of those 'hindsight is 20/20' cases in which one makes up a hypothesis and goes looking for evidence to support it. In truth, you cannot find natural proof for a supernatural mechanism. Since creationism makes no useful predictions, it is discarded due to lack of evidence.

but can you prove its wrong?



let them teach creationism if it makes them happy

it will prepare kids for the real world where two plausible theories are presented and they have to choose the one they believe in

personaly as a Catholic we believe that the garden of eden was a metaphore for palestien and adam and eve were the early jews with the snake representing the snake worshiping religions that seduced many of the jews away from their faith leading to the exile from palestine (the garden) into Iran

but hey, thats what you get for listening to luther
Can you prove it correct is the better question.

but can you prove its wrong?



let them teach creationism if it makes them happy

it will prepare kids for the real world where two plausible theories are presented and they have to choose the one they believe in

personaly as a Catholic we believe that the garden of eden was a metaphore for palestien and adam and eve were the early jews with the snake representing the snake worshiping religions that seduced many of the jews away from their faith leading to the exile from palestine (the garden) into Iran

but hey, thats what you get for listening to luther

You cannot prove Creationism wrong. Therefore it has not place in a science classroom. Science deals solely with the disprovable. It doesn't say that it is untrue or anything, only that it cannot deal with it.

In a religious studies course, I say go for it of course.

Creation should NOT be taught in schools, it is NOT a science. Evolution on the other hand has alot of scientific evidence to back it up. I'm taking Evolution in college, so if anybody wants to telegram me with any questions about evolution, feel free to.


(Public School teaching Creationism) :sniper:

Oh, but there are some physical evidences, such as seashells and a harbor - found as high as 5000m above sea level, where there's no actual sea. That doesn't "prove anything", but if you can guess what I'm talking about...

You're either talking about the flood or about the fact that most of the earth was at one point or another covered in water which could easily account for those fossils presence.

Creation should NOT be taught in schools, it is NOT a science.

No, but it is a philosophy. Education should not be solely based on academics. Where would we be without music, art, and philosophy?

I do concede, however, that the two should not be taught side by side.

anyone else dizzy from all the circular logic going on here :headbang:


Both points come in with presupasitions for one side or another, a purely naturalistic theory is near impossible to prove, there are to many details and faults with our dating measures, and truthfully we do not know what happened in the past 15 billion years (assuming evolution is correct)

While creationism, does rest more on the super-natural, it does take scientific proofs and uses it to support their theory. certian fossil explosions, (cambrain) Rock strya formations, faults with dating measurements , Carbon 14, radioactive ect.

Should evolution be taught, YES, Microevolution is aproven fact and any creationist that denies that is dumb. Microevolution is the same as adaption. where as Macro evolution is where your date will have to rest. proving that is more difficult. there are no true transitional fossils, the cambrain explosion, and the laws of thermodynamics.

There are many theories out there. some are more bunked than others, but what really should be taught in a science class is not theory and hypotheses, but rather facts. Philosophical issues like Macro evolution vs creationism should be taught in a philosophy class. just my oppion. I perfer to stick with facts than some wacked theory on our origins.

I don't think you should be able to teach one without teaching the other, that would be discriminatory. But then, if you teach both, then you'd have to also teach other religions theorys on the creation of earth, so my answer would be no, teach neither. And in the end, does it really matter anyways how we got here? We are here now, enjoy the moment.

Oh, but there are some physical evidences, such as seashells and a harbor - found as high as 5000m above sea level, where there's no actual sea. That doesn't "prove anything", but if you can guess what I'm talking about...

hahahaha, oh man . . .

anyway, the earth's crust is constantly moving. When two large landmasses gets pressed together, hills and mountains form. This is because one landmass sinks towards the earth's core, while the other starts to ride on top. After a couple hundred thousand years, something that used to be on the ground will now be 5000 feet high.

And finally, creating a boat large enough to fit two of every animal is impossible.

anyone else dizzy from all the circular logic going on here :headbang:


Both points come in with presupasitions for one side or another, a purely naturalistic theory is near impossible to prove, there are to many details and faults with our dating measures, and truthfully we do not know what happened in the past 15 billion years (assuming evolution is correct)

While creationism, does rest more on the super-natural, it does take scientific proofs and uses it to support their theory. certian fossil explosions, (cambrain) Rock strya formations, faults with dating measurements , Carbon 14, radioactive ect.

Should evolution be taught, YES, Microevolution is aproven fact and any creationist that denies that is dumb. Microevolution is the same as adaption. where as Macro evolution is where your date will have to rest. proving that is more difficult. there are no true transitional fossils, the cambrain explosion, and the laws of thermodynamics.

There are many theories out there. some are more bunked than others, but what really should be taught in a science class is not theory and hypotheses, but rather facts. Philosophical issues like Macro evolution vs creationism should be taught in a philosophy class. just my oppion. I perfer to stick with facts than some wacked theory on our origins.


There is only one assumption naturalists make, and that is that the universe exists as we observe it.

Also, you misinterpret macroevolution. All forms of evolution are proven, it's just the theory that evolution is the source of modern biodiversity that is in debate and can never be proven entirely.

However, I will address your concerns. I have fond memories of a debate I had concerning evolution a while ago...

where as Macro evolution is where your date will have to rest. proving that is more difficult.

Not at all, macroevolution is merely speciation, or the creation of a new breeding population.

there are no true transitional fossils,

This is due more to a perpectually incomplete fossil record than anything else. Fossil formation is aggravatingly rare, so you will never find a complete progression from one species to another. However, it is also true that every specimen we dig up is a transitional fossil in that it is a stage between one point and another.

It is just a fool's hope to demand a complete fossil record, Mother Nature will not allow us that.

the cambrain explosion,

There are several existing hypotheses to explain this, my favorite being that conditions during this time were conducive to fossil formation. Others are an increased rate of breeding and fast sexual maturity in species or a quickly changing climate forcing new environmental pressures on fast breeding species.

and the laws of thermodynamics.

Fortunately, the second law to which you refer has nothing to do with the arguement. Increased in entropy only prevent evolution in a closed system, Earth is hardly a closed system.

I am a devoted Christian(Born Again).
I voted no.
Darwinism is a scientific theory.
Creationism is a philosophical/theological one.
They do not belong in the same class.
I believe my personal theory is along the lines of Intelligent Design.
I believe what science finds-and that God is the cause.
As far as what is taught in schools you dont teach spelling in math class, so dont teach philosophy in science class.

hahahaha, oh man . . .

anyway, the earth's crust is constantly moving. When two large landmasses gets pressed together, hills and mountains form. This is because one landmass sinks towards the earth's core, while the other starts to ride on top. After a couple hundred thousand years, something that used to be on the ground will now be 5000 feet high.

And finally, creating a boat large enough to fit two of every animal is impossible.

I'm not that stupid. You certainly can't take the whole Bible for granted - but that "huge drowning" part appears in most religions, and scientifically might have happened, as certainly as some indigenous population have --walked-- from siberia to canada (which both weren't named as such... eh...) through a dry part of the ocean.

Water moves as much as mountains, friend.

I am a devoted Christian(Born Again).
I voted no.
Darwinism is a scientific theory.
Creationism is a philosophical/theological one.
They do not belong in the same class.
I believe my personal theory is along the lines of Intelligent Design.
I believe what science finds-and that God is the cause.
As far as what is taught in schools you dont teach spelling in math class, so dont teach philosophy in science class.


Thank you! I'm not a Christian, but that has been my exact position in this thread. Nice to see another deeply religious person who agrees. :)

Water moves as much as mountains, friend.

Pfft. Mountains get bored and walk around all the time - usually in a quest to find a suitable bathroom.

















































:D

LOL, Religious fundamentalism!

Both points come in with presupasitions for one side or another, a purely naturalistic theory is near impossible to prove, there are to many details and faults with our dating measures, and truthfully we do not know what happened in the past 15 billion years (assuming evolution is correct)


People seem to be confused about the nature of science here. Science does not seek to prove anything. It is an understanding in science that "proof" does not exist. The only thing science can do is disprove things. Creationism by a divine entity cannot be disproven because an all powerful being could mask its existance--therefore science does not deal in it.

You do not have to prove evolution to teach it in science classes--as I say again, science does not deal in proof. It deals in theories and evidence for them. However, any theory may at any point be disproven and science recognizes this. Most people don't realize it, but even gravity is subject to disproof. We are pretty sure we have a pretty good handle that things fall down (though we are less able to explain the attraction) but all it would take is for something to fall up on time and we would have to reconsider the theory.

I know that this is often hard for non-scientists to grasp that even gravity is a theory. However, that is the way it is. So again, science deals in theories and evidence for and proof against those theories. Evolution is a theory (like any other) that happens to have a preponderance of evidence in its favor. It has not yet been disproved. Since it is the predominant theory in science, it SHOULD be taught in science courses (particularly biologies). Creationism cannot be disproven and is therefore not scientific. It should not be taught in science classes.

The arguement over who is right is anciliiary to this thread which didn't ask for correctness but if they twio should be taught side by side. Since one is scientific and one is philosophical/religious they should not be as these are separate courses.


While creationism, does rest more on the super-natural, it does take scientific proofs and uses it to support their theory. certian fossil explosions, (cambrain) Rock strya formations, faults with dating measurements , Carbon 14, radioactive ect.


Again, science doesn't PROVE anything.


Should evolution be taught, YES, Microevolution is aproven fact and any creationist that denies that is dumb. Microevolution is the same as adaption. where as Macro evolution is where your date will have to rest. proving that is more difficult. there are no true transitional fossils, the cambrain explosion, and the laws of thermodynamics.


Again, nothing in science is a proven fact. And there are transitional fossils--check out the Smithsonian. I'm curious as to why you don't think so.


There are many theories out there. some are more bunked than others, but what really should be taught in a science class is not theory and hypotheses, but rather facts. Philosophical issues like Macro evolution vs creationism should be taught in a philosophy class. just my oppion. I perfer to stick with facts than some wacked theory on our origins.

Macroevolution is a scientific theory. Creationism is a philsophical entity that cannot be disproven. They do not belong in the same course.

LOL, Evolution!

I don't think you should be able to teach one without teaching the other, that would be discriminatory. But then, if you teach both, then you'd have to also teach other religions theorys on the creation of earth, so my answer would be no, teach neither. And in the end, does it really matter anyways how we got here? We are here now, enjoy the moment.

Since theory of evolution allows us to make useful predictions in our world, then it does actually matter.

What exact term describes my position? "The Devil's advocate"? I'm defending the lost cause! :P

I'm not that stupid. You certainly can't take the whole Bible for granted - but that "huge drowning" part appears in most religions, and scientifically might have happened, as certainly as some indigenous population have --walked-- from siberia to canada (which both weren't named as such... eh...) through a dry part of the ocean.

Water moves as much as mountains, friend.

I'm not saying a huge flood is impossible. The scientific evidence supports numerous massive floods throughout history. However, floods are usually confined within a region and not throughout the world. Also, I said creating a boat to hold two of every animal is impossible. I never said "a flood is impossible."

I am a devoted Christian(Born Again).
I voted no.
Darwinism is a scientific theory.
Creationism is a philosophical/theological one.
They do not belong in the same class.
I believe my personal theory is along the lines of Intelligent Design.
I believe what science finds-and that God is the cause.
As far as what is taught in schools you dont teach spelling in math class, so dont teach philosophy in science class.

wow, that's pretty impressive. If more people were as rational as you, the world would be a better place. It's too bad that people can't tell the difference between something that's religious, and something that's scientific.

wow, that's pretty impressive. If more people were as rational as you, the world would be a better place. It's too bad that people can't tell the difference between something that's religious, and something that's scientific.
I have never been certain why my fellow Christians argue from a point that sounds as if science is diametrically opposed to God.
Science deals in facts as they best present themselves under specific conditions.
It deals ONLY in what can be proven, those things it calls facts.
In what can be reasonably supposed by a group facts it calls theory.
The negatives, are all philosophical arguements.
You can not disprove there not invisible tree fairies that speak to me whenever I take off my shoes.
You can prove that there is nothing visibly talking to me-there ends science.
You can prove that yes the earth is here-there ends sciences relationaship to Creationism.
I have said it before and I will say it now.
My God made me and the rest of us in His image-if it took him 3 billion years to it, that still isnt a problem.
And like evolution supposes from the earth I came-and to it I will return.

all your findings are based off the fact that you want to prove macroevolution as truth.

in an interview i had with Professor Gould, leading science teacher at harvard university, he said that macro-evolution has not been proven beyond a doubt, but given a few hundred more years it will be. so he believes.

So you are saying you have more information than a PHD holding teacher from harvard univserity, mind sharing it with us.

Fossils see the first sentence, surely some would have survived somewhere and we would beable to find it.

Also to the comment about Noah's ark (big boat), many religions have the story, and it is not two of every animal but two of every kind, when you figure there are about 70 or so Fagila (kind, i bet i misspelt that word). The mathmatics for being able to fit everything the big boat does work out, for many of the religions.

2nd law of Thermodynamics,

AN influx in heat energy from an open system (such as solar heat enterting the earth system) does not decrease entrophy, it increases entropy!
Physics nerd

Delta S = dQ/T

The greater outside energy that enters the system will increase it entropy and disorder. plain crazy to claim that the mere availability of the solar energy to the earth resolves the fundamental conflict, if anything it would aggatate it more.

