NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

i get what you mean... but id rather not discuss my opinions on that now.

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.


We have a problem here. All instances of casuality we observe are within the universe. Unless you can show on what basis you apply this property to the universe as a whole or "outside" the universe, you're committing the fallacy of composition.

We have a problem here. All instances of casuality we observe are within the universe. Unless you can show on what basis you apply this property to the universe as a whole or "outside" the universe, you're committing the fallacy of composition.

huh? what do you mean?

huh? what do you mean?
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/compos.htm

errr...gee, i think i understand. but im not sure what you mean by explaining it, im not talking about the qualities of the whole or anything, im talking origins...im just gonna repeat myself because ive said what i just thought of.

something had to start it all, something that defys logic or laws of science by merely existing without an origin, that would be god. logically it has to be otherwise nothing can exist. maybe this starting thing isnt god, but its something incredibly illogical... but logic requires this lack of logic.

i dont get what you mean by the whole equalling the sum of its parts, i dont think god is the universe or anything if you mean that, i think that existence proves something started it.

EDIT: wait i think i understand, your saying IM making this composition maybe i am... now whats casuality within the universe mean?

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.

been reading stuff from gish, johnson, and 'dr.' tax-fraud, have we?

12 or 13 hominid fossils, eh? sorry, incorrect. the number is actually larger than 6 thousand hominid fossils that are categorized into a variety of species, based on their shared anatomical similarities and differences, with around 2 or 3 dozen pre-homo sapiens specimens with moderately complete skulls and skeletons.

your version of the lucy's knee story is both false and an exaggeration of the standard creationist lie about it. you probably meant to say 'found 2 to 3 kilometers away'. that is also false, and is a lie being intentionally maintained by creationist leaders despite their error being repeatedly pointed out to them.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html

in any case, besides the fact that we have other skeletal evidence to suggest that lucy was bipedal, we also have a fair number of other australopithicine fossils (with similar knees, oddly enough). we also have at least two sets of australopithicine foot prints. examining them leads to the same undeniable conclusion - the australopithicines walked upright.

and finally name me one high school textbook that even mentions 'nebraska man', let alone discusses it in a positive light. just one. i frelling dare you.

'nebraska man', for those of you who don't keep up with creationist lies, is a case of media sensationalism from about 80 years ago that was never accepted by the scientific community.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html

You people are wrong. Creationism is true. Obviously, humans lived since the beginning of time with the dinosaurs. Back then, we tamed some of them and rode them like horses into the sunset. When early humans go hunting, we needed to bring over 3000 men just to kill a dinosaur and bring back the meat. We didn't have bows and arrows yet, so we had to throw sticks and stones. Sometimes, we called them names, but that never hurt them.

http://server2.uploadit.org/files/Mellow-dino.jpg
I want to believe!!!

Your idea of "origins", that "something that have caused it all" is based on the assumption that things are caused. The ball rolls because you hit it. Cause and effect.

You see that things in the universe (parts of the whole) are caused. Based on this you argue that the universe must be caused. The problem is you can't just make that jump in reasoning because it leads to problems.

(i) The brick wall is six feet tall. Thus, the bricks in the wall are six feet tall.

The fact that the things we observe in our daily lives in the universe are caused does not necessarily mean the universe is caused. Properties of parts of the whole don't necessarily apply to the whole.

errr...gee, i think i understand. but im not sure what you mean by explaining it, im not talking about the qualities of the whole or anything, im talking origins...im just gonna repeat myself because ive said what i just thought of.

something had to start it all, something that defys logic or laws of science by merely existing without an origin, that would be god. logically it has to be otherwise nothing can exist. maybe this starting thing isnt god, but its something incredibly illogical... but logic requires this lack of logic.

i dont get what you mean by the whole equalling the sum of its parts, i dont think god is the universe or anything if you mean that, i think that existence proves something started it.

EDIT: wait i think i understand, your saying IM making this composition maybe i am... now whats casuality within the universe mean?

What he's saying is that you're attempting to apply laws that only apply in our universe outside our universe.

Neither Casuality (Essentially, cause and effect) nor Newton's first law existed before our universe. That little infintesimal point very well could have popped up out of no where and you can't contest that. Remember, space and time came with the Big Bang, they didn't exist before, nothing did.

i disagree, i think everything (except for that starter thing) is caused, it has to be logically doesnt it? id like an example of your thinking...

EDIT:
outside space and time? where is that? how do you know there is anything outside of our universe? why should there be?

also, that thing for the big bang popping up out of nothing sounds irrational, and illogical. it doesnt make sense.

i disagree, i think everything (except for that starter thing) is caused, it has to be logically doesnt it? id like an example of your thinking...

It goes like this:

Before the creation of the universe (however it happened), NOTHING existed, including the laws of physics, which includes casuality. You don't need a cause if casuality doesn't exist.

Imagine it like this:

A blank sheet of paper with nothing on it but one of those comical little signs that says, "Random energy, spontaneous generation, points in space, welcome, casuality need not apply"

EDIT:
outside space and time? where is that? how do you know there is anything outside of our universe? why should there be?

What do you think was here before our universe was? Absolute nothingness, which includes a lack of space, time, and all the laws of physics.

also, that thing for the big bang popping up out of nothing sounds irrational, and illogical. it doesnt make sense.

Logic is based on experience in the current world of scientific law and orderly rule.

*Decides to point out something that has been noticed whilest reading this thread*

On the Creationist Side: Largely unsupported, though there are a minority of people who do support their arguments with some basic facts, although much of it is flaky.

On the Evolutionist Side: Scientific ideas (Causality, abiogenesis) are brought up, and largely not understood by the Creationist Side.

I'd really just like to know: How many people on the Creationist side have actually graduated from high-school, let alone a college (State colleges not included unless they are a reputable one, i.e. U of Chicago, UCLA, etc)?

And heres some new news on the Evolutionist side.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/18/great.apes/index.html

Looks like another part of the great family tree of humanity has been discovered. Combine this with the recent findings in the South (60,000 tools), and we might have to completely retool the current theories on human evolution and migration.

im sorry but i dont understand this, you say logic is the thing of our universe, but this is all just strange thinking born of people desperate to explain that inexplicable logic.

everything has to come from something from a scientific point of view, but it doesnt work.

edit: yes i am 16, but im stating my opinion and trying to understand yours... so?

im sorry but i dont understand this, you say logic is the thing of our universe, but this is all just strange thinking born of people desperate to explain that inexplicable logic.

everything has to come from something from a scientific point of view, but it doesnt work.

That's cause science doesn't apply to a pre-universal time, at least not our science. Some parts of string theory may, we have yet to see...

i
everything has to come from something from a scientific point of view, but it doesnt work.

All our data comes from within the universe. It wouldn't logical to project things we know from within the universe to "beyond" or "outside" the universe when we have no real idea what the concept of "beyond" or "outside" the universe even means let alone how it operates.

That's cause science doesn't apply to a pre-universal time, at least not our science. Some parts of string theory may, we have yet to see...

so could a god appear in the beginning?

im sorry but i dont understand this, you say logic is the thing of our universe, but this is all just strange thinking born of people desperate to explain that inexplicable logic.

everything has to come from something from a scientific point of view, but it doesnt work.
Actually what you just said is dramatically incorrect. Modern science dictates that the world we perceive may not be in any way the world that truly exists.

For instance: Quantum theory. I look at you and see a solid being. I look at light, and I see an ethreal thing that is just "there". Quantum theory says: Wrong. I look at you and I'm seeing a collection of quantum wavelengths, and when I look at the light, I'm seeing a different combination of quantum wavelengths. If you don't believe light is comparable to a body, lets just look at what Einstein discovered. Light appears to be made of waves, via its physical properties. Light is not infinitely divisible, whereas waves are. Conclusion: Light must be made of some kind of wave-particle, quantum wavelengths. Further theory: Everything is made up of quantum wavelengths.

To return to the point you just said then: How do we know we perceive time correctly? If I'm a photon of light going at the speed of light (d'uh), do I know time is passing? If my properties never change, can time be said to be affecting me? But how can time stand still for a photon if its made of particles? Etc, etc.

