NationStates Jolt Archive

hello to all pro-creationists out there:

i dont care if u believe in creationism. thats cool. however it has no right at all to compete with evolution in public schools. why? becuase evolution is proven there is research behind it.

in science, a theory is something that has provable data behind it. creationism is not one of these. it is a facet of religion, wich is not to be taught at school, but at a place of worship or whatever.

evolution. it is based in science. there is not a scientist in the world that does not support evolution. while scienctists may argue were exactly an animal evolved, ie how it evolved, there is no question at all as to whether or not it works.

lets consider for a moment evolution isnt a theory, just an unproven hypothesis. everything biology has ever given us pretty much goes down the toilet. unfortunatley, we have used the information given to us indirectly from evolution to make things like drugs, and cure disease. creationism gives us none of this.

so, i get to my point wich is: in school, we teach things that are the best explanation of why things are. not facts, because in reality, we dont have a lot of those. the best explanation.( and i got news for u, it works. it has worked. it will continue to work and make mankind better.)
this is so kids will have a reliable foundation to build their carreers on. if we taught them creationism, it wouldnt b a lie, its just contradicts everything about everything we no. if someone wants to learn creationism, open a bible and do it. just dont tell me its a fact

I couldn't agree more.

I think you got lost on your way to one of these 30 other threads:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=266579

I liked the thread where they were trying to include evolution in religious classes because they have creationism in science classes.:)

I think you got lost on your way to one of these 30 other threads:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=266579

sry i just needed to say that. it seems people these days get science mixed up with other stuff alot

Um...quick question...what proof? What research has proven evolution anything more than a theory? If you could just provide a little bit of hard information to break down the whole creation/evoultion feud that would help alot.

Thanks. :)

I think you got lost on your way to one of these 30 other threads:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=266579

Foxxinnia, I am starting to become your # 1 fan!

You believe in evolution. Well I believe in creationism. Are you saying that your theory is any better than mine? Considering that both are theories, and there IS NO PROVE FOR EITHER. There is only relative evidence -- such as DNA comparison. However, unless someone invents a time machine, and literally backtraces the modern Homo Sapiens to monkeys, evolution will not be absolute proof.

Yes, there is separation of church and state in USA, which means there is a separation of government and religion, and yes, public schools, are government agencies. However, accoriding to one Supreme Court decision, atheism, is also a religion. I forgot the name of the decision, but I remember it was about the right to practice atheism under the 1st amendment freedom of religion. The right was ofcourse supported, and atheism thus defined legally as religion. Therefore, we are forced to learn the doctrine of one religion -- atheism, and not even mention any other major doctrines such as creationism.

To be fair, creationism should be relegated to where it belongs, in a forum where all the other mythological references are - Egyptian, Greek, whatever - in mythological studies. As much import should be placed on it there as you would any other non-vocational study, like an art (liberal or otherwise) or something where it's basically a volume of interpretation and something you can yammer about over an espresso with some other bunch of people who don't really know any better than anyone else about it.

Foxxinnia, I am starting to become your # 1 fan!I never knew I had fans. I don't think I have any fans actually. I think you are my #1 fan by default then.

hello to all pro-creationists out there:

i dont care if u believe in creationism. thats cool. however it has no right at all to compete with evolution in public schools. why? becuase evolution is proven there is research behind it.

in science, a theory is something that has provable data behind it. creationism is not one of these. it is a facet of religion, wich is not to be taught at school, but at a place of worship or whatever.

evolution. it is based in science. there is not a scientist in the world that does not support evolution. while scienctists may argue were exactly an animal evolved, ie how it evolved, there is no question at all as to whether or not it works.

lets consider for a moment evolution isnt a theory, just an unproven hypothesis. everything biology has ever given us pretty much goes down the toilet. unfortunatley, we have used the information given to us indirectly from evolution to make things like drugs, and cure disease. creationism gives us none of this.

so, i get to my point wich is: in school, we teach things that are the best explanation of why things are. not facts, because in reality, we dont have a lot of those. the best explanation.( and i got news for u, it works. it has worked. it will continue to work and make mankind better.)
this is so kids will have a reliable foundation to build their carreers on. if we taught them creationism, it wouldnt b a lie, its just contradicts everything about everything we no. if someone wants to learn creationism, open a bible and do it. just dont tell me its a fact


Why would creationism not be appropreate in something like a theology class?

Um...quick question...what proof? What research has proven evolution anything more than a theory? If you could just provide a little bit of hard information to break down the whole creation/evoultion feud that would help alot.

Thanks. :)
Okay, punch up "anophales" on google from the past year (mosquito research) and while you're at it punch up "ambulocetus natans" (transitional fossil b/tween ancient land mammals and modern whales), or maybe punch up the genetic source information regarding mtDNA from early dog remains (American/Eurasian domestic) sourcing common ancestry from Old World gray wolves (Science, Nov 22 2002)
That's for starters. You asked, the rest is up to you, grasshopper.

Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed message board, Lord Zulu Mats-Wana would certainly want you to believe that the theory of evolution is correct. And the fossil evidence, DNA evidence, and eugenic evidence make a good case. Hell, I almost believed it myself! But ladies and gentlemen of this supposed message board, I have one final thing I want you to consider: Ladies and gentlemen, this
http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/chewbacca/img/movie_bg.jpg
is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee—an eight foot tall Wookiee—want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!
But more important, you have to ask yourself, what does this have to do with the theory of evolution? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution! It does not make sense!
Look at me, I'm some guy making a post in a thread about the theory of evolution, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense!
And so you have to remember, when you're in front of that computer deliberatin' and conjugatin' the origin of reproduction... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed message board, it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you can't evolve! The defense rests.

However, unless someone invents a time machine, and literally backtraces the modern Homo Sapiens to monkeys, evolution will not be absolute proof.

And there's no way to have absolute proof of the existence of God either. What is your point? For me, personally, evolution stacks up a lot more than creationism ever will.

Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed message board, Lord Zulu Mats-Wana would certainly want you to believe that the theory of evolution is correct. And the fossil evidence, DNA evidence, and eugenic evidence make a good case. Hell, I almost believed it myself! But ladies and gentlemen of this supposed message board, I have one final thing I want you to consider: Ladies and gentlemen, this
http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/chewbacca/img/movie_bg.jpg
is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee—an eight foot tall Wookiee—want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!
But more important, you have to ask yourself, what does this have to do with the theory of evolution? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution! It does not make sense!
Look at me, I'm some guy making a post in a thread about the theory of evolution, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense!
And so you have to remember, when you're in front of that computer deliberatin' and conjugatin' the origin of reproduction... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed message board, it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you can't evolve! The defense rests.

Chewie is dead you insensitive person!

To be fair, creationism should be relegated to where it belongs, in a forum where all the other mythological references are - Egyptian, Greek, whatever - in mythological studies. As much import should be placed on it there as you would any other non-vocational study, like an art (liberal or otherwise) or something where it's basically a volume of interpretation and something you can yammer about over an espresso with some other bunch of people who don't really know any better than anyone else about it.
Well I think that evolution must be taught with mythology. Who is to say I am wrong and you are right?


As for the biology, most creationists don't doubt the existance of evolution/mutation mechanisms, we just believe that all these mechanisms were created and set forth by G-d 5-6 thousand years ago and that He made us already fully developed at that time. We also believe that He created the Universe with all its laws around that time too

You believe in evolution. Well I believe in creationism. Are you saying that your theory is any better than mine? Considering that both are theories, and there IS NO PROVE FOR EITHER. There is only relative evidence -- such as DNA comparison. However, unless someone invents a time machine, and literally backtraces the modern Homo Sapiens to monkeys, evolution will not be absolute proof.


Well, reference my quote, and further, punch up the Afar research from Ethiopia as of the first week of March THIS YEAR. The excavation was at Mille, not far from Addis Ababa. Try ardipithecus ramidus as a transitional species, as well as of course australopithecus afarensis (note the name). And if that isn't enough, to further understand the WORKING NATURE of evolution, punch up the Avida project and review that. Then do some factoring as to your interpretation of what evolution is with the new facts.
To be fair, i've never WITNESSED evolution happening on a special scale but mosquito researchers have ... and also, i'm not likely to live LONG enough to see anything other than genetic anomolies instead of full transitions, being (assumedly) human.

Well I think that evolution must be taught with mythology. Who is to say I am wrong and you are right?


As for the biology, most creationists don't doubt the existance of evolution/mutation mechanisms, we just believe that all these mechanisms were created and set forth by G-d 5-6 thousand years ago and that He made us already fully developed at that time. We also believe that He created the Universe with all its laws around that time too
Because evolution is a scientific theory ... it already has its own class ... unless you want it taught in a thologic seting as well (we wont get into being mythological that is a whole other arguement)

Well I think that evolution must be taught with mythology. Who is to say I am wrong and you are right?


As for the biology, most creationists don't doubt the existance of evolution/mutation mechanisms, we just believe that all these mechanisms were created and set forth by G-d 5-6 thousand years ago and that He made us already fully developed at that time. We also believe that He created the Universe with all its laws around that time too

... and that's the problem. You believe we've only been here for less than 10 thousand odd years - which isn't long enough for Humans to have evolved to their current state.

Well I think that evolution must be taught with mythology. Who is to say I am wrong and you are right?


As for the biology, most creationists don't doubt the existance of evolution/mutation mechanisms, we just believe that all these mechanisms were created and set forth by G-d 5-6 thousand years ago and that He made us already fully developed at that time. We also believe that He created the Universe with all its laws around that time too
Well, the PTA ends up having a lot of say, but what is their word worth? If they are responding from a conservative perspective then by that very nature they are intending to CONSERVE a value or trait versus a climate or environment that would challenge it with differing or altering perspectives. Perspectives and all that are fine & dandy unless you're talking about something requiring scientific rigmarole. As has oft been argued here, creationism CANNOT accomplish that. I've posted about that too.
I appreciate what you're saying about respecting that there must be some kind of mechanisms in place to manifest the will of god, if i understand you right .... and i note there is no contradiction to the bible in the case of evolution. Only to "interpreters" of such, given "static earth" ideology.