My God made me and the rest of us in His image-if it took him 3 billion years to it, that still isnt a problem.


Eh there are some of your faith that would disagree with you, most people at ICR.org speficially Ken Ham.

all your findings are based off the fact that you want to prove macroevolution as truth.

Macroevolution, or speciation, is a theory based on factual observation that fits the evidence and provides useful predictions. No one seeks to prove it except those who ask for it to be proven.

in an interview i had with Professor Gould, leading science teacher at harvard university, he said that macro-evolution has not been proven beyond a doubt, but given a few hundred more years it will be. so he believes.

Could I have the wording of this interview?

Fossils see the first sentence, surely some would have survived somewhere and we would beable to find it.

That's the thing, some did. Those are the fossils we find. We will never have a full evolutionary scale as fossils form so rarely.

2nd law of Thermodynamics,

AN influx in heat energy from an open system (such as solar heat enterting the earth system) does not decrease entrophy, it increases entropy!
Physics nerd

Delta S = dQ/T

The greater outside energy that enters the system will increase it entropy and disorder. plain crazy to claim that the mere availability of the solar energy to the earth resolves the fundamental conflict, if anything it would aggatate it more.

Entropy =/= Disorder

Evolution in the Bible.
First came Heaven-UNiverse
Then came Earth-planets
Water--Duh
He divided light and day--this and the first day-the first Era
Land---duh
Second day ---Second Era
Now I wont run the whole thing down but in order:
Beast of the water--Birds---then land animals ---finally man.
If taken metaphorically it Genesis describes evolution.
I am no scientist or anything like that, this is just something I observed.
Doesnt matter, still doesnt belong in a science class.

Question

Does Macro-evolution, and its origins, have sufficent fossil evidance today, to stand, or is there still a doubt in your mind that it may be wrong, as the theory stands today.

That was the question possed to him.

Should flat-earth be taught alongside geology?

Phrenology along with psychology?

It is barbaric to believe that religion should be taught alongside science.

Should Creationism be taught alongside Darwinism?
A topic of discussion in various circles and the subject of heated debate in recent years, I am preparing for a debate on this topic, I would appreciate any comments people might have on the subject and if you'd point me in the direction of some reliable information I'd appreciate it immensely!What you mean is surely Evolution? Darwinism is a very old model and has not really any standing today.
Evolution is not a theory, it's a fact. It is visible even within one's own lifetime. Everywhere on the planet where an organism reproduces. And why would anyone assume that life worked differently in past ages? If the species were created and nothing changes then why are lifeforms changing?

Opinions can be proven neither wrong nor right by virtue of the nature of opinions.

then it is my opinion that the sky is neon green with black and yellow stripes. oh yeah, and i am the pope. these things are obviously false. and yet by your reasoning above, they are actually neither wrong nor right because i claim them as my opinions. which is just silly.

there is nothing special about opinions which makes them not subject to the world outside one's head. opinion is just another word for a belief. and a belief is just an idea in your head. ideas in your head that purport to describe the world outside of your head are entirely subject to being shown true or false by the facts of that outside world.

but can you prove its wrong?

yes. easily. as long as we can agree that the universe is at least partially understandable by the human intellect and is not fundamentally and purposefully deceptive, and that our senses do not routinely and systematically lie to us, then it is an inescapable conclusion that young earth creationism cannot be true. and in order to make old earth creationism work you need to change it so that it looks nearly identical to the theory of evolution.

creationism makes a number of testable claims; which ones would you like to discuss? the age of the earth/universe? the age of life? the order in which life appeared on this planet. when humans showed up? when the first city was built? etc. pick one or two and let's discuss them.

What you mean is surely Evolution? Darwinism is a very old model and has not really any standing today.
Evolution is not a theory, it's a fact. It is visible even within one's own lifetime. Everywhere on the planet where an organism reproduces. And why would anyone assume that life worked differently in past ages? If the species were created and nothing changes then why are lifeforms changing?
Water boils at 100degrees celcius at sea level--that is a fact.

Evolution is not a fact, it is scientifically still regarded as a theory-anyone who teaches it as a fact is wrong.
While I supprt the idea of evolution--my feelings do not change the FACT that Evolution is still a theory--and will remain so for a very long time, we lack sufficient controls to study it in proper conditions.
That is the beauty of science above all other of man's endevours it does not weaken itself with time-rather it is only made stronger by further examination.
I appreciate your zealous defense of your beliefs, Call any university and the staff will tell you it is a widely accepted theory.
Science is honest.

This is a ridiculous question to begin with. Whats sadder is that some people are even debating this.

Science class teaches scientific theories. Creationism is not a scientific theory, it goes against anything that is taught through the scientific method. Namely, it has a end, a goal, ie. God, the flood, jesus. In any scientific exploration one must look at the evidence provided to make conclusions. Darwin didnt think of evolution and then prove it, he made conclusions from data that he collected. Since then hundreds if not thousands of scientists have published revisions and observations to the theory of evolution and now we have a much greater understanding of the phenomena. This is proven by observation, evolution is a name for something we observed, whereas creation is a name for what people try to prove.

Hence, it does not deserve to be in a science class. Case closed.

then it is my opinion that the sky is neon green with black and yellow stripes. oh yeah, and i am the pope. these things are obviously false. and yet by your reasoning above, they are actually neither wrong nor right because i claim them as my opinions. which is just silly.

there is nothing special about opinions which makes them not subject to the world outside one's head. opinion is just another word for a belief. and a belief is just an idea in your head. ideas in your head that purport to describe the world outside of your head are entirely subject to being shown true or false by the facts of that outside world.
He said they couldnt be proven wrong.
He ca not prove that it is not your opinion that the sky is neon green with black and yellow stripes, nor can he prove that it is not your opinion that you are the pope--what you suppsoe may be absurd--but it is still completely factual that they could very well be your opnion. And he can not prove otherwise.

but can you prove its wrong?



let them teach creationism if it makes them happy

it will prepare kids for the real world where two plausible theories are presented and they have to choose the one they believe in

personaly as a Catholic we believe that the garden of eden was a metaphore for palestien and adam and eve were the early jews with the snake representing the snake worshiping religions that seduced many of the jews away from their faith leading to the exile from palestine (the garden) into Iran

but hey, thats what you get for listening to luther

This quote demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific process.
Of course creationism cannot be proven false, that is the entire basis of the objection against it. The scientific process states that any scientific theory can be proven false but never conclusivly proven true. (Gravity is still a THEORY, there is always the chance, a very very small chance but still a chance, that the next time i drop a ball it will fly straight up into the air singing gratefull dead tunes, in which case the process would be aplied and the theory of gravity would either be adapted or done away with altogether.)
To put it simply religion can be wrong because it claims to be right. science (The institution, not scientists themselves) can never be wrong because it never claims to be right, only that a particular theory explains all the data we have at the moment and evolution does this flawlessly.
Niether creationism nor intelegent design ever has or ever will fit the most basic criteria for a scientific theory and therfore should not be taught as one. This is a POLITICAL contraversy, NOT a SCIENTIFIC one. End All. :headbang:

I have an easy solution to this problem:
Abolish goverment schools.

Parents should have the right and responsiblity to determine their children's education, and they should not be forced to pay for what they don't support.

Water boils at 100degrees celcius at sea level--that is a fact.

Evolution is not a fact, it is scientifically still regarded as a theory-anyone who teaches it as a fact is wrong.
While I supprt the idea of evolution--my feelings do not change the FACT that Evolution is still a theory--and will remain so for a very long time, we lack sufficient controls to study it in proper conditions.
That is the beauty of science above all other of man's endevours it does not weaken itself with time-rather it is only made stronger by further examination.
I appreciate your zealous defense of your beliefs, Call any university and the staff will tell you it is a widely accepted theory.
Science is honest.

no, evolution is proven

look at anti-boidic resistant bacteria. Its evolution at work baby.

I have an easy solution to this problem:
Abolish goverment schools.

Parents should have the right and responsiblity to determine their children's education, and they should not be forced to pay for what they don't support.
Yeah, I would like to use surgeon educated that way.

Teach them both in the science classroom.

Evolution is a theory... to some
Creation is a theory... to some

As a free thinking Baptist, I believe in both. I beleieve that a divine power created the universe and put the wheel in motion to begin what the science community calls evolution.

My question is this... Why isn't anyone else open to this idea? Or are the militant minds on both sides of the debate so stubborn to not beleive that the two can coexist?

Just my opinion :D

And finally, creating a boat large enough to fit two of every animal is impossible.

Unless of course you decide to go with the Stargatesque "God was an Alien" viewpoint and figure that two genetic samples of every animal was stored on said large boat.

no, evolution is proven

look at anti-boidic resistant bacteria. Its evolution at work baby.

Is it evolution or adaptation? If I move from Florida to Michigan and freeze for the first two months until I get used to the cold, have I adapted or evolved?

no, evolution is proven

look at anti-boidic resistant bacteria. Its evolution at work baby.

Micro evolution AKA adaption, not MACRO, or non-life to life evolution which is what he is talking about i think when he says evolution.

Evolution is a theory... to some
Creation is a theory... to some


here is the problem

in a science classroom, it should be subject to the theory that science promotes. hence evolution.

creation is a theory that christians support, so that means it should be in a christian class or religon class.

Teach them both in the science classroom.

Evolution is a theory... to some
Creation is a theory... to some

As a free thinking Baptist, I believe in both. I beleieve that a divine power created the universe and put the wheel in motion to begin what the science community calls evolution.

My question is this... Why isn't anyone else open to this idea? Or are the militant minds on both sides of the debate so stubborn to not beleive that the two can coexist?

Just my opinion :D

Evolution is a theory. . .to scientists.
Creation is a theory . . . to non-scientists.

They do not belong in the same class. I have no problem with public schools teaching creation as part of a religious class, but not in science. Creation is NOT science. You don't teach quadratic formula in an english class.

here is the problem

in a science classroom, it should be subject to the theory that science promotes. hence evolution.

creation is a theory that christians support, so that means it should be in a christian class or religon class.
Scientists also support it though (maybe with questionable stances, but scientists none the less)

here is the problem

in a science classroom, it should be subject to the theory that science promotes. hence evolution.

creation is a theory that christians support, so that means it should be in a christian class or religon class.

every major religion promotes some form of creation, not just the Christians.

LOL, Religious fundamentalism!


Which religion?

Micro evolution AKA adaption, not MACRO, or non-life to life evolution which is what he is talking about i think when he says evolution.

but thats not how evolution works

in most cases, it is adaptation, like the transfer of dinosaurs to birds. They needed to adapt to a rapidly changing environment, so they used their already existing feathers in new ways. (It was proven that dinosaurs had feathers that they used for insulation and attracting a mate)

no, evolution is proven

look at anti-boidic resistant bacteria. Its evolution at work baby.
No, that is mutation(baby) not evolution.


Science does not recognize evolution as fact.
No matter how much you want it to.
Some form of evolution is obvious when you apply the anecdotal evidence, however it has undergone enough emperical study to be considered science fact.
"The word "evolution" is often used as a shorthand for the modern theory of evolution of species based upon Darwin's theory of natural selection. This theory states that all species today are the result of an extensive process of evolution that began several billion years ago with simple single-celled organisms, and that evolution via natural selection accounts for the great diversity of life, extinct and extant.

As the theory of evolution has become widely accepted in the scientific community, it has displaced other explanations for the origins and diversity of life, such as spontaneous generation and Young Earth creationism."
Source read related articles as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

every major religion promotes some form of creation, not just the Christians.
Yes. but when creationism is talked about. It is with Christianity in mind.

However, if you want all creationisms taught a whole new class has to be created to accomadate them

every major religion promotes some form of creation, not just the Christians.

ok, so therefore it doesnt belong in a science class, but religons class

Scientists also support it though (maybe with questionable stances, but scientists none the less)

no, because creationism breaks the scientific theory.

No, that is mutation(baby) not evolution.
]
Isn't mutation part of evolution?

no, because creationism breaks the scientific theory.
No they're not scientists?

I suppose that raises a whole new question. What is a scientist.

all your findings are based off the fact that you want to prove macroevolution as truth.

in an interview i had with Professor Gould, leading science teacher at harvard university, he said that macro-evolution has not been proven beyond a doubt, but given a few hundred more years it will be. so he believes.

So you are saying you have more information than a PHD holding teacher from harvard univserity, mind sharing it with us.

Fossils see the first sentence, surely some would have survived somewhere and we would beable to find it.

Also to the comment about Noah's ark (big boat), many religions have the story, and it is not two of every animal but two of every kind, when you figure there are about 70 or so Fagila (kind, i bet i misspelt that word). The mathmatics for being able to fit everything the big boat does work out, for many of the religions.

2nd law of Thermodynamics,

AN influx in heat energy from an open system (such as solar heat enterting the earth system) does not decrease entrophy, it increases entropy!
Physics nerd

Delta S = dQ/T

The greater outside energy that enters the system will increase it entropy and disorder. plain crazy to claim that the mere availability of the solar energy to the earth resolves the fundamental conflict, if anything it would aggatate it more.


How'd they fit dinosaurs? Because we all know adam and eve were created in since the beginning. Or do you believe that dinosaur bones were placed here because god wanted to test us? Roar baby, I want to ride a dinosaur.