The fact is that humanity derives its perception of reality from flawed senses. We know that our sight is flawed, and in fact what we see is actually a fraction of a second delayed from when things actually occured. We know that our rational mind is delayed, and in some cases doesn't activate until after we have already performed an action. How do we explain this? We can't.


(Awaits the coming "I'm confused, this makes no sense, of course we see things right" response)

so could a god appear in the beginning?

A god could appear in the beginning. Or a Universe could appear in the beginning, without a god. We can't really tell one way or the other - all we know is that we can see a universe, so it must have appeared somehow, since it exists.

i dont believe there was some climatic time where 'anything could happen' because logic didnt exist, i believe there was nothingness, black nothingness just like space has now, where there is nothing in it though now something may be floating through it but not visible, and something irrational happened, thats still what your saying, i say this is god. your saying something bizzare about a dynamic time where something could blip into existence on its own.

i also believe our perception of time is right, just because a proton of light doesnt care about it, stars die after a certain amount of time, yet do they understand it? or do you believe time is faster than what we think? or slower? prehaps we dont perceive time right, after all we get excited and time seems to go faster, but clocks dont. prehaps our perception is wrong, but our machines arent...

We're back to the original question: On what basis do you apply the idea that that things must be caused to the universe itself or "beyond" it?

The fact this is what we observe in our everyday lives that things are caused doesn't suffice by itself. It's not logically necessary either.
Unless you can provide additional justification, your belief is false.

im not saying that, im saying that nothing can exist without an origin, and why should that be untrue?

It's okay for kids to be taught that there are alternative theories to Darwin's, but they must also learn that evolution is the theory believed by every major scientific institution and is the theory that is most likely true because it has extensive evidence to support it, unlike the Bible story of creation.

Tigranistan-Let me make this very simple for you, as you don't seem to be grasping the concept here.

We don't know if there even can be a beginning. For all we know time doesn't actually exist. Hell, for all we know this might all be the shadows on the wall of Plato's Cave. We do not know what reality is, all we know is what we can perceive it to be. There doesn't have to a beginning, because we have no definite proof that there has to be a beginning. Creationists seem to think God was infinite before Creation, well, maybe the Universe' timeline is infinite.

im not saying that, im saying that nothing can exist without an origin, and why should that be untrue?

Why should it be true? Why should it hold "beyond" our universe?
You have to justify your statement.

i think that both should be taught, or neither. it would be alright to teach neither, because neither of them have actually been proven through science, and the smaller (and sometimes larger) details of the theories are constantly changing.. for instance, punctuated equilibrium would never have been taught in the 80's or even 90's in many school, but its probably one of the more predominant streams of evolutionism right now. (punctuated equilibrium believes that evolution of new species happened in short bursts at certain times in history). my grade 13 biology text had some hilarious out-of-date evolutionist "information" ("dinosaurs are simply birds without wings" "the coelacanth is the forefather of all fish", etc) on the creationist side, old-earth creationism is a newer development in creationist theory.

don't bother teaching adam and eve, blah blah blah of course, cause that has nothing to do with science. the theory that the world was created, however, can have much to do with science, just as much as do the big bang and macroevolutionist theories. how is this? because they are all based on suppositions which their proponents then attempt to reconstruct as empirically conceivable using scientific data.

true, much of the modern scientific community holds to some form of macroevolutionist theory, but i've seen surveys showing that more than 10% of american scientists hold their was a creator, and apparently the scientific creationism movement is now growing in the global scientific community. that doesn't point to it being right, but it does show that it has some rational arguments going for it.

the irreduceable (sp?) complexity argument is particularly compelling. its not all just bible quotes and rednecks, folks, sorry to say.

true, much of the modern scientific community holds to some form of macroevolutionist theory, but i've seen surveys showing that more than 10% of american scientists hold their was a creator, and apparently the scientific creationism movement is now growing in the global scientific community. that doesn't point to it being right, but it does show that it has some rational arguments going for it.


Source? Personal belief or Scientific Opinon? Creator of what? Are they even talking about Creationism?
You seem to be drawing a lot from one small supposed statistic.


the irreduceable (sp?) complexity argument is particularly compelling. its not all just bible quotes and rednecks, folks, sorry to say.


Not really.

If Creationism is going to get equal time, what about Lamarkian evolution?
Surely that's got as much claim to be taught as Creationism?

{Grumble..semi-literate heretics giving Christianity a bad name...grumble}

If Creationism is going to get equal time, what about Lamarkian evolution?
Surely that's got as much claim to be taught as Creationism?

{Grumble..semi-literate heretics giving Christianity a bad name...grumble}
Haha! You sir get a token of respect for that analogy.

For those who don't know Lamarck (spelling varies), he was a pre-Darwinian scientist, well rough contemporary, who claimed that evolution could occur in one organisms life time, and that adapted trait would go to its children. Thereby giraffes would get longer necks by continually stretching them, causing their children to all be born with stretched necks.

AKA: Ridiculous nonsense to any modern scientist...like Creationism.

and something irrational happened, thats still what your saying, i say this is god.



Okay, I'll agree with that, we can call [whatever the heck happened that made the universe exist] God.

I believe that most of you are missing the point here...
I too am a born again Christian and feel that Creationism should be taught along side Darwinism....
Now here is why...
Creationism just as Darwinism is a matter of faith.You have to trust that the information you are reviewing is true.I do not believe that the two should be taught in a science class but in a philosphy class alone.Science should be left to those things that we have little to no debate over. Even Darwin disputed his own writtings by the time of his death. I will not demand that people believe God created all. But I do not feel that children should be taught that evolution is the only answer as well. I feel that the family should be able to teach their children the beliefs that they value, and welcome the chance to explore and debate any beliefs that run counter to those they hold. I believe that Creationist should be accepted and debated. If we truly believe that which we profess to be true then we should be able to debate it as well. The "fact" of evolution is presupposed by so many now that when a child who comes from a Christian home expresses his or her beliefs they are almost always without fail labeled a weirdo or stupid. And I know that many of you out there know that many very intelligent people are are Bible Believing Christians. So yes they should be taught side by side but in the proprer context. So let us save science classes for those things that have a practical application in the world.For example: What does the dryer do with my socks?

God bless....

Well, I personally don't accept deistic theory, partially because God (in order to be all-powerful, which It obviously is) must be all-consuming and all-enveloping, so It cannot be excluded from anything - that means any operation at all. Everything that exists, as long as it exists, or has the potential of existing, must contain some element of God. But I can understand the way of thinking that was common for the historical period in which in developed.

What's there to debate about creationism? What place does it have in a science class? What possibly good can come from teaching students that God made the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th?

Evolution is up for debate, yes. But throwing God against it in a science class is silly.

theory that the world was created, however, can have much to do with science, just as much as do the big bang and macroevolutionist theories. how is this? because they are all based on suppositions which their proponents then attempt to reconstruct as empirically conceivable using scientific data.


Give me some evidence for creationism. It can't be taught until it has evidence backing it up, things that it predicted that were validated.

Big Bang + Inflationary Universe theory gave PLENTY of predictions. Rate of motion of galaxies. Distribution of cosmic background radiation. Validated.

Creationism? What has it predicted that could be checked, that hasn't been proven wrong a dozen times over yet?

Young-earth creationism is disproven by all those dating methods that agree on older ages for things.

Old-earth creationism? The existence of a "global flood" does not show up in strata.

Fossils show that ANIMALS EVOLVE.

Give me evidence for creationism. Tested predictions, EVIDENCE. THEN talk about teaching it as science. Because at the moment, it is not.

Creationism just as Darwinism is a matter of faith.

[...]

So let us save science classes for those things that have a practical application in the world.For example: What does the dryer do with my socks?


So you're proposing eliminating all science classes? Physics, biology, chemistry, everything? It's all a matter of faith, isn't it?

Science should be left to those things that we have little to no debate over.