And there's no way to have absolute proof of the existence of God either. What is your point? For me, personally, evolution stacks up a lot more than creationism ever will.
I agree, so since there is no proof for either of the theories, why not teach both theories, and parents of a child can choose whether he takes evolution, or creation, or even both?

[snip]
it is based in science. there is not a scientist in the world that does not support evolution. while scienctists may argue were exactly an animal evolved, ie how it evolved, there is no question at all as to whether or not it works.
[snip]


There are many scientists around the world who do not support evolution. There is Pierre-Paul Grasse of the French Academy of Sciences, molecular biologist Michael Denton (Senior Research Fellow in Human Molecular Genetics at the University of Otago), molecular biologist, biochemist, and genetics researcher Dr. Periannan Senapathy, Dr. Christian Schwabe (molecular biologist and chemist), and Biochemist Michael Behe to name a few. Do you wish to deny that they are scientists? or will you admit that there are scientists in the world who do not support evolution?

I agree, so since there is no proof for either of the theories, why not teach both theories, and parents of a child can choose whether he takes evolution, or creation, or even both?
Creationism is not a SCIENTIFIC theory (note the difference between scientific theories and theories) science class is for scientific theories theology class is for theological theories ... make sense?

hello to all pro-creationists out there:

i dont care if u believe in creationism. thats cool. however it has no right at all to compete with evolution in public schools. why? becuase evolution is proven there is research behind it.

in science, a theory is something that has provable data behind it. creationism is not one of these. it is a facet of religion, wich is not to be taught at school, but at a place of worship or whatever.

evolution. it is based in science. there is not a scientist in the world that does not support evolution. while scienctists may argue were exactly an animal evolved, ie how it evolved, there is no question at all as to whether or not it works.

lets consider for a moment evolution isnt a theory, just an unproven hypothesis. everything biology has ever given us pretty much goes down the toilet. unfortunatley, we have used the information given to us indirectly from evolution to make things like drugs, and cure disease. creationism gives us none of this.

so, i get to my point wich is: in school, we teach things that are the best explanation of why things are. not facts, because in reality, we dont have a lot of those. the best explanation.( and i got news for u, it works. it has worked. it will continue to work and make mankind better.)
this is so kids will have a reliable foundation to build their carreers on. if we taught them creationism, it wouldnt b a lie, its just contradicts everything about everything we no. if someone wants to learn creationism, open a bible and do it. just dont tell me its a fact

Amen. Tell it to the people! Let them hear the truth!

I agree, so since there is no proof for either of the theories, why not teach both theories, and parents of a child can choose whether he takes evolution, or creation, or even both?

I don't have a problem with creation being taught, just not in a science class alongside evolution. Evolution is science. Creation isn't. Creation is not open to the scientific process, and thus not able to be falsified and thus not a scientific theory. It has little, if any, actual scientific basis and is purely faith-based.

So even if there is all the evidence for evolution, God could just be fooling us...

There are many scientists around the world who do not support evolution. There is Pierre-Paul Grasse of the French Academy of Sciences, molecular biologist Michael Denton (Senior Research Fellow in Human Molecular Genetics at the University of Otago), molecular biologist, biochemist, and genetics researcher Dr. Periannan Senapathy, Dr. Christian Schwabe (molecular biologist and chemist), and Biochemist Michael Behe to name a few. Do you wish to deny that they are scientists? or will you admit that there are scientists in the world who do not support evolution?

And there's Dr. Henry Morris who makes so many errors in his books, that one has to wonder how he could still hold a Ph.d... Of course, you then realize that he is an engineer and not a biologist or any such other expert…

I don't have a problem with creation being taught, just not in a science class alongside evolution. Evolution is science. Creation isn't. Creation is not open to the scientific process, and thus not able to be falsified and thus not a scientific theory. It has little, if any, actual scientific basis and is purely faith-based.

So even if there is all the evidence for evolution, God could just be fooling us...
Exactly ... in fact I think theology should be required in highschool
but that does not make creationism a science

Well, reference my quote, and further, punch up the Afar research from Ethiopia as of the first week of March THIS YEAR. The excavation was at Mille, not far from Addis Ababa. Try ardipithecus ramidus as a transitional species, as well as of course australopithecus afarensis (note the name). And if that isn't enough, to further understand the WORKING NATURE of evolution, punch up the Avida project and review that. Then do some factoring as to your interpretation of what evolution is with the new facts.
To be fair, i've never WITNESSED evolution happening on a special scale but mosquito researchers have ... and also, i'm not likely to live LONG enough to see anything other than genetic anomolies instead of full transitions, being (assumedly) human.
Ok, my last post for tonight, and then I am going to sleep.

Noone has ever witnessed monkeys evolving to humans, did they? And since it is impossible to do so, just teach both theories in schools.