And also, to those people who say it's only a theory. Why don't you look up "scientific theory" and tell me its definition, because its obvious that you don't know what it is.
And AGAIN, I would like to point out how SAD it is that you catholics are going against the Pope's word that evolution is true. You are truly a model catholic.

I'm still waiting for the second part of that trepanning course to release the evil spirits. The spirits've gone now, so can someone sew me back up?

On a lighter note, how many weeks, days, or minutes has it been since we last saw this topic?

Water boils at 100degrees celcius at sea level--that is a fact.

Evolution is not a fact, it is scientifically still regarded as a theory-anyone who teaches it as a fact is wrong.
While I supprt the idea of evolution--my feelings do not change the FACT that Evolution is still a theory--and will remain so for a very long time, we lack sufficient controls to study it in proper conditions.
That is the beauty of science above all other of man's endevours it does not weaken itself with time-rather it is only made stronger by further examination.
I appreciate your zealous defense of your beliefs, Call any university and the staff will tell you it is a widely accepted theory.
Science is honest.

however, theories don't grow up to be facts. facts are the things we observe about the universe. theories are particularly good and impressive and productive explanations for the facts. they are different types of things. theories never become facts because they deal in things that are not directly observable; we can observe the physical consequences that our thoeries tell us we should see, but we cannot actually see why those things happen.

evolution is both a fact and a theory. the theory of evolution is (amongst other things) the explanation for why we observe that the frequency of alleles in a population varies from generation to generation.

I have an easy solution to this problem:
Abolish goverment schools.

Parents should have the right and responsiblity to determine their children's education, and they should not be forced to pay for what they don't support.

Personally, I think that is a load of bullshit. Privitization will lead to some places getting good teachers (like rich places) and other poorer places will get bad teachers, and the kids probably wouldn't be able to afford to go to school if schools started charging admission or would have to go to some incredibly cheap school. Making the market more competitive probably wouldn't mean higher-quality teachers, anyway. Maybe in some places, but in others it'd probably means who's willing to take the lowest salary.

Anyway, creationism may not have much standing, but that doesn't necessarily mean darwinism is right. Places like darwinismrefuted.com (which I think is bullshit, for various reasons, but still) attempt to refute darwinism using scientific theory. I believe Darwinism can be taught along-side anti-Darwinism, and ID can be presented as "an alternative theory to Darwinism but has no scientific evidence backing it up."

Creationism is a religious belief, therefore it shouldn't be taught in public schools. Period. Let the theocrats teach it in their churches if they want.

LETS TRY THIS ONE MORE TIME PEOPLE

Theory = A term used to describe a way of explaining and predicting all observed events and information. A theory can only be arrived upon using the scientific method, nothing that does not use the scientific method can be correctly refered to by this term.

Fundamental Requirements of a theory = We can never be sure of what will happen in the future so a theory can only make predictions of the future and as such CAN NEVER BE PROVEN CONCLUSIVLY CORRECT. a theory CAN ALWAYS BE PROVEN WRONG.

BY DEFINITION CREATIONISM AND INTELEGENT DESIGN ARE NOT SCIENTIFIC THEORYS and therefore should never be taught in a science class.

This is a political controversy, NOT a scientific one. :headbang:

Isn't mutation part of evolution?
I dont know, why dont you click on the link in the post of mine you just quoted which gives a definition of the theory and and lists of articles on the subject.
Or you could ask me and ignore the part where I linked A source for saying that Evolution is still a scientific theory--mutation is observed, evolution is not.

He said they couldnt be proven wrong.
He ca not prove that it is not your opinion that the sky is neon green with black and yellow stripes, nor can he prove that it is not your opinion that you are the pope--what you suppsoe may be absurd--but it is still completely factual that they could very well be your opnion. And he can not prove otherwise.

that is just changing the subject. the question isn't whether i hold certain beliefs, but rather whether my beliefs correspond to the world outside my head. beliefs about factual matters are either true or false. being an opinion is no defense against being untrue.

I believe the existance of evolution, but not quite in the way Darwin theorised.

Basically, there are two major beliefs about how man was created. Evolution, and Creationism. Why not teach kids about the existance of these two beliefs, and encourage them to make up their own minds? Granted, I don't think there's scientific evidence to back up Creationism so maybe it's not appropriate to mention it in science class. But religious or philosophical classes, fine; in the interests of fairness and academic diversity.

However, I know how narky people get when I start proposing any sort of fair, balanced, even-handed debate at educational institutions; so I'll be careful not to leave my contact details (so I don't get threats of violence against me like last time)!

however, theories don't grow up to be facts. facts are the things we observe about the universe. theories are particularly good and impressive and productive explanations for the facts. they are different types of things. theories never become facts because they deal in things that are not directly observable; we can observe the physical consequences that our thoeries tell us we should see, but we cannot actually see why those things happen.

evolution is both a fact and a theory. the theory of evolution is (amongst other things) the explanation for why we observe that the frequency of alleles in a population varies from generation to generation.
I agree--except for one thing-- the theory of evolution is a possible explanation.
The act of evolving is fact-there is a process of change which we call Evolution.
The Theory of evolution which is what this thread is about can not be both fact and theory.
It is just theory, nder the umbrella of the theory are of course facts, like any scientific theory.
The mere fact that the theory contains some parts which are factual does not make the sum factual.
Which is why it is still called the Theory of Evolution and the Partial Theory,
The Partial Truth
Evolution almost fact
No it is just a theory.
A damned good one, one I believe , but just and only a theory.

I think that Creationism should be taught, but only as a theory (evolution should also be taught as a theory). They should also include other theories, such as other Creation myths than the Christian myth. Discussions of all the theories should include information about the theory, any available information for how people (some people) came to that conclusion, et cetera.

That's also basically how I think other things should be taught. Give 'em the material, and then let the kids figure out what they think is true.

that is just changing the subject. the question isn't whether i hold certain beliefs, but rather whether my beliefs correspond to the world outside my head. beliefs about factual matters are either true or false. being an opinion is no defense against being untrue.
That is not changing the subject.
You were not asking him to prove that the sky was blue, or who the real pope was--you were asking him to prove what your opinion is.
That is impossible, your poor wording is not my fault if that isnt what you meant to do.

LETS TRY THIS ONE MORE TIME PEOPLE

Theory = A term used to describe a way of explaining and predicting all observed events and information. A theory can only be arrived upon using the scientific method, nothing that does not use the scientific method can be correctly refered to by this term.

Wrong.

Theory n., pl. -ries. 1. A set of hypotheses related by logical arguments to explain a wide variety of connected phenomena in general terms. 2. Abstract knowledge or reasoning. 3. A conjectural view or idea: I have a theory about that.. 4. An ideal or hypothetical situation.

By the way, the plural of "Theory" is "Theories", not "Theorys".

Why don't you people try looking up "scientific theory". There's a big difference between a regular theory and a scientific theory.

"The word "evolution" is often used as a shorthand for the modern theory of evolution of species based upon Darwin's theory of natural selection. This theory states that all species today are the result of an extensive process of evolution that began several billion years ago with simple single-celled organisms, and that evolution via natural selection accounts for the great diversity of life, extinct and extant.

As the theory of evolution has become widely accepted in the scientific community, it has displaced other explanations for the origins and diversity of life, such as spontaneous generation and Young Earth creationism."

ok

why has it displaced young earth creationism? because ALL OF THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE TO DATE POINTS TO EVOLUTION. Should creationism show the same evidence that evolution has it would be accepted in the scientific community.

That is not changing the subject.
You were not asking him to prove that the sky was blue, or who the real pope was--you were asking him to prove what your opinion is.
That is impossible, your poor wording is not my fault if that isnt what you meant to do.


i think you should probably read the post again. nowhere was anyone asking anyone to prove that anybody held a particular belief - that would be a silly non sequitur to the claim that the nature of opinions makes them immune from being untrue.

Opinions can be proven neither wrong nor right by virtue of the nature of opinions.then it is my opinion that the sky is neon green with black and yellow stripes. oh yeah, and i am the pope. these things are obviously false. and yet by your reasoning above, they are actually neither wrong nor right because i claim them as my opinions. which is just silly.

there is nothing special about opinions which makes them not subject to the world outside one's head. opinion is just another word for a belief. and a belief is just an idea in your head. ideas in your head that purport to describe the world outside of your head are entirely subject to being shown true or false by the facts of that outside world.

Question

Does Macro-evolution, and its origins, have sufficent fossil evidance today, to stand, or is there still a doubt in your mind that it may be wrong, as the theory stands today.

That was the question possed to him.

I'm sorry, but if the question was that poorly worded, I'd like to see Gould's answer actually quoted, not just paraphrased. So, what did he actually say, in his own words?

All right, I'm now going to talk a little bit about Gould's evolutionary theories as I understand them, and I'm probably going to butcher them a bit, because I'm not a specialist. If there are any paleontologists reading this who can explain this better and more accurately, I invite them to do so. This is also going to be pretty long, so if you don't like reading, feel free to skip to the tl;dr version at the end of the post.

Here we go. It's worth noting that Gould was the leading proponent of the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution. While the more traditional gradualist theory of evolution suggests that large-scale evolutionary changes (i.e. speciation, which seems to be what most creationists mean when they refer to "macroevolution") result from a long-term accumulation of minor evolutionary changes, Gould instead theorized that new species would arise relatively rapidly under the proper circumstances. I've never delved far enough into puntuated equilibrium to say what those circumstances are, exactly, but that's the general idea.

Not surprisingly, these two theories of evolution have differing theories as to why we don't see complete chains of transitional species in the fossil record. The gradualists will tell you that since macroevolution essentially represents the accumulation of multiple microevolutionary changes, it's not surprising that we don't have fossils of every single intermediate species. Think of it this way: how many thousands of generations did it take for certain species of dinosaurs to evolve into modern birds? How realistic is it to expect all (or even a large percentage) of those generations to be preserved in the fossil record? And even if they were, how long would it take for humans to discover them all?

Punctuaded equilibrium, by contrast, explains the lack of transitional species in the fossil record by postulating that they were never there in the first place. New species arise quickly, so there aren't thousands of transitional forms filling the gaps, as the gradualists would have it. Thus, a lack of fossil evidence for transitional species isn't a problem to be overcome, as it is for the gradualists; rather, this lack of fossil evidence is one of the crucial underpinnings for the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

Think about this for a second. The more transitional or intermediate species appear in the fossil record, the better the evidence for the gradualists. If they don't show up in the fossil record, that suggests that the proponents of punctuated equilibrium are right.

Okay, keep thinking. Someone asks Professor Gould "Do you have any doubt that we'll see sufficient fossil evidence of macroevolution?" I assume that they're asking whether we'll see fossil evidence of transitional species. The theory of punctuated equilibrium, which Gould spent much of his life advocating, suggests that such evidence WON'T be found in the fossil record. If Gould were to say "No, I don't have any doubt we'll see fossil evidence of macroevolution," he'd essentially be saying "I don't have any doubt that eventually the evidence will show that my evolutionary theories are wrong." Gee, when you consider that statement in context, it's no wonder that Gould would harbor some doubts about the fossil evidence of transitional species.

Finally, if he did say that it might be proven in a few hundred years, well, that's not such a long time, really. After all, the debate between the proponents of gradualism and the proponents of punctuated equilibrium is over the meaning of the gaps in the fossil record. The way that debate is settled is going to depend in large part on whether or not scientists manage to fill in those gaps. It's going to take a lot of time, and a whole lot of digging, before we'll be able to definitively answer the question one way or another. "A few hundred years" isn't a cute way of saying it can't be proven; it's more likely to be one man's serious estimate of how long it's going to take to resolve the issue.

Finally, Gould has, to my knowledge, never disputed that macroevolution occurs. The question of whether evidence of macroevolution would appear in the fossil record only bears on the question of HOW the process occurs, not WHETHER it occurs.

tl;dr version:

Stephen J. Gould was a proponent of an unorthodox theory of evolution which he referred to as Punctuated Equilibrium, which posits long periods of evolutionary stability punctuated by rapid speciation. It's not surprising that he would express doubt that the fossil record would show evidence of gradual macroevolution, because his own theory of evolution suggests that new species evolve rapidly, not gradually. Expressing such doubts about the gradualist theory of evolution does not mean that Gould ever denied the process of macroevolution, no matter how much the young-Earth creationists want to make it sound like an eminent scientist agrees with them.

Isn't mutation part of evolution?

Mutation is the mechanism by which change between generations occurs and therefore one of the primary driving forces behind evolution.

Wrong.

Theory n., pl. -ries. 1. A set of hypotheses related by logical arguments to explain a wide variety of connected phenomena in general terms. 2. Abstract knowledge or reasoning. 3. A conjectural view or idea: I have a theory about that.. 4. An ideal or hypothetical situation.