Such as evolution. Among scientist's, there is no debade about "whether evolution happened" or not. The specific methods are in debate - Darwin's idea of gradual natural selection is being challenged by the idea of punctuated equilibrium - but no scientists doubt the fact of evolution anymore.

Creationism just as Darwinism is a matter of faith.You have to trust that the information you are reviewing is true.

If you're calling evolution a matter of faith, then so is, according to you, all knowledge and all science.

Except for the fact that evolution, as with any good science, has evidence backing it up. Replicable evidence, that can be checked. Predictions that have been tested. I'll present a small bit of the evidence in a simple form in my next post, if you'd like me to, though I've posted them before. Creationism, on the other hand, is based purely on faith, and hence has no place in a science classroom.

If you say all science should be removed from the mandatory curriculum, that's a different argument, we can discuss that in a separate thread.

I would like to address the issue brought up earlier about science "Proving" that the Earth is round.

Science "Proves" nothing, unfortunately. The only way to advance in the field of science is by proving the previous theory wrong. That is how a theory becomes accepted: All attempts to disprove it fail. That is what a "Scientific" Theory is: An explanation for a particular phenomena that has, as yet, resisted all efforts to disprove it.

So in the case of the Round (yet oblate) Earth, science did not so much "Prove" that the Earth was round as it Disproved the theory that the earth was Flat.

In the case of Evolution, the same applies. Evidence has been gathered, analyzed, organized, correlated, and as this thread shows, debated endlessly. So far, nobody has come up with a plausible explanation as to whether it is NOT the way that life has developed here on Earth. Evidence favoring the Theory of Evolution mounts on a continuous basis, but no matter how much evidence is acquired, we cannot PROVE it, we can only accept that it is the way things happened... until somebody disproves it.

Again, that's how science works.

Claiming that Evolution is "Just a Theory" is actually a self-defeating argument, as one is effectively making known their ignorance of the meaning of the very word.

Evolution IS a theory. And a very damn good one. Prove it wrong. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO.

PS: Novus Arcadia, I begin to suspect that you read not a single one of the links smacked into your face after your initial post about the Nebraska man. Number six references it specifically.

Please, if you intend to honk about endlessly about how evolution is wrong based on the idea that it was too much of a coincidence that we all just poofed here, pay attention to the opposing arguments. Read and analyze, organize and correlate. Scientific method, you know.

Oh, and I'm uncertain as to where I saw it originally, but I read once about an experiment in which an artificially mixed "primordial soup" was subjected to electrical current. Oddly enough, a few compounds formed that behaved surprisingly close to incredibly rudimentary life.

With respect to thinking that we're special because we somehow emerged, against all odds and expectations, from what you call nothing, keep one thing in mind:

Billions of galaxies, Billions of stars in each galaxy, many of which have dust rings about them. When you roll the dice trillions upon trillions of times, you're bound to win big SOMETIME. See the analogy about a thousand monkeys pounding keyboards.

Why us?

I answer: Just Cuz.

I would like to address the issue brought up earlier about science "Proving" that the Earth is round.

Science "Proves" nothing, unfortunately. The only way to advance in the field of science is by proving the previous theory wrong. That is how a theory becomes accepted: All attempts to disprove it fail. That is what a "Scientific" Theory is: An explanation for a particular phenomena that has, as yet, resisted all efforts to disprove it.


Note - not only does it need to "not be disproven," it also has to have made successful predictions - needs to give some information that was not evident before. Evolution has done that.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

[BTW, those are evidences for macroevolution. Evolution on a smaller scale has been simply observed.]

First off I do not propose that we eliminate all science from class rooms.I just propose we allow Darwinism and Creationism to stand on their own in debate outside of science class.Darwinism is not evolution but only one theory of evolution. So someone out there who believes evolution to be the only answer tell me why so many evolutionist are afraid of the debate in a public school setting?I go back to the org. posting. The question was not about a science class but about whether or not they be taught along side one another....
And what does the dryer do with my socks?

So someone out there who believes evolution to be the only answer tell me why so many evolutionist are afraid of the debate in a public school setting?

possibly because the us education system sucks enough already without confusing things further.

Darwinsm is just a theory ,even it is logical but we should not forget that evolution is real and it is still happening so it must be thought in every school under the name of "evolution" not Darwinsm.

Hmm...

First, define what you're talking about when you say "Darwinism."

I know what evolution is, and how it relates to common descent. But what is this "Darwinism" that you're talking about? I had assumed it was just your terminology for evolution, but you seem to mean something else by it. What?

(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.)

Someone may have pointed this out to you in the 5 pages since you posted, so if that's the case...well, I'm piling on.

I don't think anybody that supports evolution would say "the walrus evolved from the sea lion" or "the sea lion evolved from the walrus." This is the same ignorant belief that mistakenly thinks humans evolved from the monkeys we see at the zoo.

I don't know the genetic similarities of a walrus and a sea lion, but assuming they're very close to identical (such as the closeness of humans and the chimpanzee), then what actually most likely happened is the two species evolved from one separate (now extinct) species.

This is a ridiculous argument. Everyone who is denying the facts of evolution (not that evolution itself is 100% undeniable fact) has failed miserably when asked to provide real evidence.

Creationism should be introduced like this:


"Man has always wondered about the origin of life. In the beggining, we did not understand what was around us, so we said it was god or the gods that created the universe. But now, with science, we can finally understand the driving forces behind nature."

then explain evolution, etc...

You people are wrong. Creationism is true. Obviously, humans lived since the beginning of time with the dinosaurs. Back then, we tamed some of them and rode them like horses into the sunset. When early humans go hunting, we needed to bring over 3000 men just to kill a dinosaur and bring back the meat. We didn't have bows and arrows yet, so we had to throw sticks and stones. Sometimes, we called them names, but that never hurt them.

http://server2.uploadit.org/files/Mellow-dino.jpg
I want to believe!!!

since it is at severe risk of getting lost in the pile, i would just like to comment that this is hilarious

Should Creationism be taught alongside Darwinism?

lol
you should think about seeing a psychatrist if you really think this Creationism BS should be tought in schools.
its the laughing stock of everyone together with the religious nutjobs who think their BS can be taken serious...

I've read the entire 20 pages of this thread and it's very apparent that many people do not know the definitions of the terms.

The creationism most widely denounced by the scientific community is not the existence of God. People here may not believe in God, but they're not actually saying that evolution (or any other scientific theory) disproves God's existence. Creationism is Adam and Eve, a young earth, etc.

Evolution merely says things didn't happen exactly as the Bible says. Nobody should take the Bible literally anyway as there are many aspects of it that are outdated or just plain factually wrong. And as someone in this thread already said, it's wrong to arbitrarily assign literal truth to the parts of the Bible one wants.

Is there a God? That's not really the correct question to ask here. No science has proven or disproven the existence. But evolution HAS disproven a method based on a story, on faith, but not on scientific fact.

I want to know why it's so hard for those who believe in God to accept that maybe God made the Big Bang happen. Evolution and God are not exclusive of one another. I personally do not believe in God (Because quite frankly, the "there has to be something" argument is very weak), but I just don't see how the belief in Him is threatened with the facts of evolution.

And I will repeat the plea of many in this thread: KNOW WHAT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS. It's much different than saying "I have a theory..." In all actuality, it is wrong to even say "creationist theory." It's not a theory. It's a belief.

I've read the entire 20 pages of this thread and it's very apparent that many people do not know the definitions of the terms.

The creationism most widely denounced by the scientific community is not the existence of God. People here may not believe in God, but they're not actually saying that evolution (or any other scientific theory) disproves God's existence. Creationism is Adam and Eve, a young earth, etc.

Evolution merely says things didn't happen exactly as the Bible says. Nobody should take the Bible literally anyway as there are many aspects of it that are outdated or just plain factually wrong. And as someone in this thread already said, it's wrong to arbitrarily assign literal truth to the parts of the Bible one wants.

Is there a God? That's not really the correct question to ask here. No science has proven or disproven the existence. But evolution HAS disproven a method based on a story, on faith, but not on scientific fact.