As for the less than 10,000 years, again ,we believe that humans were created already fully evolved.


For example, if you play chess, you know this. SOmetimes, you don;t want to play through full games. Sometimes you want to play through a mid game situation, so you set the pieces on the board as you like, as it would be mid game, and then play. Same thing with the universe: G-d set this world at some point, already looking like it was preevolved. And the evolution kept going, although it never really started.

Ok, my last post for tonight, and then I am going to sleep.

Noone has ever witnessed monkeys evolving to humans, did they? And since it is impossible to do so, just teach both theories in schools.


As for the less than 10,000 years, again ,we believe that humans were created already fully evolved.


For example, if you play chess, you know this. SOmetimes, you don;t want to play through full games. Sometimes you want to play through a mid game situation, so you set the pieces on the board as you like, as it would be mid game, and then play. Same thing with the universe: G-d set this world at some point, already looking like it was preevolved. And the evolution kept going, although it never really started.
Again it is not a scientific theory therefore does not belong in a science class it belongs in a theology or philosophy course

... and that's the problem. You believe we've only been here for less than 10 thousand odd years - which isn't long enough for Humans to have evolved to their current state.
He's not saying humans evoled from monkeys or anything, he's saying that they were created by God. And have you even read Darwin's theory? It disproves the likelyhood of radical evolutions, like from bacteria to humans. It mostly just explains variation in related species.

He's not saying humans evoled from monkeys or anything, he's saying that they were created by God. And have you even read Darwin's theory? It disproves the likelyhood of radical evolutions, like from bacteria to humans. It mostly just explains variation in related species.
And you know darwinism is not curent evolutionary theory right? (not saying it does or does not resemble current theory in this aspect rather that disproving or using darwinism in no way reflects current theory)

I don't have a problem with creation being taught, just not in a science class alongside evolution. Evolution is science. Creation isn't. Creation is not open to the scientific process, and thus not able to be falsified and thus not a scientific theory. It has little, if any, actual scientific basis and is purely faith-based.

So even if there is all the evidence for evolution, God could just be fooling us...

OK, this is my last post. Honest. I am all ready to go to bed.
Teach it anyhow, as long as it gets equal importance, equal funding, equal everthing, and noone even hints that one theory is right over the other.

Exactly ... in fact I think theology should be required in highschool
but that does not make creationism a science

Indeed.

OK, this is my last post. Honest. I am all ready to go to bed.
Teach it anyhow, as long as it gets equal importance, equal funding, equal everthing, and noone even hints that one theory is right over the other.

You can't treat them equally if one isn't a science...

OK, this is my last post. Honest. I am all ready to go to bed.
Teach it anyhow, as long as it gets equal importance, equal funding, equal everthing, and noone even hints that one theory is right over the other.
Not in a science class science class is not about the individual theories as much as it is about science (or should be)

non scientific theories of any kind do not belong in it any more then evolution belongs in a music course

I agree, so since there is no proof for either of the theories, why not teach both theories, and parents of a child can choose whether he takes evolution, or creation, or even both?
Yea, but I think both should be taught in the same class. Evolution may be the popular theory now, but it may be disproved later on.

Not in a science class science class is not about the individual theories as much as it is about science (or should be)

non scientific theories of any kind do not belong in it any more then evolution belongs in a music course
Hallelujah! ;)

Yea, but I think both should be taught in the same class. Evolution may be the popular theory now, but it may be disproved later on.
This has nothing to do with right or wrong ... you dont put "everything that COULD be disproven in detail later in one class" that would mean just about EVERYTHING would be lumped into one gigantic class

What you do is clasify it by what it IS

Music is music wether you think it is good or not
Situps education is phisical education even if the benifits are or have been disproved
a SCIENTIFIC THEORY in a SCIENCE class (all scientific theorys CAN be proven wrong when new evidence is found)

a theological point of view in a THEOLOGY class

it just makes sence

as it is written... God created this world in 6 days...


But to God... how long is a day? 24 hours? 24 years? 24 million years?

The order seems to be right tho
according to the bible...
light and dark... earth and heaven... land and water... followed by plants... then animals (never specified what kind, for it was man who named them.) then man.

what's evolution's path...
THE BIG BANG.... planets form outta the hydrgen and other atoms... Volcanoes and vasts oceans... followed by mold/alge which evolved to plants. then animals... single cell amoebas, dinosaurs and mammals. then the first forms of man... neanderthals.

and the bible was written when? before Evolution was even considered.

sure there are scientific mistakes in the bible... but there are also alot of "exceptions" in Science.

Why not say the two can go hand in hand.
That science is Man's way of explaining God's work and Religion being the early form of science.

Hallelujah! ;)

That's my line!

Well, I'll just join the chorus. Hallelujah! Preach the Truth to them, Upward Thrust!

And you know darwinism is not curent evolutionary theory right? (not saying it does or does not resemble current theory in this aspect rather that disproving or using darwinism in no way reflects current theory)
yes, but it is still based on darwinism. Some of the research in darwin's theory goes against current evolution theory

That's my line!