By the way, the plural of "Theory" is "Theories", not "Theorys".

perhaps you might want to use the first definition listed up there when discussing science. just a suggestion.

tl;dr version:

Stephen J. Gould was a proponent of an unorthodox theory of evolution which he referred to as Punctuated Equilibrium, which posits long periods of evolutionary stability punctuated by rapid speciation. It's not surprising that he would express doubt that the fossil record would show evidence of gradual macroevolution, because his own theory of evolution suggests that new species evolve rapidly, not gradually. Expressing such doubts about the gradualist theory of evolution does not mean that Gould ever denied the process of macroevolution, no matter how much the young-Earth creationists want to make it sound like an eminent scientist agrees with them.

excellent tl;dr use, its a pretty complete summation

bravo

speciation, which seems to be what most creationists mean when they refer to "macroevolution"

i'm going to have to disagree here. most creationists mean something more like 'their dog suddenly changing into a parakeet while they watch' when they talk about 'macroevolution'. they also sometimes call this 'speciation' when they know of the word. which is why no matter how many actual instances of observed speciation you show them, they keep claiming that there aren't any. sad really.

i for one believe in creationism.... for one simple reason i have yet to hear a scientist say.

your a microbe, right. now at a certain point in your evoloution of getting bigger and more celled, your gonna need sex organs right? however, you evolve them BEFORE you need them, they are redundant and useless and unlikely to give any benefit to the organism that did so, and thus will be quite bizzare to evolve something completely unnecessary(and quite specific for something unnecessary...) this occurs with other critters who are so specific, its sometimes getting from Evolutionary point A to point B is hard without at some point having something useless sometimes... like spiders, they have a silk organ right? well, they had to evolve the silk organ as well as having it actually evolving to be able to let silk come out of an orifice too conveniant a mutation if this both occurs at once, and useless and redundant if not. and then learn to use it, being instinctive creatures i think learning is a problem for them no?

creationism makes a number of testable claims; which ones would you like to discuss? the age of the earth/universe? the age of life? the order in which life appeared on this planet. when humans showed up? when the first city was built? etc. pick one or two and let's discuss them.

any takers? any at all? we can even do it in another thread and keep things on topic and such. come on, it'll be fun

Let me play Devil's Advocate...

A teenager is in a science class and the theory of evolution is taught. If the teacher is a good one, he or she will allow questions following the lecture. A child raises his or her hand and says "Mr./Mrs. Teacher, Mom and dad have taught me God created everything. Are they wrong if evolution is how it all happened."

How would the teacher answer?

How would the teacher answer?

VERY CAREFULLY! :p

EDIT: or probabaly not at all... in our school they make it clear these are theories...

Let me play Devil's Advocate...

A teenager is in a science class and the theory of evolution is taught. If the teacher is a good one, he or she will allow questions following the lecture. A child raises his or her hand and says "Mr./Mrs. Teacher, Mom and dad have taught me God created everything. Are they wrong if evolution is how it all happened."

How would the teacher answer?

"not necessarily. we cannot scientifically tell whether or not any particular diety is behind everything. however, whether there is one or not that is responsible, these are the facts of what happened that we can observe and this is the mechanism that probably got it done."

that is just changing the subject. the question isn't whether i hold certain beliefs, but rather whether my beliefs correspond to the world outside my head. beliefs about factual matters are either true or false. being an opinion is no defense against being untrue.

But see... maybe your eyes are not calibrated the same way as mine... we've both been taught to call the colour the same thing ('the sky is blue', for example), but we could perceive the colours totally differently.

Since we can only judge the world outside our heads using our own senses, we can't really speak for whether *others* see everything the same.

Of course, the sky can be proven to have a colour that has a certain wave-length. *THAT* can be called fact. Whether that colour is 'blue' or not depends on what you've been taught, and assumes that everyone's eyes process colours the exact same way.

But see... maybe your eyes are not calibrated the same way as mine... we've both been taught to call the colour the same thing ('the sky is blue', for example), but we could perceive the colours totally differently.

Since we can only judge the world outside our heads using our own senses, we can't really speak for whether *others* see everything the same.

Of course, the sky can be proven to have a colour that has a certain wave-length. *THAT* can be called fact. Whether that colour is 'blue' or not depends on what you've been taught, and assumes that everyone's eyes process colours the exact same way.

well, true, our experience of colors may be totally different (same for sound or most anything else since nobody has access to how another percieves things inside their own head). but whatever we experience it as, assuming we come from the same cultural background we will share the same words to describe the same phenomenon (typically anyway). the sky being called 'blue' is just a slightly imprecise was of describing the wavelength we observe it as.

if i mean the same thing you would mean by 'blue' (a thing reflecting a light wave of about 475 nm) and 'neon green with black and yellow stripes' and i still held the opinion that the sky was the latter, my opinion would be wrong.

i for one believe in creationism.... for one simple reason i have yet to hear a scientist say.

your a microbe, right. now at a certain point in your evoloution of getting bigger and more celled, your gonna need sex organs right? however, you evolve them BEFORE you need them, they are redundant and useless and unlikely to give any benefit to the organism that did so, and thus will be quite bizzare to evolve something completely unnecessary(and quite specific for something unnecessary...) this occurs with other critters who are so specific, its sometimes getting from Evolutionary point A to point B is hard without at some point having something useless sometimes... like spiders, they have a silk organ right? well, they had to evolve the silk organ as well as having it actually evolving to be able to let silk come out of an orifice too conveniant a mutation if this both occurs at once, and useless and redundant if not. and then learn to use it, being instinctive creatures i think learning is a problem for them no?

Well a) if something is redundant, but causes no harm, it will remain. So there's no reason one part can't form first and not be useful but not be harmful, and then later be completed and suddenly become useful to the organism (and, since it's useful, then be selected for).

Sex allows greater diversity within a population, which is a positive thing according to evolutionary theory. And there are already explainations for how sex organs could have come about (I'm too lazy to find them though). Suffice it to say that 'complexity' is not a reason that can be used very successfully against evolution. Because it is random, anything is only really a matter of time (except perhaps the whole 'banana-fish bollocks... but then, that's just a purposely stupid argument, and so can be ignored).

Micro evolution AKA adaption, not MACRO, or non-life to life evolution which is what he is talking about i think when he says evolution.

Non-life to life evolution? That's an oxymoron. Evolution does not deal with the origin of life. It deals with the change in living things over time.

i for one believe in creationism.... for one simple reason i have yet to hear a scientist say.

your a microbe, right. now at a certain point in your evoloution of getting bigger and more celled, your gonna need sex organs right? however, you evolve them BEFORE you need them, they are redundant and useless and unlikely to give any benefit to the organism that did so, and thus will be quite bizzare to evolve something completely unnecessary(and quite specific for something unnecessary...) this occurs with other critters who are so specific, its sometimes getting from Evolutionary point A to point B is hard without at some point having something useless sometimes... like spiders, they have a silk organ right? well, they had to evolve the silk organ as well as having it actually evolving to be able to let silk come out of an orifice too conveniant a mutation if this both occurs at once, and useless and redundant if not. and then learn to use it, being instinctive creatures i think learning is a problem for them no?

Well, I don't know the specifics about spiders and silk. Originally the silk was used only for wrapping eggs, I don't think we know the specifics of how it evolved.

I DO know that single-celled organisms can reproduce sexually. Some bacteria do that.

I personally think creationism and evolution should be taught in schools, but just as theories, as this increases questioning in children, which in my opinion is what education should be about.

Let me say where I stand, though: I don't believe in either of the theories. I just think kids ought to learn both, but AS THEORIES. Because that's all they are.

your a microbe, right. now at a certain point in your evoloution of getting bigger and more celled, your gonna need sex organs right? however, you evolve them BEFORE you need them...

no you don't. the earliest sex is between organisms without seperate sexes. no sex organs needed. specialized sex organs are a later development.

all your findings are based off the fact that you want to prove macroevolution as truth.

in an interview i had with Professor Gould, leading science teacher at harvard university, he said that macro-evolution has not been proven beyond a doubt, but given a few hundred more years it will be. so he believes.

So you are saying you have more information than a PHD holding teacher from harvard univserity, mind sharing it with us.

Fossils see the first sentence, surely some would have survived somewhere and we would beable to find it.

Also to the comment about Noah's ark (big boat), many religions have the story, and it is not two of every animal but two of every kind, when you figure there are about 70 or so Fagila (kind, i bet i misspelt that word). The mathmatics for being able to fit everything the big boat does work out, for many of the religions.

2nd law of Thermodynamics,

AN influx in heat energy from an open system (such as solar heat enterting the earth system) does not decrease entrophy, it increases entropy!
Physics nerd

Delta S = dQ/T

The greater outside energy that enters the system will increase it entropy and disorder. plain crazy to claim that the mere availability of the solar energy to the earth resolves the fundamental conflict, if anything it would aggatate it more.

The argument that entropy of a system cannot increase is false. We can show that it's false! Take two flasks, connected by a rubber tube. One has only air, other has air and water with dissolved salt.

Heat the flask with water.

Wait.

Presto - in a while you have salt crystals (very ordered) in one flask, pure water in another.

If you would like to know more details as opposed to just a counterexample, read
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html

I personally think creationism and evolution should be taught in schools, but just as theories, as this increases questioning in children, which in my opinion is what education should be about.

Let me say where I stand, though: I don't believe in either of the theories. I just think kids ought to learn both, but AS THEORIES. Because that's all they are.

Creationism is not a theory in the scientific sense of the word.

The theory of relativity is a theory. The theory of evolution is a theory.

A "theory" isn't just an idea. Maybe in common terminology, a theory is something that's less known than a fact - in science, a "theory" refers to an explanation of the world which successfully explains observations AND makes testable predictions.

For it to be taught as a theory, creationism would have to
a) Explain current observations (check, it does that)
b) predict testable observations that are validated by experiment (NOT CHECK. GIVES WRONG PREDICTIONS about fossil layers, about age of the earth, etc.).

To propose a theory of creationism, one would need to do the following...
(1) Give a comprehensive statement of creationism. What it states, what the basis of the theory is.
(2) Define technical terms and other words or expressions that are likely to be misunderstood.
(3) Include the evidence for creationism. Evidence for creationism would include some observations which were predicted by it. That is much better support than merely giving an explanation for observations which were known before it was formulated. Far less convincing is evidence which has an alternative explanation.

(4)In order to decide between conflicting theories, it is important that not only must the conflicting theories be well described, and that the evidence supporting the conflicting theories be proposed, but also that there be established some rules for deciding between the theories and evaluating the evidence.

Suggest principles for so deciding and evaluating.

------------------------------------------------------------

Creationism needs to ALSO explain all the evidence for conventional science.

(12) Explain the distribution, seemingly chronological, of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants (which are restricted to the higher levels of the fossil record). Here we are considering the distribution which conventional science explains as reflecting differences in time - the various levels of rock.

(14) There is a large body of information about the different species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships between different species. So, for example, lions are said to be more closely related to tigers than they are to elephants. If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?

[Excerpted from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/stumpers.html]

I personally think creationism and evolution should be taught in schools, but just as theories, as this increases questioning in children, which in my opinion is what education should be about.

Let me say where I stand, though: I don't believe in either of the theories. I just think kids ought to learn both, but AS THEORIES. Because that's all they are.

gravity is also only a theory. being a theory is not a bad thing.

creationism, on the other hand, is at best an utterly failed and discarded theory because it's testable predictions just don't hold. at all.

btw, do you have a particular reason for disbelieving evolution?

Micro evolution AKA adaption, not MACRO, or non-life to life evolution which is what he is talking about i think when he says evolution.


There is no difference between "micro" evolution and "macro" evolution it is a false dichotomy invented by charlatans and pseudoscientists.

Has no more validity than "UFOlogy"

A topic of discussion in various circles and the subject of heated debate in recent years, I am preparing for a debate on this topic, I would appreciate any comments people might have on the subject and if you'd point me in the direction of some reliable information I'd appreciate it immensely!

Here's my problem: WHOSE creationism do we teach? My school taught me several. In mythology studies.

While I have no problem with schools teaching the Judeo-christian concept of creationism, I do have a problem with schools inferring that it is any more valid than any other religion's view on the creation of the universe.

And especially not in a science class.

As regards entropy and such, the answer is simple and often ignored by charlatans and overlooked by others:

In a CLOSED SYSTEM entropy tends to increase.

The earth is not a closed system, it is a system which constantly recieves energy from space and the sun.

The burden of proof rests upon the accuser. No one NEEDS to prove it wrong, someone needs to prove it period.



Again, they're free to teach it, just not in a science classroom.



Evolution is a valid scientific theory backed up by evidence. Creationism is a theologistic hypothesis backed up by nothing.
Nothing? www.creationists.org
A pro-creationism website, by scientists, with scientific evidence.

gravity is also only a theory. being a theory is not a bad thing.

creationism, on the other hand, is at best an utterly failed and discarded theory because it's testable predictions just don't hold. at all.

btw, do you have a particular reason for disbelieving evolution?

Absolutely, there's nothing wrong with being a theory. That's kind of my point, though.

Creationism, that is, that the Universe and its contents were created by God, does hold up, but most of the dogma around it (e.g. age of the Earth, lack of dinosaurs etc. doesn't).

As for your last question, yes, I do. Stuff like speciation. I believe in microevolution, and even, on very rare occasions, macroevolution, but I don't believe that purely random chance with mutations in DNA explains what's happened on Earth adequately. I could go into detail... but I have to learn how to speak French in the next 90 minutes, so maybe another time.

Does it make any logical sense to teach Darwinism in a class on religious studies? No. Why then does it make any logical sense to teach Creationism in a class on scientific studies?

Futhermore, if we DO teach the Judeo-Christian creation tales then we should also teach other creation tales such as the Ancient Egyptian creation tale in which Ra's sperm created all life through masterbation.