I want to know why it's so hard for those who believe in God to accept that maybe God made the Big Bang happen. Evolution and God are not exclusive of one another. I personally do not believe in God (Because quite frankly, the "there has to be something" argument is very weak), but I just don't see how the belief in Him is threatened with the facts of evolution.

And I will repeat the plea of many in this thread: KNOW WHAT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS. It's much different than saying "I have a theory..." In all actuality, it is wrong to even say "creationist theory." It's not a theory. It's a belief.

Word. Agree wholeheartedly.

since it is at severe risk of getting lost in the pile, i would just like to comment that this is hilarious

Oh man, I almost missed it. Thanks, now I have that post bookmarked xD

Oh man, I almost missed it.

i actually missed it the first time through, and only caught it while going back to look for an earlier post. stupid fast moving topics.

im sorry but i dont understand this, you say logic is the thing of our universe, but this is all just strange thinking born of people desperate to explain that inexplicable logic.

everything has to come from something from a scientific point of view, but it doesnt work.

edit: yes i am 16, but im stating my opinion and trying to understand yours... so?


What you are forgetting is that time is tied up with space, and if time dialates to a single point, there ceases to be before-and-after or cause-and-effect.

Essentially, if time is not extended to include a past, present and future, the concept of causation is meaningless since all events occut simultaneously, not one-before-the-other.

What you are forgetting is that time is tied up with space, and if time dialates to a single point, there ceases to be before-and-after or cause-and-effect.

Slightly off topic, but have you read any Hume? :D

Indeed, among a great much else I have read some Hume.

Indeed, among a great much else I have read some Hume.

Heh, it just seemed on topic to me, what with the whole "there is no cause and effect" thing and such.

Hume is awesome :D

Heh, it just seemed on topic to me, what with the whole "there is no cause and effect" thing and such.

Hume is awesome :D



Interestingly there is a growing body of evidence from quantum physics that indicates events are perfectly capable of occurring, on a quantum level, without causes.
Not to claim that this implies non-quantum events are uncaused, but it is intriguing nonetheless.

I stronly suspect but may well be wrong that the universe is cyclical.
I'm not so much up-to-date on the science behind that as I'd like, so again, i may be completely wrong there.

Interestingly there is a growing body of evidence from quantum physics that indicates events are perfectly capable of occurring, on a quantum level, without causes.
Not to claim that this implies non-quantum events are uncaused, but it is intriguing nonetheless.

I stronly suspect but may well be wrong that the universe is cyclical.
I'm not so much up-to-date on the science behind that as I'd like, so again, i may be completely wrong there.

Do you mean the big bang, followed by a large collapse which in turn causes another big bang? I've heard of that theory.

As for Hume, A-level R.E. would not be the same without him!

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

Why only THOSE two?

The scientific theory is justified... since it is part of a science curriculum, and there is one 'science' that is shared by everybody.

The christian creation myth is being favoured over ALL OTHER creation myths... since I very much doubt that much syllabus space is going to be accounted to the Australian Aboriginal Dreamtime, or even the Native American origin stories?

I think schools should HAVE TO teach creationism ONLY WHEN churches HAVE TO teach evolution.

Hell, I'll take that job... the guy who stands at the front of the church and says "Todays sermon is going to be taken from the Gospel of David Attenbrough"...

Why only THOSE two?

The scientific theory is justified... since it is part of a science curriculum, and there is one 'science' that is shared by everybody.

The christian creation myth is being favoured over ALL OTHER creation myths... since I very much doubt that much syllabus space is going to be accounted to the Australian Aboriginal Dreamtime, or even the Native American origin stories?

I think schools should HAVE TO teach creationism ONLY WHEN churches HAVE TO teach evolution.

Hell, I'll take that job... the guy who stands at the front of the church and says "Todays sermon is going to be taken from the Gospel of David Attenbrough"...

I'm going to chance stance. If we let christian mythology be taught, then we GET to learn Australian Aboriginal Dreamtime. That would be awesome. Throw in some Norse in there too. Holy crap, science sounds like a better class already!

What you are forgetting is that time is tied up with space, and if time dialates to a single point, there ceases to be before-and-after or cause-and-effect.

Essentially, if time is not extended to include a past, present and future, the concept of causation is meaningless since all events occut simultaneously, not one-before-the-other.

Thank you, that's what I've been trying to get across.

As to a cyclic universe, it is my unfortunate duty to inform you that all evidence points to us having too small a gravitational constant, so unless Asminov's story comes true, the universe will keep expanding forevermore. Entropy death, nasty stuff.

And as to quantum mechanics violating casuality...jeeze, don't even get into that, the world is pretty fucked up at quantum levels. Reaction pairs popping up out of no where, anyone?

I'm going to chance stance. If we let christian mythology be taught, then we GET to learn Australian Aboriginal Dreamtime. That would be awesome. Throw in some Norse in there too. Holy crap, science sounds like a better class already!

And allocate the amount of time to teach each subject, according to the amount of evidence you have to present.

So, in the first week, you cover all the world religions, and in the second week you start in on the actual, provable science stuff... that the course is named for...

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, science disproved the contention that the Earth is flat. All evidence leads to it being rounded, but if new evidence were to suggest that it is actually sometimes trapezoidal, the theory would be changed.

Actually, science disproved the contention that the Earth is flat. All evidence leads to it being rounded, but if new evidence were to suggest that it is actually sometimes trapezoidal, the theory would be changed.
Very well put.

Actually, science disproved the contention that the Earth is flat. All evidence leads to it being rounded, but if new evidence were to suggest that it is actually sometimes trapezoidal, the theory would be changed.
One of the great things about science ... when new data comes in, it is studied and we work ourselfs closer to the truth

Why should creationism be taught as a scientific concept when it is not scientific?
Genetic engineering isn't taught in RE.
Maybe it would be better if Darwinian evolution were taught as a scientific theory in biology and creationism taught as a belief in RE.

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.

High school textbooks are always at least 10 years behind actual theory.

However, you haven't really demonstrated anything here except the very reason that the scientific method is so powerful. Someone found a fossil and thought it was a human ancestor. They examined it closer and found that it was not. It was removed from the theory.

The theory is constantly changing and therein lies its power - it will always be based on the evidence available and will change as more evidence is found. Therefore, it will always be the best we have at the time.

High school textbooks are always at least 10 years behind actual theory.

However, you haven't really demonstrated anything here except the very reason that the scientific method is so powerful. Someone found a fossil and thought it was a human ancestor. They examined it closer and found that it was not. It was removed from the theory.

The theory is constantly changing and therein lies its power - it will always be based on the evidence available and will change as more evidence is found. Therefore, it will always be the best we have at the time.
Exactly ... it is not an end all ... or a faith ... rather a tool (a powerfull one) for understanding the truth

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?

Just to be pedantic, Newton's laws apply in certain cases, but have been disproven in many as well. Something like the Big Bang (if it occurred as many theorists believe) would likely be in the realm of quantum physics (or something we haven't found yet), not Newtonian physics.

Essentially, if time is not extended to include a past, present and future, the concept of causation is meaningless since all events occut simultaneously, not one-before-the-other.

Reminds me of when I read Slaughterhouse-Five back in high school. The concept of all time happening at once is very intriguing to me.

First off I do not propose that we eliminate all science from class rooms.

Actually, you do. You said that we should only teach science that is not "under debate." Since the very definition of science is that *everything* is under debate, you have basically said we should eliminate all science.

I just propose we allow Darwinism and Creationism to stand on their own in debate outside of science class.Darwinism is not evolution but only one theory of evolution. So someone out there who believes evolution to be the only answer tell me why so many evolutionist are afraid of the debate in a public school setting?

Evolution = scientific theory backed up by all available evidence
Creationism = belief which requires ignoring half of the evidence and occasionally just making things up to believe

Now, no scientists believes "evolution to be the only answer," it is simply the best answer we have right now. And if there was another, equally backed up *scientific* theory, I would advocate teaching it. However, we don't need to teach our kids that blind faith, ignoring data, and making data up is science.

I go back to the org. posting. The question was not about a science class but about whether or not they be taught along side one another....