Well, I'll just join the chorus. Hallelujah! Preach the Truth to them, Upward Thrust!
*takes bow* why thank you :) I thought I was going to say something wrong and take it from both sides :) that seems to happen to me lots latly

yes, but it is still based on darwinism. Some of the research in darwin's theory goes against current evolution theory
Everything has a starting point ... but they are disjoint disproving darwanism does not nessisarly disprove evolution

Ok, my last post for tonight, and then I am going to sleep.

Noone has ever witnessed monkeys evolving to humans, did they? And since it is impossible to do so, just teach both theories in schools.


As for the less than 10,000 years, again ,we believe that humans were created already fully evolved.


For example, if you play chess, you know this. SOmetimes, you don;t want to play through full games. Sometimes you want to play through a mid game situation, so you set the pieces on the board as you like, as it would be mid game, and then play. Same thing with the universe: G-d set this world at some point, already looking like it was preevolved. And the evolution kept going, although it never really started.
Consider paying more attention to the post.
I said i personally haven't witnessed it but not only is evolution based on sound principles, it has been witnessed by researchers with a mosquito, that's why i said to look it up. The Avida program utilizes the "theory" in the sense of factors and then comes up with quantifiable results in A REASONABLE TIMEFRAME FOR HUMANS TO OBSERVE. AND there is enough physical evidence now to qualify it as well. There isn't any, BY DEFINITION, to qualify teaching creationism on the same platform or frame of reference as SCIENCE because it has its own tautology about it that refuses scientific rigmarole! THAT is why UpwardThrust and myself and a few others here are pointing out that they should be relegated to different aspects of public school. Not next to each other: creationism has nothing to stand on but faith (self-delusion).
Next?

yes, but it is still based on darwinism. Some of the research in darwin's theory goes against current evolution theoryAs Robin Williams once joked...

"Ever wonder if God does drugs? look at the Platypuss and I think he does...
'ok... I'll take a beaver... slap on a duck's bill... so I got a mammal that lays eggs... Alrighty then you're outta here... HEY DARWIN! :upyours: "

That's my line!

Well, I'll just join the chorus. Hallelujah! Preach the Truth to them, Upward Thrust!
*pouts, antes up royalties*
*kicks his can all over the street*
Whoops, there i go again ...on my own.
Going down the only road i've ever known.
Like a drifter, i was born to walk alone.
Argh!
*antes up even more to Harry Fox Agency and RIAA, then sits in corner and sobs*
;)

[QUOTE=Straughn]
[snip]
creationism has nothing to stand on but faith (self-delusion).
[QUOTE]
Evolution theory also requires faith

[QUOTE=Straughn]
[snip]
creationism has nothing to stand on but faith (self-delusion).
[QUOTE]
Evolution theory also requires faith
Everything requires faith in axioms ... there is nothing that exists that you dont have to at some point take an axiom on faith

I just find religion to be a less provan and more finiky form of faith then some others

2 cents...

Darwin was on the right track, but in 20/20 hindsight his theories were full of holes. Thus we have the beauty of science: it admits its mistakes and alters itself to represent the observed facts. These state that evolution is the most likely theory for the development and origin of humans and other species. The evidence is simply overwhelming.

Secondly: Creationism doesn't belong in public schools for a lot of reasons. However, the biggest one is church and state. Yes, its been said before, but consider: a religious idea is one that is, well, based on religious ideas. Evolution is not related in any way to any religions. Creationism, on the other hand (and, for that matter, Intelligent Design), is based on the fracking BIBLE. Which is, of course, THE religious book. So there you have it: creationism has no place in public schools because it is a religious doctrine. Evolution does not.

-DRP

P.S. It is perfectly possible for an evolutionist to be religious. Darwin is an excellent example. Just because you don't think the universe was created 5765 years ago doesn't mean you can't believe in God regardless!!

non scientific theories of any kind do not belong in it any more then evolution belongs in a music course

LMAO.

*Imagines music theory being taught during a PE class.*

LMAO.

*Imagines music theory being taught during a PE class.*dance and rhythem is important for some sports...

dance and rhythem is important for some sports...
But it is sure hard to play a tuba while doing the butterfly or running the mile

But it is sure hard to play a tuba while doing the butterfly or running the mile

Or play a flute under water.

2 cents...

Darwin was on the right track, but in 20/20 hindsight his theories were full of holes. Thus we have the beauty of science: it admits its mistakes and alters itself to represent the observed facts. These state that evolution is the most likely theory for the development and origin of humans and other species. The evidence is simply overwhelming.

Secondly: Creationism doesn't belong in public schools for a lot of reasons. However, the biggest one is church and state. Yes, its been said before, but consider: a religious idea is one that is, well, based on religious ideas. Evolution is not related in any way to any religions. Creationism, on the other hand (and, for that matter, Intelligent Design), is based on the fracking BIBLE. Which is, of course, THE religious book. So there you have it: creationism has no place in public schools because it is a religious doctrine. Evolution does not.