Nothing? www.creationists.org
A pro-creationism website, by scientists, with scientific evidence.



http://www.mufon.com/
A pro-UFO website, by scientists, with scientific evidence.

Most of the arguements here presuppose two things:


that creationism is an alternative explaination for what evolution is
that creationism is a purely religous notion


Both of which are false.
Creationism, which is more commonly called intelligent design by the scientists who support, it is not offered as an alternative to evolution. Only a sub-set of creationist thought called "special creation" assumes that everything was created as it is.

Intellegent design is offered as an alternative to spontious generation a far less supported (though intensely researched) hypotheisis that non-living molecules under that right conditions transformed to living ones. The most developed of the theories argue that certain atmospheric conditions caused this.

But since the details of spontious generation and intellegent design are at the college-level, and the major issue is over high school biology class it is largely irrelevent to the debate.

The fact is there are some serious flaws with the theory of evolution, but those flaws are not given proper treatment by simply adding a sticker to ever textbooks.

Beyond that, it is more important that the prinicples of natural selection are taught the any sort of orgin of life debate be engaged in.

In my opinion these silly religious people need to keep their faith to themselves, teaching creastionism as a fact? While where at it why not teach people that the sky had windows in it so god could let in the rain!

When will people understand this is just another example of religion atempting to gain infulence like they did in the dark ages and we all know what happend back then. When will these people learn faith is faith NOT FACT!

If they want to teach their silly theries they have private schools for that, in the meantime students want to learn 'real' science and dont have time for your bull.

Both should be taught; give both sides a fair chance. Even though creationism's greatest evidence is an out dated, over-emphasized text.

Not all opposing theories are equally legitimate. Creationism isn't even science, its religion. Religion should not be taught in public schools.

Most of the arguements here presuppose two things:


that creationism is an alternative explaination for what evolution is
that creationism is a purely religous notion


Both of which are false.
Creationism, which is more commonly called intelligent design by the scientists who support, it is not offered as an alternative to evolution. Only a sub-set of creationist thought called "special creation" assumes that everything was created as it is.

Intellegent design is offered as an alternative to spontious generation a far less supported (though intensely researched) hypotheisis that non-living molecules under that right conditions transformed to living ones. The most developed of the theories argue that certain atmospheric conditions caused this.

But since the details of spontious generation and intellegent design are at the college-level, and the major issue is over high school biology class it is largely irrelevent to the debate.

The fact is there are some serious flaws with the theory of evolution, but those flaws are not given proper treatment by simply adding a sticker to ever textbooks.

Beyond that, it is more important that the prinicples of natural selection are taught the any sort of orgin of life debate be engaged in.


Excuse me, serious flaws in evolution? Then how is the idea that a man floating in space created everything in a couple of days not flawed? I realy want to know, i want to see you make a dumbass of yourself trying to convince me a intelligent being created the universe and disapeared somwhere without a trace.

In the meantime i'm going to college soon, where i can learn without having some religion breathing down my neck.

Excuse me, serious flaws in evolution? Then how is the idea that a man floating in space created everything in a couple of days not flawed? I realy want to know, i want to see you make a dumbass of yourself trying to convince me a intelligent being created the universe and disapeared somwhere without a trace.



They try to put the thin edge of idiocy's wedge into every yet-unfilled gap in the fossil record.

Never forget that the religious beliefs they are trying to pass off as science are just barbarism.

They missed out on the enlightenment. Nothing can be done for them.

They try to put the thin edge of idiocy's wedge into every yet-unfilled gap in the fossil record.

Never forget that the religious beliefs they are trying to pass off as science are just barbarism.

They missed out on the enlightenment. Nothing can be done for them.

I AGREE... they did miss out on enlightenment :) or they do not understand what is is about! :headbang:

If they are not able to differ between a religious belief and science then it is not our fault :D

Nothing? www.creationists.org
A pro-creationism website, by scientists, with scientific evidence.

Okay.

I look at it.

The first thing they give me is that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.

That is nice and unsupported BS based on "eyewitness accounts" and blurry photographs. Out of all of their "evidence," most is stuff like "rock art."

Proof would be, say, dinosaur fossils dated less than 100, 000 years old? Fossils that can be kept, verified to be dinosaurs, tested...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/tsite.html refutes one of the claims of man-dinosaur coexistence. The claim of the Liscomb Basin seems unfounded, according to http://www.televar.com/~jnj/item6.htm .

And, of course, the questions of
"If humans and dinosaurs actually coexisted, some of the crucial questions that creationists must answer are: Why are human bones and human artifacts NEVER found buried together with dinosaur remains anywhere on earth? Why are dinosaur bones NEVER found buried anywhere on earth in upper strata, but only in much deeper strata that is more than about 65 million years old? Why are dinosaur bones NEVER found buried anywhere on earth together with large mammals that have lived contemporaneously with man such as elephants, whales, bears, tigers, oxen, hippopotami, rhinoceroses, moose, etc.? " remain.

All in all, claim 1 of that website is complete BS.

Looking though, most of the claims are attacks on evolution - just about all of them refuted in talkorigins.org . Most aren't evidence "for" creation.

The claim of polonium halos is among those made on that site and refuted by http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/ .

HECK, even their link labeled "Creationism: where's the proof" leads to an article that gives, well, no proof.

Nowhere on that site do I find any scientific proof of creationism.

Please. Keep creationism a religion. Don't try to mix it with science.

Precisely, its just garbage.

These people are vandals and visigoths, they are *barbarians.*

You can teach Darwinism in comparative religion, or history, but what you can't do is teach it as a science. :rolleyes:

You can teach Darwinism in comparative religion, or history, but what you can't do is teach it as a science. :rolleyes:



"darwinism" is a construct of the frothy barbarian charlatan mob.

True. Darwinism should not be taught.

EVOLUTION should.

"darwinism" is a construct of the frothy barbarian charlatan mob.

And which mob would that be? the same one that believes in gravity, molecular physics and the fact that the earth is round.

I can't believe ANYONE actually agreed with my previous statement! :rolleyes:

And which mob would that be? the same one that believes in gravity, molecular physics and the fact that the earth is round.

I can't believe ANYONE actually agreed with my previous statement! :rolleyes:


Nonono...

Generally the only people who ever reference something called "darwinism" are ignorant religious fundementalists.

It isnt a term with any currency in science.

"biology" is the word educated people use.

Nonono...

Generally the only people who ever reference something called "darwinism" are ignorant religious fundementalists.


I agree. It's very worrying that they've found out how to use a computer. :eek:

What you mean is surely Evolution? Darwinism is a very old model and has not really any standing today.
Evolution is not a theory, it's a fact. It is visible even within one's own lifetime. Everywhere on the planet where an organism reproduces. And why would anyone assume that life worked differently in past ages? If the species were created and nothing changes then why are lifeforms changing?

Man this one got a lot of attention... and the question I asked is exactly as the question was given to me to debate. So I assume that that is how it is meant to be addressed. After everybody's done with all this I think I will actually give my personal views on this matter, and I think many will agree with me on it. We'll just have to see...

Personally I feel neither should be taught as neither has any relevance to the human experience.

Evolution has a lot of relevance to science.

Creationism has a lot of relevance to the human psyche too. Thousands of cultures have all separately come up with remarkably similar creation stories, so how is this not relevant. It shouldn't be taught as fact though, because there is no scientific evidence to back it up, and people can make up their own minds - that doesn't make it irrelevant though.

creationism makes a number of testable claims; which ones would you like to discuss? the age of the earth/universe? the age of life? the order in which life appeared on this planet. when humans showed up? when the first city was built? etc. pick one or two and let's discuss them.


any takers? any at all? we can even do it in another thread and keep things on topic and such. come on, it'll be fun.

I am wholly against creationism being taught anywhere. But if there are private schools that want to teach it, that's fine with me. It's the person's choice to go to a parochial school, and most creationists can't be convinced that it's ludicrous. Faith is impossible to argue with. I forget who said it, but "The difference between faith and science is that science is able to be proven wrong".

Since Darwin and especially his wife were in fact DEVOUT Christians, the point is a moot one. I would address that in the debate. The arguement has just become more of this bitter divisive BS on both sides. I'm really saddened by the hateful rhetoric that is dominating the Christian right in so many ways.

I would like to see FS list these "Testable Theories"

Nothing? www.creationists.org
A pro-creationism website, by scientists, with scientific evidence.

lol

The fact is there are some serious flaws with the theory of evolution, but those flaws are not given proper treatment by simply adding a sticker to ever textbooks.


what are the major flaws with the theory of evolution?

what are the major flaws with the theory of evolution?



The bible says that god created everything just as it is about 10,000 years ago.


Thats it, that's the "flaws."

The bible says that god created everything just as it is about 10,000 years ago.


Thats it, that's the "flaws."

lol

that brings up another thing

stupid people who try to use the bible as proof of creationism. lol.

http://www.dynopower.freeserve.co.uk/homepages/creation.htm

Heres a fun little site for those looking for material during creationisim debates and somthing to piss off the creationists among us :p

any takers? any at all? we can even do it in another thread and keep things on topic and such. come on, it'll be fun.

Wasn't Jerhico (sp?) built in the late 4000's or something?

Anyway, as I caught up on this thread, you would never understand how livid I became at missing this. Almost all the claims I saw were easily refutable, indeed, many of them were based more in a misunderstanding of what the actual act of evolution means than any flaws with the theory itself.

So sad I missed it all :(

A topic of discussion in various circles and the subject of heated debate in recent years, I am preparing for a debate on this topic, I would appreciate any comments people might have on the subject and if you'd point me in the direction of some reliable information I'd appreciate it immensely!
Creation myths are not generated using scientific methods, so they do not belong in a science class room. the evidence supporting and questioning scientific theories should be presented in science classrooms, but only scientific theories and methods should be taught as alternatives; myths and superstitions are not science, so should not be presented as such. i am all for teaching Creation myths in schools, but they should ALL be taught equally, and should only be taught in history or social studies classrooms.

We have a lesson for religion already, its called RE. Why it should seep into the other lessons i dont know.

But hey im not bashing Religious Education here, i learned some interesting stuff in there. Such as the timeline showing budisim and wican religion are older than all the chrisitan type and sub type religions but together! Funny how the old religions are the most peacful and understanding while the new ones are the most violent.

RE tought me that ;) So if they force creationisim into science it will just help teach more people about the true meaning of christianity! We need more people with inside knowledge on religions to help fight the good fight when they bring up silly subjects on forums.

I would like to see FS list these "Testable Theories"

claims, not theories. creationism makes all sorts of empirical claims, all of which can be tested - its the untestable ones that make it not science, but there are plenty of testable ones.

for example, young earth creationism explicitly claims that the universe, or at the very least earth, was created within the past 6,000 to 10,000 years (and the 10 is being incredibly lenient, because their own numbers really say 6). thus we would expect that any method of dating the past should never give us a result earlier than that. however, in some places we have dendrochronological records that go back to 9,000 years ago (which means that we can count approximately 9,000 annual tree rings in a sequence. and there is a plant in joshua tree national park that has been alive for 11,700 years. we also have places with annual flood deposit layers or ice layers going back well over 100,000 years. and then we have various methods of radiometric dating, which all give the same results when testing the age of a particular thing (on cases where a particular method is applicable at least). we have mutiple independent lines of confirmation that the earth is at least 4.5 billion years old. claim tested and failed.

creationism (either young or old earth) also makes a claim about when human first show up and when the first city is built. humans are alleged to have first appeared also around ,6000 to 10,000 years ago, and the first city was built within a few hundred years after that. however, we have multiple independent lines of evidence (various radiometric dating methods, dendrochronology, counting layers, etc) that show fully modern humans to have been around for much longer than that, more on the order of 150,000 to 200,000 years. and the first cities that we know of were being built 11,000 years ago. claim tested and failed.

etc, etc.

Wasn't Jerhico (sp?) built in the late 4000's or something?

closer to 9,000 bce. along with a few other earlier cities (or huge overgrown villages, as there is some debate over what counts as a "true city").

Oh. I thought you were gonna be supporting-ish on creationism. Was wanting to see what your were going to say that would amount to "The world WAS created 6000 years ago... on a friday... at about 12:30 in the afternoon..." and such.

Whoopsie on my part there.

(P.S. Devout Evolutionist here... or should I say fervent? Enthusiastic?)

The bible says that god created everything just as it is about 10,000 years ago.


Thats it, that's the "flaws."

Considering that there are two separate creation stories in Genesis, both of which are meant to be metaphorical, this really isn't true.

claims, not theories. creationism makes all sorts of empirical claims, all of which can be tested - its the untestable ones that make it not science, but there are plenty of testable ones.

Actually, I would argue that the reason Creationism can never be seen as science is the fact that the so-called "scientists" start with a set in stone conclusion that they absolutely will never change and then search for evidence to back it up and *only* evidence that backs it up. That isn't the scientific method, and therefore is simply not science. You don't even have to get to the level of empirical claims.

Someone stated that Creationism was based on faith, while Evolution was not. This is simply ridiculous. Considering the mechanism by which evolution occurs is still unknown, and they keep presenting new ones, which are subsequently discarded once they are disproven, I would say that both rely on faith. After all, no "missing link" has been found. Therefore, both are on the same level, and should be equally presented, as there is no more cause to believe one than the other.

has creationism not been disproved, i.e. with the similarity of genetic code between apes and human...and also the fossils found showing progressive evolution through species?