Evolution is based on the scientific method. It belongs in a science class. Creationism is religion, it is based on the Bible and blind faith, it belongs (if anywhere) in a religion class. So no, they should not be taught along side one another.

And what does the dryer do with my socks?

It eats them.

The big bang is the world of string theory: trying to combine general relativity with quantum mechanics.

My view on creationism is that it should not be taught in science class, Science class is for genuine scientific theories and not theology. The students are there to learn science and should not have their time wasted on something that irrelevant. Just as members of a church do not need their minister to stand up and say "god created the world, but that is only one theory.." and continue to give them the theory of evolution so that they can decide which to believe.

Creationists who learn evolution in schools are not required to believe it, when I was studying science in high school and we got to the topic of evolution the teacher told any body that had a religious disagreement with being tought something they didnt believe that they only need to know the theory to pass belief wasn't required and nor was it an excuse not to come to class :p

All that said I don't necessarily 100% believe in the current theory of evolution. I am open to changes and alterations or discarding the theory alltogether if there is stronger evidence for another theory. One possibility I have considered is if life happened more than once on this planet. Given that is just something that I have pondered on occasion and I have nothing to back it up, I would be happy for someone to provide definite proof otherwise just as much as I would like proof for.

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

by the definition of a theory, creationism isn't one.

and no, religion has no place in a science class in the same way that calculus has no place in an english class and serious thinking does not belong in a church.


(that last one was a joke)

I say what the hell really. Give the kids the option to learn about it. As much as I believe in evolution I think it is only fair to offer the other side for educational reasons. Both Evolution and Creationism rely on faith, since neither is fully proven, I just like Evolution more because there is evidence to suggest it happened, but unfortunately it is still a theory. I don't know exactly how you would teach Creationism in schools, but who knows.

Also, now I've been hearing a lot of talk at work from some guys that tell me they mapped the human genome twice and the information found says that we are not from this planet, something to do with the carbon signature not being the same as other things on this planet. I was wondering if someone has a link on the subject. I've search everywhere for this "supposed" information, and have found nothing. Thanks.

here's how we fix this argument


WHICH creation should we teach? if you sya christian, thats discriminatory against every other single creation story from all religions and thus illegal as its favoring one religion over another.

go to sunday school if you want to learn about your religion, leave the schools to teach science

I say what the hell really. Give the kids the option to learn about it. As much as I believe in evolution I think it is only fair to offer the other side for educational reasons. Both Evolution and Creationism rely on faith, since neither is fully proven, I just like Evolution more because there is evidence to suggest it happened, but unfortunately it is still a theory. I don't know exactly how you would teach Creationism in schools, but who knows.

Also, now I've been hearing a lot of talk at work from some guys that tell me they mapped the human genome twice and the information found says that we are not from this planet, something to do with the carbon signature not being the same as other things on this planet. I was wondering if someone has a link on the subject. I've search everywhere for this "supposed" information, and have found nothing. Thanks.
Unfortunately it will ALWAYS be a theory (scientific process remember)


Also we are not opposed to the teaching just it being an ALTERNATIVE in a science class

Religion and creationism is NOT a science

MAYBE under a social sciences class or literature sort of class it would have a better fit

here's how we fix this argument


WHICH creation should we teach? if you sya christian, thats discriminatory against every other single creation story from all religions and thus illegal as its favoring one religion over another.

go to sunday school if you want to learn about your religion, leave the schools to teach science
Lol i agree :) just like I said maybe in a different socal type of class it would be way more appropreate

I'm going to chance stance. If we let christian mythology be taught, then we GET to learn Australian Aboriginal Dreamtime. That would be awesome. Throw in some Norse in there too. Holy crap, science sounds like a better class already!
oh yeah, let's just spend an entire semester learning creation myths in a biology class. screw cell structure and dna and the human body, how is any of that relevant anyways, right? nobody needs to know how their body works, but everyone needs to know every creation myth in existence.

not in a fucking science class, i say.

I say what the hell really. Give the kids the option to learn about it. As much as I believe in evolution I think it is only fair to offer the other side for educational reasons. Both Evolution and Creationism rely on faith, since neither is fully proven, I just like Evolution more because there is evidence to suggest it happened, but unfortunately it is still a theory. I don't know exactly how you would teach Creationism in schools, but who knows.

You still don't get it, do you. *EVERYTHING IN SCIENCE IS "STILL A THEORY"* Meanwhile, Creationism is not based in the scientific method, has been disproven, and is therefore not a scientific theory. Period.

I say what the hell really. Give the kids the option to learn about it. As much as I believe in evolution I think it is only fair to offer the other side for educational reasons. Both Evolution and Creationism rely on faith, since neither is fully proven, I just like Evolution more because there is evidence to suggest it happened, but unfortunately it is still a theory. I don't know exactly how you would teach Creationism in schools, but who knows.

evolution is a theory, you dont' need faith to consider a theory viable.

Also, now I've been hearing a lot of talk at work from some guys that tell me they mapped the human genome twice and the information found says that we are not from this planet, something to do with the carbon signature not being the same as other things on this planet. I was wondering if someone has a link on the subject. I've search everywhere for this "supposed" information, and have found nothing. Thanks.
the only way they can tell molecules like dna bas pairs and the like came from earth rather than some extra terrestrial source is the orientation they use. on earth, all life uses and forms left handed molecules, in space, either goes (as discovered in meteorites) humans use the same orientation as the rest of the planet, so unless it's something else, i don't see where the hell your coworkers are coming from.

Creationism should only be taught alongside evolution if you're also willing to teach the creation myths of non-judeochristian faiths, such as the Hindu, Buddhist, Mayan, Viking, Greek, Celtic, etc. If you think that biblical is factual in all cases, then explain to me why it's factual from what you can observe in the world around us. A good place to start would be explaining the rise of the 1918 influenza epidemic, as well as species hopping of the AIDs virus

First of all, I have never seen or heard of any real proven evidence to support evolution. Many people on here have said that it is, "Backed by science, proven by evidence." If anyone finds any, telegram me it and post it here.

Secondly, there is plenty of info to prove the Bible (the basis for christian creationism) true. Some examples: There are 2000 prophecies in the Bible which have all come true, compared to the psychics only 50-60% accuracy. Like the place of Jesus' birth (Bethlehem) in Micah 5:2. Even Evolutionists will admit that there was a man named Jesus born in Bethlehem (Micah was written many years before Jesus was born). Also the time of his death (before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD) in Daniel 9:25-26. Again even evolutionists will admit he was crucified before then. And again, this book was written many years before he was even born. The chances of ONLY 13 of these prophecies happening is about 1 in 10 to the 138th power (scientists say that anything smaller than 1 in 10 to the 50th will never happen.) Or, looking at the probability of one man fulfilling just 48 prophecies woudl be 1 in 10 to the 157th power. That would be like finding one "marked" electron in the entire universe with your eyes blindfolded.
If you want some extra-biblical sources sources:
11th tablet of Gilgamesh Epic--a great flood occured
Mesha Inscription--revolt of Moab against Israel
Palace walls of Samaria--the fall of Samaria
The Dead Sea Scrolls--portions of every book in the OT except Esther (Isaiah was 95% accurate word for word, the remaining 5% was different primarily of variations in spellings and slips of the pen)
The Ebla wablets--reference to 5 cities on the plain that were described in Genesis 1 (once said never to exist)
A step in the Herodian Theatre--said that Pontius Pilate was the Prefect of Judea
In fact, the Bible was way ahead of science:
The earth is spherical--Isaiah 40:22 "the circle of the earth"
(scientists then said that the earth was flat)
The constellations Pleiades and Orion are gravitationally bound star groups--Job 38:1 (we learned this in the 19th century)

And if you want to say that it has internal inconsistancy, consider this:
The Bible was put together as
-66 books written over 1600 years
-3languages on 3 continants
-40 authors from many occupations
And yet an underlying unity. Think about it. If different people decided to write a book describing why mankind exists, and if the authors came from various backgrounds, never talked to each other, spok different languages, and came from different cultures, what would we have? An incredible mess that would not make sense or agree on any subject. Yet there is one single message spanning the pages of the Bible:
-mans creation by a loving God
-his fall through sin
-and God's awsome plan for redeeming mankind by sending him a saviour

Can you say now that "Evolution is a valid scientific theory backed up by evidence. Creationism is a theologistic hypothesis backed up by nothing."?
If you want to get technical neither creationism or evolution is neither a law or a theory by definition.