-DRP

P.S. It is perfectly possible for an evolutionist to be religious. Darwin is an excellent example. Just because you don't think the universe was created 5765 years ago doesn't mean you can't believe in God regardless!!


The constutution only protects against state instituted religions or restrictions of right to practice ... teaching creation theories (of more then christians) does not violate that (the reason my bible as lit class was so fun)

agh, i cannot believe that there are still creationists. Creationism has no support. There is not a single sample of evidence that would suggest that Creationism is correct. If it wasn't for tradition, creationism would be dead.

Do you think that, if every person on the planet had an instant memory wipe, and every book on the planet (and text file on computer) was burned/deleted, and civilization had to completely re-start from the ground up, do you think that people would come up with creation again? Or do you think they might, jusrt maybe, use their actual KNOWLEDGE and formulate a theory based on tons and tons and loads of research that looked remarkably like our current evolution theory?

The former could happen- however, it would be extremely different. The latter case seems extremely likely- and it's logically sound. The evidence supports evolution. I think the evidence has already been posted.

P.S. Sure, evolution is just a theory. So is Einstein's special relativity. Guess what? Einstein spent years and years getting his calculations right. Guess what? They've been verified over and over again. So don't complain about how it's just a theory. Actual scientific theories, especially nowadays, turn out to be true most of the time if they have that much supporting data and almost nil against.

what's evolution's path...
THE BIG BANG.... planets form outta the hydrgen and other atoms... Volcanoes and vasts oceans... followed by mold/alge which evolved to plants. then animals... single cell amoebas, dinosaurs and mammals. then the first forms of man... neanderthals.


Er... Your facts are a little confused here.
A) The big bang isn't a part of evolution... It is a theory of its own.
B) Abiogenisis is not a part of evolution.
C) Neanderthals were NOT the first form of man. Neanderthals aren't even a ancester of modern humans, but a cousin.

The constutution only protects against state instituted religions or restrictions of right to practice ... teaching creation theories (of more then christians) does not violate that (the reason my bible as lit class was so fun)

hehe... good point. However, it could well be argued that creationism, with its definite basis in religion, is tantamount to a state-sponsored theory if it is taught in a public institution. (then again, bush seems to think he's in a theocracy anyway, so whatev; when was the last time he DIDN'T pass a law based on his religious beliefs?!)

hehe... good point. However, it could well be argued that creationism, with its definite basis in religion, is tantamount to a state-sponsored theory if it is taught in a public institution. (then again, bush seems to think he's in a theocracy anyway, so whatev; when was the last time he DIDN'T pass a law based on his religious beliefs?!)
But if other religions were given equil opertunity to put their views forward in a theology class I dont see the issue

But if other religions were given equil opertunity to put their views forward in a theology class I dont see the issue

there isn't one as long as the theology class is kept the hell away from my science course. unfortunately, we don't have a theology course at my school.

Er... Your facts are a little confused here.
A) The big bang isn't a part of evolution... It is a theory of its own.
B) Abiogenisis is not a part of evolution.
C) Neanderthals were NOT the first form of man. Neanderthals aren't even a ancester of modern humans, but a cousin. the concept is the same tho... please forgive me but i've been up too long.
A) I've included the Big Bang Theory because while not everyone belives it happened, point of the matter, the universe started somehow... or don't scientists believe that everything has a beginning?

B) you mistake my simplification for Abiogenisis... please enlighten me... where did the one-celled organisms that all other animals evolved from come from if not from the "Primordial Ooze?" and I believe that the first complex multicellular life was similar to plant matter (alge)

C) I use Neanderthals and I did state "first forms of man." but your point just pushes man's appearance back...

but for all that... the order of appearances of each evolutionary step is still in basic order with Genesis...

But it is sure hard to play a tuba while doing the butterfly or running the milebut you listen to the sounds of a basketball game... or table tennis for that matter. Boxing, wrestling, all proceed with a rhythem...and let's not forget the pacing (beat) of marathon running and other track events.

JRV stated MUSICAL THEORY not music.

the concept is the same tho... please forgive me but i've been up too long.
A) I've included the Big Bang Theory because while not everyone belives it happened, point of the matter, the universe started somehow... or don't scientists believe that everything has a beginning?

B) you mistake my simplification for Abiogenisis... please enlighten me... where did the one-celled organisms that all other animals evolved from come from if not from the "Primordial Ooze?" and I believe that the first complex multicellular life was similar to plant matter (alge)

C) I use Neanderthals and I did state "first forms of man." but your point just pushes man's appearance back...

but for all that... the order of appearances of each evolutionary step is still in basic order with Genesis...

using "evolution" in the same phrase as "Big-bang" is dangerous. Creationists love to use the other tenants of a non Young Earth Creationist system to trash evolution. Illogical.... but better not to provoke them anyway.... They cant understand that the theories are all seperate.

I'm beginning to think these discussions about "Creationism vs Evolution" are something typical American.