Someone stated that Creationism was based on faith, while Evolution was not. This is simply ridiculous. Considering the mechanism by which evolution occurs is still unknown, and they keep presenting new ones, which are subsequently discarded once they are disproven, I would say that both rely on faith. After all, no "missing link" has been found. Therefore, both are on the same level, and should be equally presented, as there is no more cause to believe one than the other.
Pardon? Evolution is caused by mutations. Mutations that increase the ability of reproduction/survival get passed on. Those that don't, generally don't.

What missing link are you looking for? Do expand your comment.

And tell us why we should even think about putting biblical creationism on the same platform as evolution.

No.......that is what church is for. Have you seen a darwinisim church?

Someone stated that Creationism was based on faith, while Evolution was not. This is simply ridiculous. Considering the mechanism by which evolution occurs is still unknown, and they keep presenting new ones, which are subsequently discarded once they are disproven, I would say that both rely on faith. After all, no "missing link" has been found. Therefore, both are on the same level, and should be equally presented, as there is no more cause to believe one than the other.

yes, but any theory of evolution is based entirely on observation whereas creationism is not. the theory of evolution, well, evolves as more scientists calculate their observations.

Someone stated that Creationism was based on faith, while Evolution was not. This is simply ridiculous. Considering the mechanism by which evolution occurs is still unknown, and they keep presenting new ones, which are subsequently discarded once they are disproven, I would say that both rely on faith. After all, no "missing link" has been found. Therefore, both are on the same level, and should be equally presented, as there is no more cause to believe one than the other.

You argue against your own point here. First of all, the mechanism of evolution is quite well-known. What is changed are the exact details of how things evolved.

Second, you state that parts of evolutionary theory are discarded once disproven. This clearly demonstrates that "faith" doesn't factor into it at all. New evidence changes the theory - that is science, my friend. Creationism, by definition, does not change with new evidence, as they already have a conclusion that they refuse to change.

On top of that Creationism, simply doesn't follow the scientific method and is not based in evidence, thus it is not "on the same level" and is in fact not even science.

http://www.dynopower.freeserve.co.uk/homepages/creation.htm

Heres a fun little site for those looking for material during creationisim debates and somthing to piss off the creationists among us :p

HA! I have bookmarked that. Quick reference both for quick summaries of proofs of evolution and for problems with creationism.

They're presented in too nonscientific of a tone for me to use them verbatim, but he provides many avenues to pursue and expand on... <3 :-p

And I find it hilarious.

Religion|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Public School

Please keep them separated.

Actually, I would argue that the reason Creationism can never be seen as science is the fact that the so-called "scientists" start with a set in stone conclusion that they absolutely will never change and then search for evidence to back it up and *only* evidence that backs it up. That isn't the scientific method, and therefore is simply not science. You don't even have to get to the level of empirical claims.

granted, creation 'scientists' do not follow a scientific method. but i'd dispute that creationism couldn't be at least partially scientifically viable simply because of that. if it were in fact true that the universe was created roughly as the creationists claims, then there would be a well supported scientific theory of it. the source of a hypothesis doesn't matter, whether it comes from the bible or from staring into a fire while contemplating the structure of benzene. the ability to test it does. so we tease out some predictions from the biblical account and test them.

it is more important that we get across the idea that creationism is false than the fact that its adherents don't follow the scientific method. while we argue that we can't teach creationism in science classes because it is religion, we essentially concede ground that we don't need to and give bible thumpers more ammo to claim that "christians are being oppressed by the liberal atheists". screw that. it shouldn't be in science classes because it is incorrect - the same reason we don't teach the old theory of a geocentric universe. except, of course, to explain why its false; i'm all in favor of that.

has creationism not been disproved

yes. thoroughly. though i'd be willing to discuss it with a creationist who thinks otherwise.

Creationism should be taught in Mythology class.

Evolution should be taught by the science department.

Never! Keep the religious BS at home where it belongs. Let's raise out children to be intelligent scientific thinkers!

Creationism should be taught in Mythology class.

Evolution should be taught by the science department.

I agree with this.

granted, creation 'scientists' do not follow a scientific method. but i'd dispute that creationism couldn't be at least partially scientifically viable simply because of that.

Partially scientifically viable is one thing. Being taught as proper science is another. You cannot teach something that does not follow the scientific method as science.

if it were in fact true that the universe was created roughly as the creationists claims, then there would be a well supported scientific theory of it.

This is true.

the source of a hypothesis doesn't matter, whether it comes from the bible or from staring into a fire while contemplating the structure of benzene. the ability to test it does. so we tease out some predictions from the biblical account and test them.

There is a difference between hypothesis and conclusion. You want to get some predictions from the Bible and test them, with the mindset that they just might not be true. Creationists have already concluded that they are absolutely true and thus will search for evidence to "prove" them. Even if they find evidence (which they have, as you can find evidence for *anything* if you are willing to ignore all else), it still wouldn't be science.

it is more important that we get across the idea that creationism is false than the fact that its adherents don't follow the scientific method.

I don't think you've ever heard a Creationist speak. To those not familiar with science, they can be quite convincing. Thus, the thing to point out to students would be that, regardless of how many big words they use and how convincing their argument may sound, their methodology is inherently flawed. Then you can demonstrate the vast amounts of data that they conveniently ignore or the idiotic assumptions that they make.

while we argue that we can't teach creationism in science classes because it is religion, we essentially concede ground that we don't need to and give bible thumpers more ammo to claim that "christians are being oppressed by the liberal atheists". screw that.

Howso?

it shouldn't be in science classes because it is incorrect - the same reason we don't teach the old theory of a geocentric universe. except, of course, to explain why its false; i'm all in favor of that.

Here's the problem. A good bit of what we teach in science classes may be incorrect. It is the best theory *now*, but in ten years (or even now, since textbooks are generally at least that far behind), it may be disproven and tweaked. Students need to be taught the method of science even more than they need to be taught the actual theories.

Creationism should be taught in Mythology class.

Evolution should be taught by the science department.
Thirded.

To me, the stories of the Bible are no more valid than the creation myths of the millions of other cultures that have walked the earth. Just because something is written in a book doesn't make it the truth. Evolution is a process that has been proven by many natural constants and years of research. It is the best explanation science can provide. Science seeks the truth through developing a theory and doing everything it can to prove it wrong: but do to the abundance of evidence, it should be obvious that it should be taught to all.

Creationism should be taught in Mythology class.
I had one of those classes in college. That’s where I first watched Joseph Campbell’s The Power of Myth. Damn good stuff I’d have to say.

I had one of those classes in college. That’s where I first watched Joseph Campbell’s The Power of Myth. Damn good stuff I’d have to say.


I will never forget a wonderful quote of Campbell, I believed used at the beginning of Barbara Tuchman's March of Folly:

"And I see no reason why anyone should suppose that in the future the same motifs already heard will not be sounding still ... put to use by reasonable men to reasonable ends, or by madmen to nonsense and disaster."

Are the two sides mutually exclusive? We can accept Brahman's... I mean God's creation of the intifisimal point and let science go on from there.

Are the two sides mutually exclusive? We can accept Brahman's... I mean God's creation of the intifisimal point and let science go on from there.
Creationism is exclusive of evolution, however, a creationist view of abiogenesis is not exclusive of evolution. There is a difference, but somehow I don't think "A big man in the sky made the first microbe and then evolution took over" is a good...plan.

Creationism is mythology and has no place in any serious education system.

As has no doubt been said thousands of times before, Creation Science is not even a science; it is riddled with experimental flaws and improper analysis of data. To call it a science is a flaw. On the other hand, Darwinism is a real process, and is observed in superbugs in hospitals, which have evolved antibiotic tolerance. Another example is the black/white moth population dynamics before, during and after the Industrial Revolution, when white-ish trees were blackened for a period by soot from nearby factories, favouring black moths temporarily.

I do not oppose creationism being taught in RE as religious doctrine, but it is unscientific to claim that a supernatural creator created the universe, and should never be taught in a science class as real science. You might as well teach Lamarck's work to schoolchildren.

The idea that a bedtime story should be taught alongside well-referenced, scientific fact in a public classroom is idiotic. In other words, the religious philosophy (or pseudo-science) of biological evolution finds its proper place in a philosophy class; in any other worthy situation, were it taught in a science classroom, it should be referred to as an unprovable theory that has, over the years, gained wide acceptance - nothing more.

If anyone is ignorant enough to claim that evolutionism is scientific fact, they deserve to be utterly ignored.

Creationism is mythology and has no place in any serious education system.


Precisely.

If we are to teach 'creationism' in science class we may as well teach the reading of entrails in economics.

Creationism is exclusive of evolution, however, a creationist view of abiogenesis is not exclusive of evolution. There is a difference, but somehow I don't think "A big man in the sky made the first microbe and then evolution took over" is a good...plan.

Of course, if God essentially designed the mechanism of evolution, determined the natural order of the physical universe, etc. with the full knowledge of how it would turn out (since an infinite being by definition knows all the variables and can thus know the future), it really isn't all that crazy.

The idea that a bedtime story should be taught alongside well-referenced, scientific fact in a public classroom is idiotic. In other words, the religious philosophy (or pseudo-science) of biological evolution finds its proper place in a philosophy class; in any other worthy situation, were it taught in a science classroom, it should be referred to as an unprovable theory that has, over the years, gained wide acceptance - nothing more.

If anyone is ignorant enough to claim that evolutionism is scientific fact, they deserve to be utterly ignored.



It is profoundly difficult to take anyone who uses words like "evolutionism" seriously.

The idea that a bedtime story should be taught alongside well-referenced, scientific fact in a public classroom is idiotic. In other words, the religious philosophy (or pseudo-science) of biological evolution finds its proper place in a philosophy class; in any other worthy situation, were it taught in a science classroom, it should be referred to as an unprovable theory that has, over the years, gained wide acceptance - nothing more.

If anyone is ignorant enough to claim that evolutionism is scientific fact, they deserve to be utterly ignored.

You do realize that *everything* in a science textbook is simply an unprovable theory that has, over the years, gained wide acceptance.

Science can disprove, but it cannot conclusively prove anything.

Of course, if God essentially designed the mechanism of evolution, determined the natural order of the physical universe, etc. with the full knowledge of how it would turn out (since an infinite being by definition knows all the variables and can thus know the future), it really isn't all that crazy.
That would require believing in a god.

Of course, if God essentially designed the mechanism of evolution, determined the natural order of the physical universe, etc. with the full knowledge of how it would turn out (since an infinite being by definition knows all the variables and can thus know the future), it really isn't all that crazy.


The crazy part is adding god to the whole equation that otherwise works fine without it.


4 + 6 = 10, 4X + 6X =10X, the X can be factored out of the whole thing and it still works.


Ditto god.

Anyone who would dismiss evolution as "just a theory" should be helped to realize their folly. But if they refuse, they should be disregarded. The willfully ignorant have no place in discussions of science.

You do realize that *everything* in a science textbook is simply an unprovable theory that has, over the years, gained wide acceptance.

Science can disprove, but it cannot conclusively prove anything.

But religion can't even demonstrate anything beyond reasonable doubt as science can, remember. Science recognises its own flaws, and in doing so it is stronger *in what it does* than any other discipline.

Firstly, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the term "evolutionism."

Secondly, I think it is necessary to take a close look at the actual meaning of the word "science" - it is a noun, but has verb-like qualities as well; scientific "fact" may or may not be absolute fact, but real scientists search and attempt to discover whether it is or not. Attempting to discover similarities between scientific and aboslute facts is the active pursuit of science, both as a serious study which has the goal of adding to a wide body of knowledge (another interesting word), and as a unique philosophy.

The crazy part is adding god to the whole equation that otherwise works fine without it.


4 + 6 = 10, 4X + 6X =10X, the X can be factored out of the whole thing and it still works.


Ditto god.
Occam's razor.

And no, creationism is the laughing stock of serious scientific inquiry.

Here, here. I find it highly offensive to call creation 'science'... it is pure and utter rubbish, plain and simple. There is not a shred of credible scientific evidence to suggest that the earth is only 6000 years old.

The crazy part is adding god to the whole equation that otherwise works fine without it.

4 + 6 = 10, 4X + 6X =10X, the X can be factored out of the whole thing and it still works.

Ditto god.

Of course it does. An all-powerful God, by definition, would exist outside the universe and would not be measurable by science. Science is based in measuring the physical universe and describing the way that it works. How it got started in the first place (the universe, not specific parts of it) are largely outside the scope of science. There can be many theories, but none of them provable beyond a reasonable doubt.

But religion can't even demonstrate anything beyond reasonable doubt as science can, remember. Science recognises its own flaws, and in doing so it is stronger *in what it does* than any other discipline.

You should probably read the entire thread before posting, considering that I have been making this statement all along.

Why do you find it offensive to call the theory of creation science?

I see no problem with creationism being taught in schools, as long as it's not forced upon students as part of the required curriculum. If students want to learn about something, the chance should at least be given.

If they want to learn it they can go to a church and ask the preacher. Or they could just read their bible.

Why do you find it offensive to call the theory of creation science?

People don't like Creationism being called science because it is not science.

Why do you find it offensive to call the theory of creation science?


For the same reason it is offensive to call phrenology "science" or palmistry "science" or the reading of entrails "science."