So, if anything is to be taught at schools, it should be what this country was founded upon, what has been proven to be true and consistant. The Bible. Not to say that there is not any faith that is required to believe either creationism or evolution. There is alot in both because our limited minds cannot comprehend everything.

Creationism should be taught in school.

Thank you, that's what I've been trying to get across.

As to a cyclic universe, it is my unfortunate duty to inform you that all evidence points to us having too small a gravitational constant, so unless Asminov's story comes true, the universe will keep expanding forevermore. Entropy death, nasty stuff.

And as to quantum mechanics violating casuality...jeeze, don't even get into that, the world is pretty fucked up at quantum levels. Reaction pairs popping up out of no where, anyone?



Shame to hear about the whole entropy thing.
I'm keeping an open mind though, we may learn more later.
And also, it is of no practical relevence to anything :) so it doesnt really matter if i end up being wrong :)

First of all, I have never seen or heard of any real proven evidence to support evolution. Many people on here have said that it is, "Backed by science, proven by evidence." If anyone finds any, telegram me it and post it here.

Secondly, there is plenty of info to prove the Bible (the basis for christian creationism) true. Some examples: There are 2000 prophecies in the Bible which have all come true, compared to the psychics only 50-60% accuracy. Like the place of Jesus' birth (Bethlehem) in Micah 5:2. Even Evolutionists will admit that there was a man named Jesus born in Bethlehem (Micah was written many years before Jesus was born). Also the time of his death (before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD) in Daniel 9:25-26. Again even evolutionists will admit he was crucified before then. And again, this book was written many years before he was even born. The chances of ONLY 13 of these prophecies happening is about 1 in 10 to the 138th power (scientists say that anything smaller than 1 in 10 to the 50th will never happen.) Or, looking at the probability of one man fulfilling just 48 prophecies woudl be 1 in 10 to the 157th power. That would be like finding one "marked" electron in the entire universe with your eyes blindfolded.
If you want some extra-biblical sources sources:
11th tablet of Gilgamesh Epic--a great flood occured
Mesha Inscription--revolt of Moab against Israel
Palace walls of Samaria--the fall of Samaria
The Dead Sea Scrolls--portions of every book in the OT except Esther (Isaiah was 95% accurate word for word, the remaining 5% was different primarily of variations in spellings and slips of the pen)
The Ebla wablets--reference to 5 cities on the plain that were described in Genesis 1 (once said never to exist)
A step in the Herodian Theatre--said that Pontius Pilate was the Prefect of Judea
In fact, the Bible was way ahead of science:
The earth is spherical--Isaiah 40:22 "the circle of the earth"
(scientists then said that the earth was flat)
The constellations Pleiades and Orion are gravitationally bound star groups--Job 38:1 (we learned this in the 19th century)

And if you want to say that it has internal inconsistancy, consider this:
The Bible was put together as
-66 books written over 1600 years
-3languages on 3 continants
-40 authors from many occupations
And yet an underlying unity. Think about it. If different people decided to write a book describing why mankind exists, and if the authors came from various backgrounds, never talked to each other, spok different languages, and came from different cultures, what would we have? An incredible mess that would not make sense or agree on any subject. Yet there is one single message spanning the pages of the Bible:
-mans creation by a loving God
-his fall through sin
-and God's awsome plan for redeeming mankind by sending him a saviour

Can you say now that "Evolution is a valid scientific theory backed up by evidence. Creationism is a theologistic hypothesis backed up by nothing."?
If you want to get technical neither creationism or evolution is neither a law or a theory by definition.

So, if anything is to be taught at schools, it should be what this country was founded upon, what has been proven to be true and consistant. The Bible. Not to say that there is not any faith that is required to believe either creationism or evolution. There is alot in both because our limited minds cannot comprehend everything.

Creationism should be taught in school.


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

If you have an honest interest in learning about evolutionary biology, i'd say the place to start is talkorigins.org. After that you may well need to visit a university, where I am sure some nice graduate students will be happy to answer any questions that may linger.

There really is no other way to honestly say that you've 'looked into' evolution.

In addition, you should get your english right.

"Evolutionist" isnt a word with any currency and makes you look uneducated, or worse, a liar.

Creationism should not be taught in schools. First of all, its a religious (and, in my view, illogical) view on the birth of man kind. While talking about religions in schools is perfectlly fine, presenting a convoluted view born of religion as fact is wrong. If people want to believe in Creationism, they should learn about it in church, not public schools.

Even without the religious entanglements, Creationism is still an illogical thing to be taught in schools. How can we tell young minds that the world is based in fact, and still tell them that the first man fell out of the sky by God's will? Like I said, that's fine for church, not for school.

Creationism should not be taught in schools. First of all, its a religious (and, in my view, illogical) view on the birth of man kind. While talking about religions in schools is perfectlly fine, presenting a convoluted view born of religion as fact is wrong. If people want to believe in Creationism, they should learn about it in church, not public schools.

Even without the religious entanglements, Creationism is still an illogical thing to be taught in schools. How can we tell young minds that the world is based in fact, and still tell them that the first man fell out of the sky by God's will? Like I said, that's fine for church, not for school.



Interesting isnt it what the effects on a young mind of such a convoluted and poor education would be.

Might, you know, sow seeds of ignorance and intellectual poverty that would grow into great big trees of unwise and downright idiotic voting :)

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

If you have an honest interest in learning about evolutionary biology, i'd say the place to start is talkorigins.org. After that you may well need to visit a university, where I am sure some nice graduate students will be happy to answer any questions that may linger.

There really is no other way to honestly say that you've 'looked into' evolution.


First of all, I have never said that I have 'looked into' evolution. I have heard many arguments on it and maybe I should take a class on it.

Evolutionist IS a word and the cheap shot of me being a liar is very unappreciated.

Thorndike Barnhart Comprehensive Desk Dictionary: "evolutionist: m, a student of, or believer in, the theory of evolution"

Also, the fact that you have not refuted any of my evidence, insulted my English wrongly, and have not provided any argument whatsoever is sad. It is sad that you have to resort to cheap shots.

In addition, you should get your english right.

"Evolutionist" isnt a word with any currency and makes you look uneducated, or worse, a liar.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Evolutionist&x=22&y=16
6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena
- evo·lu·tion·ari·ly /-sh&-"ner-&-lE/ adverb
- evo·lu·tion·ary /-sh&-"ner-E/ adjective
- evo·lu·tion·ism /-sh&-"ni-z&m/ noun
- evo·lu·tion·ist /-sh(&-)nist/ noun or adjective

It does make someone look like a liar.
As well, most obviously uneducated.
It is a clear demonstration of an inablity to argue logically if you must attack a persons language and not the points of their arguement.

First of all, I have never seen or heard of any real proven evidence to support evolution. Many people on here have said that it is, "Backed by science, proven by evidence." If anyone finds any, telegram me it and post it here.


The worst blind is the one that doesnt want to see

http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/biology/bio039.htm

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1994/r&r9408b.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

If you want, just go for the last one.

Lots of ignorance demonstrated on both sides. Seems to me if both were taught in school, there would be some very well thought out discussions going on here. (apologies to those who have done this)

Mind you, some teaching in non-flaming and derogatory discussion would help to and probably should come first.

Face it, they are both theories with their own supporting camps. (Large ones)

Lets be honest, it takes as much faith to believe in either perspective.

Lets be honest, it takes as much faith to believe in either perspective.

ok fine, but the 'faith' you are talking about are two entirely seperate kinds of beliefs. evolution requires us to believe that our senses do not systematically deceive us. creationism requires us to believe that they do.

ok fine, but the 'faith' you are talking about are two entirely seperate kinds of beliefs. evolution requires us to believe that our senses do not systematically deceive us. creationism requires us to believe that they do.