The way I see it... everyone who takes the bible and the stories in it as an eyewitness report or an accurate description of what really happened, needs a shrink (and a good one at that). Or is the thought that we're related to apes so terrible? Obviously it is... *shakes head*

using "evolution" in the same phrase as "Big-bang" is dangerous. Creationists love to use the other tenants of a non Young Earth Creationist system to trash evolution. Illogical.... but better not to provoke them anyway.... They cant understand that the theories are all seperate.no offense ment. just didn't want the Big Bang Theorists to feel left out.

besides... it sounded better than "the universe started HERE --->"

but you listen to the sounds of a basketball game... or table tennis for that matter. Boxing, wrestling, all proceed with a rhythem...and let's not forget the pacing (beat) of marathon running and other track events.

JRV stated MUSICAL THEORY not music.
I was being facicous

I'm beginning to think these discussions about "Creationism vs Evolution" are something typical American.

The way I see it... everyone who takes the bible and the stories in it as an eyewitness report or an accurate description of what really happened, needs a shrink (and a good one at that). Or is the thought that we're related to apes so terrible? Obviously it is... *shakes head*hey... not just American...

but it's fun to see them try and explain the fishes and loaves thing... :D

I'm beginning to think these discussions about "Creationism vs Evolution" are something typical American.

The way I see it... everyone who takes the bible and the stories in it as an eyewitness report or an accurate description of what really happened, needs a shrink (and a good one at that). Or is the thought that we're related to apes so terrible? Obviously it is... *shakes head*
Then you have not been on these forums long enough ... one of the biggest arguements is supported from a man from england on here hardly a purly american thing

I was being facicous I know... I just love STOMP tho...

finding rythim in everyday activity is fun... :D

Didn't mean to offend. :)

and if I was really serious... I would've brought up... *Gasp* Marching Bands!

the concept is the same tho... please forgive me but i've been up too long.
A) I've included the Big Bang Theory because while not everyone belives it happened, point of the matter, the universe started somehow... or don't scientists believe that everything has a beginning?
B) you mistake my simplification for Abiogenisis... please enlighten me... where did the one-celled organisms that all other animals evolved from come from if not from the "Primordial Ooze?" and I believe that the first complex multicellular life was similar to plant matter (alge)

Plants are far away from the most primitive lifeforms. The first lifeforms were probably anaerobic, prokaryotic (no nucleus), single-celled lifeforms that probably lived at pretty hot places. Check out this regarding the common ancestor of all lifeforms. (Link) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PhylogeneticTree.jpg)


C) I use Neanderthals and I did state "first forms of man." but your point just pushes man's appearance back...

Neanderthals are far away from from "first forms of man". Ardipithecus ramidus or Australopithecus africanus would be better examples.


but for all that... the order of appearances of each evolutionary step is still in basic order with Genesis...

Heh, to your information, it's not.
Plants are created before animals according to Genesis. However, how could flowering plants survive without insects? And also, the plants are created before the sun. Where would the light have come from if not from the sun. Also, birds are created before land animals (on which most of them prey). How could they survive without food?
That's pretty inconsistent with the world we see, and i regard it as pretty idiotic to take Genesis literally.

I know... I just love STOMP tho...

finding rythim in everyday activity is fun... :D

Didn't mean to offend. :)

and if I was really serious... I would've brought up... *Gasp* Marching Bands!
You dont have to remind me ... I martched for 5 years in a highschool marching band and put 2 years in in a drum corps (phantom) ;)

but you listen to the sounds of a basketball game... or table tennis for that matter. Boxing, wrestling, all proceed with a rhythem...and let's not forget the pacing (beat) of marathon running and other track events.

JRV stated MUSICAL THEORY not music.

I don't care... I'm tired. lol

er, 5 years of hischool march?

i'm tempted to say super-senior

er, 5 years of hischool march?

i'm tempted to say super-senior
At least in minnesota you can join the summer before you are in 9th grade and go through the summer after graduation (that is the range of "highschool" marching band) actualy some can now move back to start of 7th grade year but not ours

Teach it anyhow, as long as it gets equal importance, equal funding, equal everthing, and noone even hints that one theory is right over the other.

This is fine with me if you also give equal importance and funding to my equally unfounded belief that the universe was imagined into existence by a flying unicorn at this exact moment and the entire past is an illusion.

Also, you must give equal funding and importance to the native american belief that the world rests on a flying turtle.

And you must give equal funding and importance to my friend's belief that invisible pink psychic tigers are simply creating the illusion that there is evidence for evolution when actually humanity is the result of the mating between a cosmic pillow and a cosmic table lamp.

Do you see now why you can't give a belief that has no scientific basis the same importance and funding in science class as one that does?


As an aside, the theory of evolution does not deny the possibility that god created a universe that simply appears to be the result of an evolution that never occured, and planted all of the evidence. But the thing is, that in terms of the usefulness of the concept of evolution in forwarding scientific knowlededge and our understanding of how our world works, it makes absolutely no difference which we assume. Both lead to the same result.