"Science" is a word with a specific meaning, it is vulgar to debase it by attatching it to things which arent scientific.

The sadly misguided theory of evolution (please note that when I use the word "evolution," I am not referring to the process of Natural Selection) has several basic flaws; I shall point out the most prominent of these, merely by hoping that those of you who support this philosophy as science have heard the term "prebiotic soup." It is a term which indicates the theory of the supposedly random development of life, which somehow came about due to the uncanny combination of the essential chemicals that form life - an evolutionist would have to lend a great deal of faith to this theory, understanding that it is not based on scientific fact.

This, however, is only one of many points.

By the way, I think one of the fundamental concepts which should be disputed is that of chaos itself. I cannot understand how people fail to relate String Theory with Causal Determinism - it seems as though anyone can see that there is no such thing as a "random system."

You do realize that *everything* in a science textbook is simply an unprovable theory that has, over the years, gained wide acceptance.

Science can disprove, but it cannot conclusively prove anything.

That is completly unture! You are just stating complete lies.
Why are you so scared of proof that you will tell lies like that?

Many things in science have been proven! Science is all about proof. Unlike religions which just belive what ever crazy story they hear first.

The sadly misguided theory of evolution (please note that when I use the word "evolution," I am not referring to the process of Natural Selection) has several basic flaws; I shall point out the most prominent of these, merely by hoping that those of you who support this philosophy as science have heard the term "prebiotic soup." It is a term which indicates the theory of the supposedly random development of life, which somehow came about due to the uncanny combination of the essential chemicals that form life - an evolutionist would have to lend a great deal of faith to this theory, understanding that it is not based on scientific fact.

Abiogenesis is a separate theory from evolution, although it uses the principles of evolution.

Evolution, simply put, is natural selection and speciation.

"For the same reason it is offensive to call phrenology "science" or palmistry "science" or the reading of entrails "science."

"Science" is a word with a specific meaning, it is vulgar to debase it by attatching it to things which arent scientific."

Precisely my point - there is absolutely no reason to refer to evolution as science.

With as much conflicting evidence as there is regarding evolution I believe that the correct position for science and public schools to take is "I don't know." Part of the fossil record seem to support evolution while others do not. The Cambrian explosion screams creationism. I have no problem with discussing evolution and any other ideas of how life began. At the same time, there is no reason to try to pass off evolution as a proven fact when the science does not back it up. If schools are going to teach evolution, they need to look at it critically. Otherwise they should not cover the topic of origins at all.

That is completly unture! You are just stating complete lies.
Why are you so scared of proof that you will tell lies like that?

Many things in science have been proven! Science is all about proof. Unlike religions which just belive what ever crazy story they hear first.

Who said anything about religion?

You are sadly mistaken about science, my dear. Science has never "proven" a theory. Everything in science is a theory. It stands until it is disproven, and then it is modified to fit the new data. If something stands for a long time, laypeople may think that it has been "proven," but in fact it has simply been held up by data and has not been disproven.

Science cannot state that "x will never happen." What it can state is that "out of n trials, x has never happened, but y has happened every time. This suggests that x will never happen and y is the natural order of things."

Dempublicents, wrong. You were right about your statement of abiogenesis, but not about evolution being the same as natural selection.

If you made a careful study of the situation, I assure you that you would find that the earth was never in any condition to form an organic soup - the earth was, basically, reducing, rather than oxidizing.

Precisely my point - there is absolutely no reason to refer to evolution as science.

It is really too bad that you have no idea what you are talking about.

"For the same reason it is offensive to call phrenology "science" or palmistry "science" or the reading of entrails "science."

"Science" is a word with a specific meaning, it is vulgar to debase it by attatching it to things which arent scientific."

Precisely my point - there is absolutely no reason to refer to evolution as science.


Something is unclear here.

Do you misunderstand evolutionary biology or do you misunderstand the word "science?"

Dempublicents, wrong. You were right about your statement of abiogenesis, but not about evolution being the same as natural selection.

No, I'm not. The theory of evolution deals with mutation, natural selection, and speciation.

Abiogenesis is separate, which is what you are referring to when you talk about the "primordial soup."

My goal is to engage in a reasonable, adult debate, but that seems impossible.

My goal is to engage in a reasonable, adult debate, but that seems impossible.


Indeed, it is impossible to engage in reasonable debate with somone who is deluded about basic concepts of the debate.

In your case either "evolutionary biology" or "science."

You are sadly mistaken about science, my dear. Science has never "proven" a theory. Everything in science is a theory. It stands until it is disproven, and then it is modified to fit the new data. If something stands for a long time, laypeople may think that it has been "proven," but in fact it has simply been held up by data and has not been disproven. "

That is way wrong. Science once had a theory that the world was round. That theory has been PROVEN. Are do you still belive the world is flat? MANY MANY things have been proven by science!!!

Grenada, all you have done is say that one theory is correct and the other is incorrect - evidently, you have no precise explanation or information on the topic, yourself. :)

Grenada, all you have done is say that one theory is correct and the other is incorrect - evidently, you have no precise explanation or information on the topic, yourself. :)
Read the thread kiddo.

My goal is to engage in a reasonable, adult debate, but that seems impossible.


Go ahead, ignore them. I'm 13 and can debate the pants off most adults. Bring it. Eveloution should be taught, as it is a scientific priciple, creationism is not and should be taught as part of a theology class (or religious history) as a SMALL part of the class. It is not a scientific principle.

Now . . . shall we discuss abiogenesis, natural selection, chemical alteration, transitional forms in the fossil record, or perhaps another subject?

That is way wrong. Science once had a theory that the world was round. That theory has been PROVEN. Are do you still belive the world is flat? MANY MANY things have been proven by science!!!
incorrect. science must admit limitations to all methods, and therefore can never claim to have proven anything. for instance, all good scientists will be aware of the primary, fundamental assumption that could completely refute all scientific theory (if proven wrong), that being the theory of materialism: science assumes that there are no supernatural magical forces causing the laws of physics to be violated, but within scientific research there is no way to PROVE that such magic isn't taking place. science is restricted to empiricism and logic, and the assumption that those things will govern reality is both the essential principle and fundamental limitation of science.

That is way wrong. Science once had a theory that the world was round. That theory has been PROVEN. Are do you still belive the world is flat? MANY MANY things have been proven by science!!!

actually, it is shaped more like an oval than a circle, i know you said round, but i like getting rid of any misconceptions from anyone. ;)

Go ahead, ignore them. I'm 13 and can debate the pants off most adults. Bring it. Eveloution should be taught, as it is a scientific priciple, creationism is not and should be taught as part of a theology class (or religious history) as a SMALL part of the class. It is not a scientific principle.
not to mention that nobody has yet defined WHICH Creation myth should be taught. if all religions are equal under the law, then all religious Creation myths should be taught equally...and that means literally hundreds (if not thousands) of myths must be presented.

Now . . . shall we discuss abiogenesis, natural selection, chemical alteration, transitional forms in the fossil record, or perhaps another subject?
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Let's try transitional forms in the fossil record for 200$, alex.

Now . . . shall we discuss abiogenesis, natural selection, chemical alteration, transitional forms in the fossil record, or perhaps another subject?

whatever, my dad teaches high school science, and i'm fairly well versed in the more rudimentary ideas and some of the advanced thoughts.

whatever, my dad teaches high school science, and i'm fairly well versed in the more rudimentary ideas and some of the advanced thoughts.
hehehe, high school science. sorry, but i remember what passed for science class when i was in school...and i was even in the AP classes. the further i have gotten into my education the more i have realized how much bunk they teach in public school science.

actually, it is shaped more like an oval than a circle, i know you said round, but i like getting rid of any misconceptions from anyone. ;)
An oval is round ;)

hehehe, high school science. sorry, but i remember what passed for science class when i was in school...and i was even in the AP classes. the further i have gotten into my education the more i have realized how much bunk they teach in public school science.
AP bio isn't that bad.

My theory, in simple terms, is this: an (evidently) all-powerful, immeasurable source of energy was responsible for the creation of life on earth, exactly as we see it today, barring of course the species that died out long ago.

Abiogenesis, while a separate idea from evolution, is technically possible. To say that it definitely happened, however, is insane, understanding that the possibility of such occuring has odds against it of about 10 (to the 40,000 power). It requires much more faith to claim that this was the starting point of life than to base the claim of creationism on a correct reading of the fossil record.

im a firm believer in god creating life, simply because i witnessed a miracle(dont have to believe me there, in fact i expect you not to, either that or you will say its pyschic powers or something..)

HOWEVER, i do know things adapt, change and mutate. i think that things can get bigger, or smaller, better at climbing trees or changing colour or losing fur. but i dont think that a microbe can make it all the way to multicelled organism.

I think God created rules to how things work, thats science. and hes letting us learn them now.

i also think that private christian schooling is a bad idea, teach the child morales at home and let them learn things about the world at school, besides if we christians are meant to evangelise and spread the word, why huddle all our children into a sheltered school and keep them from non-christians?

i have changed my mind now and think creationism should be kept outta schools, but evolution should be told as a theory still parents can teach their children differently if they want. But it is a theory, you have seen adaptations, but really have you seen any DRASTIC changes? have you seen an animal mutate and put its mutation to use? a mutated creature would have to be capable of learning, learning how to use this new thing, plus, for it not to be bred out it would need to find partners.

also, sexual organs would be very difficult to evolve, especially evolving BOTH TYPES! and you know, all the tubes and details to make it work.

i also believe that partway redundant mutations will be useless, because it would be very conveniant to mutate all the necessary things for a new organ to work, even over a long time, assuming it isnt just bred out in the process. and also, some animals shun mutants(im not quite sure about this but i believe it happens with albinos a lot in the wild)


EDIT: although i guess when your a single celled organism, evolving would be much simpler, and more possible.

hehehe, high school science. sorry, but i remember what passed for science class when i was in school...and i was even in the AP classes. the further i have gotten into my education the more i have realized how much bunk they teach in public school science.

ahh... perhaps, but my dad is nearly a genius, as am i. (about 5 I.Q. points under i believe) One on one is also more useful than one on thirty. also, i am taught by him some because i want to be, rather than i have to be. (perspective is everything.) Also it is due to curriculums that teachers can only teach pretty much crap. Teachers must teach to the test (SAT) rather than for paractical application. It's actually kind of sad.

incorrect. science must admit limitations to all methods, and therefore can never claim to have proven anything. for instance, all good scientists will be aware of the primary, fundamental assumption that could completely refute all scientific theory (if proven wrong), that being the theory of materialism: science assumes that there are no supernatural magical forces causing the laws of physics to be violated, but within scientific research there is no way to PROVE that such magic isn't taking place. science is restricted to empiricism and logic, and the assumption that those things will govern reality is both the essential principle and fundamental limitation of science.


THE WORLD IS ROUND!!!
Science HAS PROVEN that!! Do you think the world is flat.
Science can and has proven things

My theory, in simple terms, is this: an (evidently) all-powerful, immeasurable source of energy was responsible for the creation of life on earth, exactly as we see it today, barring of course the species that died out long ago.

Abiogenesis, while a separate idea from evolution, is technically possible. To say that it definitely happened, however, is insane, understanding that the possibility of such occuring has odds against it of about 10 (to the 40,000 power). It requires much more faith to claim that this was the starting point of life than to base the claim of creationism on a correct reading of the fossil record.


My lord. It looks as though you understand *neither* evolutionary biology *nor* science!

My theory, in simple terms, is this: an (evidently) all-powerful, immeasurable source of energy was responsible for the creation of life on earth, exactly as we see it today, barring of course the species that died out long ago.

Abiogenesis, while a separate idea from evolution, is technically possible. To say that it definitely happened, however, is insane, understanding that the possibility of such occuring has odds against it of about 10 (to the 40,000 power). It requires much more faith to claim that this was the starting point of life than to base the claim of creationism on a correct reading of the fossil record.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

Try again.

hehehe, high school science. sorry, but i remember what passed for science class when i was in school...and i was even in the AP classes. the further i have gotten into my education the more i have realized how much bunk they teach in public school science.

Just becuase you went to a crapy school does not mean that every school is like that.
I am tired of this debate (and starting to get bitchy) so im leaving now

Okay CSW, transitional forms in the fossil record.

First off, the are unbelievably rare. There is no Missing Link. You have been given the royal treatment.

Darwin himself explained the total lack of supporting fossil evidence, while his theory was still trying to take off; he himself wondered if he had not devoted his "entire life to a fantasy."

What about all the finds since then? Well, evolutionary scientists claimed that 999 mutations out of a thousand proved to be absolutely fatal, in the first place, and no fossil evidence has been turned up to suggest active change. (Perhaps to some, but not enough to show evolutionary steps - I can show you similarities in the design of a walrus and a sea lion; this does not mean that one evolved from the other.)

this whole debate is such utter nonsense.

evolutionary theory is supported by almost all evidence that scientists find. creationism is an absolute christian lie which has no bearing on scientific evidence, despite how many protests there are. a close look at the creationist claims will prove this immediately, yet creationists relentlessly deny the many inaccuracies in their theory with the supplied evidence. therefore the creationist theory is absolutely flawed and it is a disgrace that some actually refer to it as science.

as many suggest, i have no problem with its inclusion in a theology course, but the fact remains that it is totally inaccurate in terms of science and therefore should not be taught to be scientific fact.

im a firm believer in god creating life, simply because i witnessed a miracle(dont have to believe me there, in fact i expect you not to, either that or you will say its pyschic powers or something..)