Cleverly worded but irrelevant argument based on your own assumptions and trust in them.

The worst blind is the one that doesnt want to see

http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/biology/bio039.htm

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1994/r&r9408b.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

If you want, just go for the last one.

I have read these and I believe that I could reasonably argue against their ideas.

I have read these and I believe that I could reasonably argue against their ideas.

Okay.

Argue against this one:

The fossils appear in a chronological order showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years, and inconsistent with sudden creation.

Go ahead and try. I'd like to see the stuff you spew.

Oh, by the way:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH110.html

Byebye prophecies.

It should be taught if and ONLY if they can manage to teach it without being biased to a particular religion and if it stays next natural selection/evolution. Also, both should be continuously refered to as what they truely are: 'theory'.

Ex:
"Now, while the most commonly excepted theory in the scientific world is Darwin's theory of natural selection, also known as "the Theory of Evolution", many people subscribe to a theory called "Creationism" which, while actually a hodge podge of many different beliefs, all share the elements of all life being created by some form of 'supreme being' and having remained, in that form, for all of natural history."

First of all, I have never seen or heard of any real proven evidence to support evolution. Many people on here have said that it is, "Backed by science, proven by evidence." If anyone finds any, telegram me it and post it here.

As has been mentioned before: Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org)

Secondly, there is plenty of info to prove the Bible (the basis for christian creationism) true. Some examples: There are 2000 prophecies in the Bible which have all come true, compared to the psychics only 50-60% accuracy.

No one cares about psychics, there has never been any evidence to show they are anything but phony.

Like the place of Jesus' birth (Bethlehem) in Micah 5:2. Even Evolutionists will admit that there was a man named Jesus born in Bethlehem (Micah was written many years before Jesus was born).

Since about 5% of all people living in the area were named Jesus at the time there's little doubt one existed. As for him being the "Son of God", doubtful. I also do not know any evolutionists who will admit to some special person that christianity is based on as actually living. In fact, the story of Jesus has been shown to probably have been in spirit form and later transformed into physical form after many translations. BTW, having a book say something will happen and then in a later chapter show it as happening is not proof. The Bible isn't evidence that its stories are real.

Also the time of his death (before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD) in Daniel 9:25-26. Again even evolutionists will admit he was crucified before then. And again, this book was written many years before he was even born.

But it's still included in the Bible which predicts things happening and then says they happen later on. And again, what evolutionists admit this?

The chances of ONLY 13 of these prophecies happening is about 1 in 10 to the 138th power (scientists say that anything smaller than 1 in 10 to the 50th will never happen.) Or, looking at the probability of one man fulfilling just 48 prophecies woudl be 1 in 10 to the 157th power. That would be like finding one "marked" electron in the entire universe with your eyes blindfolded.

And these figures are based on what?

If you want some extra-biblical sources sources:
11th tablet of Gilgamesh Epic--a great flood occured

A regional flood, not global. Interesting that you choose this for a source since it's much older than Genesis and the flood in Genesis is most likely copied from this story.

Mesha Inscription--revolt of Moab against Israel

Just because some historical figures existed doesn't make the Bible true. (http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1998/2/982front.html) New York exists but Spiderman doesn't!

Palace walls of Samaria--the fall of Samaria

Not sure what you're referring to here.

The Dead Sea Scrolls--portions of every book in the OT except Esther (Isaiah was 95% accurate word for word, the remaining 5% was different primarily of variations in spellings and slips of the pen)

So?

The Ebla wablets--reference to 5 cities on the plain that were described in Genesis 1 (once said never to exist)

Scroll down to where it says Ebla Tablets (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/reliability.html)

A step in the Herodian Theatre--said that Pontius Pilate was the Prefect of Judea

Never heard of this.

In fact, the Bible was way ahead of science:
The earth is spherical--Isaiah 40:22 "the circle of the earth"

No, it says the earth was a circular disc, not a sphere. "It is he who sits above the circle of the earth"

(scientists then said that the earth was flat)

So did the Bible, and it still does.

The constellations Pleiades and Orion are gravitationally bound star groups--Job 38:1 (we learned this in the 19th century)

Job 38:1 - "Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,"
What??

And if you want to say that it has internal inconsistancy, consider this:
The Bible was put together as
-66 books written over 1600 years

Actually, about 240.

-3languages on 3 continants
-40 authors from many occupations
And yet an underlying unity. Think about it. If different people decided to write a book describing why mankind exists, and if the authors came from various backgrounds, never talked to each other, spok different languages, and came from different cultures, what would we have? An incredible mess that would not make sense or agree on any subject. Yet there is one single message spanning the pages of the Bible:
-mans creation by a loving God
-his fall through sin
-and God's awsome plan for redeeming mankind by sending him a saviour

Scroll down to THE BIBLE: Unique in Its Continuity (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/unique.html)

Can you say now that "Evolution is a valid scientific theory backed up by evidence. Creationism is a theologistic hypothesis backed up by nothing."?
If you want to get technical neither creationism or evolution is neither a law or a theory by definition.

Then, technically, you don't understand what evolution says, what a law is, or what a theory is.

So, if anything is to be taught at schools, it should be what this country was founded upon,

Which wasn't christianity, see Treaty of Tripoli, Chapter 11.

what has been proven to be true and consistant. The Bible. Not to say that there is not any faith that is required to believe either creationism or evolution. There is alot in both because our limited minds cannot comprehend everything.

Creationism should be taught in school.

Creationism has no valid scientific theories and thus should not be taught in schools.

Okay.

Argue against this one:

The fossils appear in a chronological order showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years, and inconsistent with sudden creation.

Could you please cite which one it came from please. (So I may consider context)

Lots of ignorance demonstrated on both sides. Seems to me if both were taught in school, there would be some very well thought out discussions going on here. (apologies to those who have done this)

I was a christian for 23 years of my life (Lutheran to be exact). The ones that are showing ignorance are the ones that cling to literal interpretations of a book shown to have pagan origins and has been retranslated to the point where a lot of stuff is most likely incorrect. You do realize that 'Adam' means 'Mankind', right? And yes, I do realize some acceptors of Evolutionary Theory do not fully understand (I'm certainly not an expert but I'm learning more all the time) some of the basic principles but they know enough to trust science, which has brought MANY wonderful things into this world. Why disregard science when it has to do with Evolution?

First I said I could refute the ideas (I am not a professional in biology, physics etc). And I do not think that it is fair that YOU have to set the field of questions, I have to defend. In fact, I am making another portal on that.

Could you please cite which one it came from please. (So I may consider context)


It is one of the items of the last link.

Cleverly worded but irrelevant argument based on your own assumptions and trust in them.

i can think of no other way to describe a belief that the world is only 6,000+ years old. it is impossible to (sanely) hold this idea without being utterly ignorant of the facts of radiometric dating, plate techtonics, geology, paleontology, astronomy, and counting tree rings and annual flood and ice cores layers. most creationists are in fact ignorant of these things. but when they are pointed out to them they will hold out that these apparent contradictions are actually either tests of faith from god or tricks from satan. in other words, our senses systematically deceive us. creationists choose madness over empiricism.

If you wish to teach Creationalism alongside Darwinism, why don't you spend time teaching that the world is flat alongside astronomy or teaching the Delivery by Stork Theory alongside sex education? :)

If you wish to teach Creationalism alongside Darwinism, why don't you spend time teaching that the world is flat alongside astronomy or teaching the Delivery by Stork Theory alongside sex education? :)

Because it would make too much sense to include other creation theories. :p
Stork Theory, rofl! Good one!

Here's a little hint for when theologists get particularly stubborn:

Bring up the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Beat them on their own grounds. Hell, bring up the Last Thursday Theory if you wish to. When you demonstrate how ridiculous a notion unsubstantiated faith is, they either give up or get angry, the first of which ends it and the second of which is funny.

Here's a little hint for when theologists get particularly stubborn:

Bring up the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Beat them on their own grounds. Hell, bring up the Last Thursday Theory if you wish to. When you demonstrate how ridiculous a notion unsubstantiated faith is, they either give up or get angry, the first of which ends it and the second of which is funny.

http://www.filthylies.net/d/20041115.html

I think it should be restricted as being taught as a religious theory in religious education classes. For me, it doesn't have any place in biology or science teaching.

First of all, I have never seen or heard of any real proven evidence to support evolution. Many people on here have said that it is, "Backed by science, proven by evidence." If anyone finds any, telegram me it and post it here.

Obviously, you didn't learn much science in whatever school system you came from. Try reading, you'll find plenty of evidence. I would suggest scientific journals, but your claim that there is no real evidence to support evolution is a pretty positive indication that you wouldn't understand them. Therefore, you should probably start out with an 8th grade textbook. Work your way up from there to actual scientific journals.

Secondly, there is plenty of info to prove the Bible (the basis for christian creationism) true. Some examples: There are 2000 prophecies in the Bible which have all come true, compared to the psychics only 50-60% accuracy. Like the place of Jesus' birth (Bethlehem) in Micah 5:2. Even Evolutionists will admit that there was a man named Jesus born in Bethlehem (Micah was written many years before Jesus was born). Also the time of his death (before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD) in Daniel 9:25-26. Again even evolutionists will admit he was crucified before then. And again, this book was written many years before he was even born. The chances of ONLY 13 of these prophecies happening is about 1 in 10 to the 138th power (scientists say that anything smaller than 1 in 10 to the 50th will never happen.) Or, looking at the probability of one man fulfilling just 48 prophecies woudl be 1 in 10 to the 157th power. That would be like finding one "marked" electron in the entire universe with your eyes blindfolded.

None of this has anything at all to do with Creationism.

In fact, the Bible was way ahead of science:
The earth is spherical--Isaiah 40:22 "the circle of the earth"
(scientists then said that the earth was flat)

The Bible also says that the sun held still in the sky - which was the church's reason for killing anyone who suggested that the Earth was not the center of the Universe. What is your point here?

Can you say now that "Evolution is a valid scientific theory backed up by evidence. Creationism is a theologistic hypothesis backed up by nothing."?

Yes, because nothing you have provided has anything at all to do with Creationism.

If you want to get technical neither creationism or evolution is neither a law or a theory by definition.

Actually, evolution is a theory, but we've already covered the fact that you don't know a damn thing about science.

So, if anything is to be taught at schools, it should be what this country was founded upon, what has been proven to be true and consistant. The Bible.

Wow, what school did you go to? They didn't teach history there either apparently, considering that this country was most definitely *not* founded on the Bible.

Not to say that there is not any faith that is required to believe either creationism or evolution. There is alot in both because our limited minds cannot comprehend everything.

To believe evolution, you look at the evidence and determine whether or not you agree with the theory.

To believe Creationism, you say "I believe Genesis is literally true, despite the fact that it has two separate creation stories in the first place," and then ignore almost all of the evidence.

Creationism should be taught in school.

Sure, in a religion class. But it is not based in science, does not follow the scientific method, and is largely disproven by the available evidence. Thus, it has no place in a science class.

http://www.filthylies.net/d/20041115.html
Thank you for making my day :) so true

Darwinism isn't taught, because it doesn't work. Perhaps you mean "modern evolutionary theory."

Face it, they are both theories with their own supporting camps. (Large ones)

Wrong. Evolution is a scientific theory, formed using the scientific method.

Creationism is a belief system that is not based in science. This is pretty clear. Therefore, it is not a theory by the scientific definition of the word.

Lets be honest, it takes as much faith to believe in either perspective.

Only if you are uninterested in or incapable of examining the evidence for yourself.

Obviously, you didn't learn much science in whatever school system you came from. Try reading, you'll find plenty of evidence. I would suggest scientific journals, but your claim that there is no real evidence to support evolution is a pretty positive indication that you wouldn't understand them. Therefore, you should probably start out with an 8th grade textbook. Work your way up from there to actual scientific journals.



None of this has anything at all to do with Creationism.



The Bible also says that the sun held still in the sky - which was the church's reason for killing anyone who suggested that the Earth was not the center of the Universe. What is your point here?



Yes, because nothing you have provided has anything at all to do with Creationism.



Actually, evolution is a theory, but we've already covered the fact that you don't know a damn thing about science.



Wow, what school did you go to? They didn't teach history there either apparently, considering that this country was most definitely *not* founded on the Bible.



To believe evolution, you look at the evidence and determine whether or not you agree with the theory.

To believe Creationism, you say "I believe Genesis is literally true, despite the fact that it has two separate creation stories in the first place," and then ignore almost all of the evidence.



Sure, in a religion class. But it is not based in science, does not follow the scientific method, and is largely disproven by the available evidence. Thus, it has no place in a science class.


I think the term for this is :headbang:
thoughs who are blinded by their religion have a lot of the properties of a brick wall

It should be taught if and ONLY if they can manage to teach it without being biased to a particular religion and if it stays next natural selection/evolution. Also, both should be continuously refered to as what they truely are: 'theory'.

Ex:
"Now, while the most commonly excepted theory in the scientific world is Darwin's theory of natural selection, also known as "the Theory of Evolution", many people subscribe to a theory called "Creationism" which, while actually a hodge podge of many different beliefs, all share the elements of all life being created by some form of 'supreme being' and having remained, in that form, for all of natural history."

Which would be absolutely incorrect, as Creationism is not a scientific theory. The only way you could correctly use it in a science class is an example of something that people like to call science but have not based in the scientific method.

Wrong. Evolution is a scientific theory, formed using the scientific method.


You can't apply the scientific method in the classical sense when dealing with events that span billions of years.

You can't apply the scientific method in the classical sense when dealing with events that span billions of years.
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:


1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.


yes you can specialy with as great as distances are ... sometimes our observations are actualy events that happened millions of years ago ... giving you a broader and longer term observation

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:



yes you can specialy with as great as distances are ... sometimes our observations are actualy events that happened millions of years ago ... giving you a broader and longer term observation

Erm...*tears up MS degree*

I was actually restating what is in my textbook from Paleo.

You see, you can't make predictions and see how they pan out in this case. It's backwards; you have the final result, and need to figure out how it came to be.

Erm...*tears up MS degree*

I was actually restating what is in my textbook from Paleo.

You see, you can't make predictions and see how they pan out in this case. It's backwards; you have the final result, and need to figure out how it came to be.

Big Bang Theory states that the universe began with a singularity. It predicted that background radiation would be found. It was.
Read some more predictions here. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE420.html)

Big Bang Theory states that the universe began with a singularity. It predicted that background radiation would be found. It was.
Read some more predictions here. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE420.html)

What does that have to do with the topic?

You can't apply the scientific method in the classical sense when dealing with events that span billions of years.

But you can apply the scientific method, whether it is in the 'classical sense' or not.

Evolution is a theory based on the available evidence. With new evidence, it changes. Such is science.

Creationism is a conclusion that people search for evidence in hopes that they might find something that backs it up. It requires that you ignore quite a bit of evidence and that you make random assumptions that are based in nothing other than your wish to prove yourself right. This is not science.

What does that have to do with the topic?

You said:
Erm...*tears up MS degree*

I was actually restating what is in my textbook from Paleo.

You see, you can't make predictions and see how they pan out in this case. It's backwards; you have the final result, and need to figure out how it came to be.

I was merely showing how a theory can make predictions on past events. Maybe I misunderstood what you were implying?

Creationism is a conclusion that people search for evidence in hopes that they might find something that backs it up. It requires that you ignore quite a bit of evidence and that you make random assumptions that are based in nothing other than your wish to prove yourself right. This is not science.

I never said it was.

I was merely showing how a theory can make predictions on past events. Maybe I misunderstood what you were implying?

I see what you are getting at now. But my argument is a bit different than that. I'm referring to predictions as in "what will happen next."

Not, "I am in my office, so I predict I am wearing pants."