HOWEVER, i do know things adapt, change and mutate. i think that things can get bigger, or smaller, better at climbing trees or changing colour or losing fur. but i dont think that a microbe can make it all the way to multicelled organism.

I think God created rules to how things work, thats science. and hes letting us learn them now.

i also think that private christian schooling is a bad idea, teach the child morales at home and let them learn things about the world at school, besides if we christians are meant to evangelise and spread the word, why huddle all our children into a sheltered school and keep them from non-christians?

i have changed my mind now and think creationism should be kept outta schools, but evolution should be told as a theory still parents can teach their children differently if they want. But it is a theory, you have seen adaptations, but really have you seen any DRASTIC changes? have you seen an animal mutate and put its mutation to use? a mutated creature would have to be capable of learning, learning how to use this new thing, plus, for it not to be bred out it would need to find partners.

also, sexual organs would be very difficult to evolve, especially evolving BOTH TYPES! and you know, all the tubes and details to make it work.

i also believe that partway redundant mutations will be useless, because it would be very conveniant to mutate all the necessary things for a new organ to work, even over a long time, assuming it isnt just bred out in the process. and also, some animals shun mutants(im not quite sure about this but i believe it happens with albinos a lot in the wild)


EDIT: although i guess when your a single celled organism, evolving would
be much simpler, and more possible.

Actually, no. Intinct takes over in terms of survival. Also, how about dogs. (for changes) Men took a wolf with say a floppy ear, bred it to another wolf with a floppy ear and presto, dogs with one floppy ear. They continued like this for years. (i know it's not that simple, but i am explaining this quickly. as i have homework and will be signing off after this.) Aren't the many, many types of dogs simply mutations on the breed? We know a pit bull can breed to a springer spaniel so if dogs are mutations on wolves, we know they don't shun each other. (hence the half wolves, rare but occuring.)

Angry 13 year old liberal signing off

this whole debate is such utter nonsense.

evolutionary theory is supported by almost all evidence that scientists find. creationism is an absolute christian lie which has no bearing on scientific evidence, despite how many protests there are. a close look at the creationist claims will prove this immediately, yet creationists relentlessly deny the many inaccuracies in their theory with the supplied evidence. therefore the creationist theory is absolutely flawed and it is a disgrace that some actually refer to it as science.


heres something for you, by the logic of science, everything would have to have an origin right? you cant have something out of nothing, otherwise you would find things popping into existence in space all the time. and even if there was some theory about something being there first in science, really that does have to have an origin.

something has to have been there first, but it has to have had an origin by logic. but that doesnt work does it?

so there has to have been something there first, without a logical origin, it was just THERE, that is god.

I am against teaching creationism in school for a simple reason.

If you can teach a theory based on one religon. There is equal reason to teach other religon's theories.

Listen, I have very important things to attend to, but before I go, let me remind you that the missing link theory is based on twelve or thirteen fossils that supposedly indicate ape-like creatures that are, as popular culture would have them, the ancestors of the human race. "Lucy," as one was named, is not the ancestor of the human race.

Most scientists would have you believe that the troubled knee joint of a very aged woman (found almost four miles away from the discovery of a few other bones) is the joint of "Lucy" - only a fool would believe that, especially after it has been PROVEN incorrect.

May i remind you of Nebraska Man? An entire creature, based on the tooth of a pig. Again, proved false, but it is still taught in high school textbooks.

Seperation of church and state.
Not with my tax dollars.
Evolution is a theory that is, on the most part, prove-able. Just pick up one of the more recent copies of National Geographic with, "Was Darwin wrong?" on the front.
Although, I do believe it is wrong to say it is merely Darwin's concept. I'm sure many people have thought of evolution before him.

[QUOTE=New York Jet Fanatics]this whole debate is such utter nonsense.

evolutionary theory is supported by almost all evidence that scientists find. creationism is an absolute christian lie which has no bearing on scientific evidence, despite how many protests there are. a close look at the creationist claims will prove this immediately, yet creationists relentlessly deny the many inaccuracies in their theory with the supplied evidence. therefore the creationist theory is absolutely flawed and it is a disgrace that some actually refer to it as science.[QUOTE]


heres something for you, by the logic of science, everything would have to have an origin right? you cant have something out of nothing, otherwise you would find things popping into existence in space all the time. and even if there was some theory about something being there first in science, really that does have to have an origin.

something has to have been there first, but it has to have had an origin by logic. but that doesnt work does it?

so there has to have been something there first, without a logical origin, it was just THERE, that is god.


while this is true, i fail to see its relevance on evolutionary science. if you deny that life has an origin, then you deny the possibility that life exists at all, which not even the likes of a creationist can say.

Okay CSW, transitional forms in the fossil record.

First off, the are unbelievably rare. There is no Missing Link. You have been given the royal treatment.

Darwin himself explained the total lack of supporting fossil evidence, while his theory was still trying to take off; he himself wondered if he had not devoted his "entire life to a fantasy."

What about all the finds since then? Well, evolutionary scientists claimed that 999 mutations out of a thousand proved to be absolutely fatal, in the first place, and no fossil evidence has been turned up to suggest active change. (Perhaps to some, but not enough to show evolutionary steps - I can show you similarities in the design of a walrus and a sea lion; this does not mean that one evolved from the other.)
One: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
Two: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html
Three: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html
Four: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
Five: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html
Six: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC002.html
Seven: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC003.html

Try again.

I really hope someone saw the post about Nebraska Man, and remembers it; about five up - Night all.

while this is true, i fail to see its relevance on evolutionary science. if you deny that life has an origin, then you deny the possibility that life exists at all, which not even the likes of a creationist can say.

im talking about the origins of lifes origins, if it really was a primordial soup.

im not denying that life has an origin, im saying it can only really be god when you trace it all the way to the begginning. just like all existence

Now I am all for religion as maybe a social sort of class
But creationism is not a science

Simple

Scientific method you make a guess for a hypothesis … find information … modify the hypothesis to fit the data


Religion you make the conclusion … but cant change it because you have to have faith … you cant keep changing the hypothesis because it HAS to be right

Just not science

Like bloody (I like your British adjectives) hell, evolution is taught in science classes because of its clear scientific backing. Creationism is backed by a book of religion, and last I checked you need faith for that sort of thing, thusly no scientific process or logical deduction to an end.

im talking about the origins of lifes origins, if it really was a primordial soup.

im not denying that life has an origin, im saying it can only really be god when you trace it all the way to the begginning. just like all existence


ah, i see. okay. and your evidence is...?

ah, i see. okay. and your evidence is...?

that we are all here now, and that the universe exists, if everything has to have an origin, nothing could really exist because in the beginning there would be nothing, some scientists crap on about other dimensions and stuff and how somehow that made this universe exist or something like that, but thats really bolony, because logically they need an origin too.

something had to exist in the beginning, for life to ever be possible by a chemical reaction(if that happened, btw what sorta freako lifeform would be made by a random reaction? could it live?) and the bible says in the beginning there was god, no random big bang that happened somehow without anything exisiting to cause it. THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING TO START WITH. for life to ever be possible along with existence.

so for existence to exist a god had to start it off. what god...now that you should go find out for yourselves(if my beliefs are true, then hopefully you will find them)

I'd say they both should be taught because of on simple reason, they are both ideas for how the earth came about, thats all, don't think of one as religious, adn the other is scientific fact, they are just both ideas that someone had along in time, it would just be fair to show both ideas for how we came to be. It's not like creationists are trying to impose their will upon us.

Like bloody (I like your British adjectives) hell, evolution is taught in science classes because of its clear scientific backing. Creationism is backed by a book of religion, and last I checked you need faith for that sort of thing, thusly no scientific process or logical deduction to an end.

And about this, is there any scientific backing (REALLY) for evolution, sure we can see it present a little bit, but to evolve from another creature, is there really backing to this? By the way I believe in evolution, I'm just saying.

faith based horse pucky

And where did your god come from? Don't pretend to know where, why, and how it all started, I don't. Your omnipotent god cancels out his own existance, or atleast he cancels out the need for religion.

that we are all here now, and that the universe exists, if everything has to have an origin, nothing could really exist because in the beginning there would be nothing, some scientists crap on about other dimensions and stuff and how somehow that made this universe exist or something like that, but thats really bolony, because logically they need an origin too.

something had to exist in the beginning, for life to ever be possible by a chemical reaction(if that happened, btw what sorta freako lifeform would be made by a random reaction? could it live?) and the bible says in the beginning there was god, no random big bang that happened somehow without anything exisiting to cause it. THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING TO START WITH. for life to ever be possible along with existence.

so for existence to exist a god had to start it off. what god...now that you should go find out for yourselves(if my beliefs are true, then hopefully you will find them)


ok, i'm actually quite pleased with your answer. what you've successfully proven is that something exists. you haven't proved that such a thing fits your definition of god. for example, one theory is that before the big bang (yes, the theory does involve the big bang. no, we don't know. it's just a theory), there was a point of singularity. stephen hawking, in particular, supports this theory. in this case, by your definition of god, this point of singularity was the lone thing that existed before the big bang. therefore that point of singularity must be god.

also, your suggestion offered no real calculation. you are right in that something must have existed, but you haven't offered the logical backing to explain why. what you're trying to get at is that something must have existed because nothing can't, primarily because nothing (or 0) times something (represented by X) still equals nothing. i'll let that one pass. but you have yet presented no evidence for your perception of god.


just let me take the time to point out that we're no longer talking about creationism, because you steered the conversation in the direction of the existence of god itself. that's fine, i'll be glad to disprove either (or on the off chance you actually convince me, because i'm acting as a scientist i have to keep that possibility open even though i'm singularly sure i won't use it.)

creationists are just fighting for their religion in a world of cold logic. is that so wrong? they want to make sense of their beliefs.

so anyway, SOMETHING had to create to at least start the whole thing off for a big bang., or more likely do most of it itself. for life to ever be a possibility, which it would likely want to guide, if it did evolve, more likely it did the whole schazam and then set out the rules of way things worked, like adaptation, so creationism is right, something had to be created. or else nothing can exist.

ok, i'm actually quite pleased with your answer. what you've successfully proven is that something exists. you haven't proved that such a thing fits your definition of god. for example, one theory is that before the big bang (yes, the theory does involve the big bang. no, we don't know. it's just a theory), there was a point of singularity. stephen hawking, in particular, supports this theory. in this case, by your definition of god, this point of singularity was the lone thing that existed before the big bang. therefore that point of singularity must be god.

also, your suggestion offered no real calculation. you are right in that something must have existed, but you haven't offered the logical backing to explain why. what you're trying to get at is that something must have existed because nothing can't, primarily because nothing (or 0) times something (represented by X) still equals nothing. i'll let that one pass. but you have yet presented no evidence for your perception of god.


just let me take the time to point out that we're no longer talking about creationism, because you steered the conversation in the direction of the existence of god itself. that's fine, i'll be glad to disprove either (or on the off chance you actually convince me, because i'm acting as a scientist i have to keep that possibility open even though i'm singularly sure i won't use it.)


hm, i feel glad, i came up with this while typing :P i suppose its been thought of before though. and im sorry for the lack of logic behind it, i just thought of it now, like i already mentioned

creationists are just fighting for their religion in a world of cold logic. is that so wrong? they want to make sense of their beliefs.

so anyway, SOMETHING had to create to at least start the whole thing off for a big bang., or more likely do most of it itself. for life to ever be a possibility, which it would likely want to guide, if it did evolve, more likely it did the whole schazam and then set out the rules of way things worked, like adaptation, so creationism is right, something had to be created. or else nothing can exist.
If I've said it once...
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

If I've said it once...
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

whats abiogenesis?

whats abiogenesis?
The creation of things from nothing.

From a historical point of view, I'm interested in what you guys think of Deism. Deism is the belief that God created the universe like a clockmaker makes a clock that continues on its own withuot any further intervention. Essentially, the universe is a perpetual motion machine, and God wound it up to set it off. This helps to explain the Big Bang. Newton's first law of motion states that an object at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. I certainly believe in the Big Bang, but what started that resting object in motion? Let's say you find what started the Big Bang. What started that? The answer is that someone needs to wind up the machine, and that's where the belief in God comes in. In this sense, God did create the earth and the sun, and light and dark, and plants and animals and humans, though not the way Genesis literally describes it. Instead he was responsible for the beginning of the chain of events that led us to where we are today, and that chain of events certainly includes evolution. That's how I reconcile the scientific and religious parts of my brain, at least.

From a historical point of view, I'm interested in what you guys think of Deism. Deism is the belief that God created the universe like a clockmaker makes a clock that continues on its own withuot any further intervention.

well, thats what im saying god AT LEAST had to do for logically existence to exist, i believe he does more and is doing more in the world still, but really... im not gonna force my beliefs down your throat, im gonna force my arguments :P

The creation of things from nothing.

thats it?

thats it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

For a more detailed answer. But yes.

well, thats what im saying god AT LEAST had to do for logically existence to exist, i believe he does more and is doing more in the world still, but really... im not gonna force my beliefs down your throat, im gonna force my arguments :P

I prefer to consider Him as just an observer. If he were taking an active role in our world, I'd be rather disappointed with his performance.