There is evidence that evolution occured (read Straugh's posts). This thread's argument is not actually between evolution and creationism, since they are not actually at odds. Let me repeat that: evolution is not at odds with creationism. This is only an argument over whether god had a hand in evolution, and that debate has no place in a science class. Those who believe in god and those who don't must all somehow integrate the facts of evolution into their belief structures, which you yourself have already done.

This is fine with me if you also give equal importance and funding to my equally unfounded belief that the universe was imagined into existence by a flying unicorn at this exact moment and the entire past is an illusion.

Also, you must give equal funding and importance to the native american belief that the world rests on a flying turtle.

And you must give equal funding and importance to my friend's belief that invisible pink psychic tigers are simply creating the illusion that there is evidence for evolution when actually humanity is the result of the mating between a cosmic pillow and a cosmic table lamp.

Do you see now why you can't give a belief that has no scientific basis the same importance and funding in science class as one that does?


As an aside, the theory of evolution does not deny the possibility that god created a universe that simply appears to be the result of an evolution that never occured, and planted all of the evidence. But the thing is, that in terms of the usefulness of the concept of evolution in forwarding scientific knowlededge and our understanding of how our world works, it makes absolutely no difference which we assume. Both lead to the same result.

There is evidence that evolution occured (read Straugh's posts). This thread's argument is not actually between evolution and creationism, since they are not actually at odds. Let me repeat that: evolution is not at odds with creationism. This is only an argument over whether god had a hand in evolution, and that debate has no place in a science class. Those who believe in god and those who don't must all somehow integrate the facts of evolution into their belief structures, which you yourself have already done.


Sorry but CREATIONISM IS AT DIRECT ODDS ... (note CREATIONISM)



cre·a·tion·ism Audio pronunciation of "creationism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kr-sh-nzm)
n.

Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.


Creationism is the DIRECT translation (including the 6000 year age of the world and all)

Let me repeat that: evolution is not at odds with creationism. This is only an argument over whether god had a hand in evolution, and that debate has no place in a science class. Those who believe in god and those who don't must all somehow integrate the facts of evolution into their belief structures, which you yourself have already done.

Well, i have to disagree. Depending on what kind of Creationism you believe in, it sure is at odds - like if you are a Young Earth Creationist, a Day-Age-Creationist, or if you prefer Intelligent Design, they all are inconsistent with Evolution (and science in general!) in varying degrees. Then finally there is that "Evolutionary Creationism" variant prefered by the Catholic Church, but curiously is not accepted as Creationism at all by the previously mentioned groups. :D

And again, i have to re-iterate that the scientific point of view is prettymuch straight-forward compared to all that schizophrenia.

Plants are far away from the most primitive lifeforms. The first lifeforms were probably anaerobic, prokaryotic (no nucleus), single-celled lifeforms that probably lived at pretty hot places. Check out this regarding the common ancestor of all lifeforms. (Link) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PhylogeneticTree.jpg) I believe i Stated "COMPLEXT MULTI CELLULAR"Neanderthals are far away from from "first forms of man". Ardipithecus ramidus or Australopithecus africanus would be better examples.again, the agument was that Neanderthals were not man.... I said ok but that agument only pushes man's appearance back... either way, man started his evolution near the end.
Heh, to your information, it's not.
Plants are created before animals according to Genesis. However, how could flowering plants survive without insects? There are plants that are self-pollenizing... there are others that require heat to release their seeds... or the wind and even water... alge is a plant as well as seaweed... don't see bee's being needed for them. And also, the plants are created before the sun. Where would the light have come from if not from the sun. what did he create on the first day??? LIGHT and DARK... he separated them into DAY and NIGHT. now if you're taking Genesis Literally (see your last quote) I'll assume you're next question would be "but how can there be day without a sun?" and my reply is "are you taking Genesis Literally?" I'm not... just pointing out that a book written centuries ago bears alot of similarites to many scientific theories/fact being discovered today. Also, birds are created before land animals (on which most of them prey). How could they survive without food?hey guess what... you know that "Proof that God doesn't exsist" thread... what did they mention... oh yeah... DINOSUARS! scientists have discovered that most DINOSAURS are more related to... *Gasp!* Birds...
That's pretty inconsistent with the world we see, and i regard it as pretty idiotic to take Genesis literally. I also think it's idiotic to take Genesis literally... but i'm not the one saying that God created the world in 144 hours. :rolleyes: but think about the similaries in the order of evolution and the order "God" created the world.

Well, i have to disagree. Depending on what kind of Creationism you believe in, it sure is at odds - like if you are a Young Earth Creationist, a Day-Age-Creationist, or if you prefer Intelligent Design, they all are inconsistent with Evolution (and science in general!) in varying degrees. Then finally there is that "Evolutionary Creationism" variant prefered by the Catholic Church, but curiously is not accepted as Creationism at all by the previously mentioned groups. :D

And again, i have to re-iterate that the scientific point of view is prettymuch straight-forward compared to all that schizophrenia.well like every scientific theory proven to be fact... there are always exceptions to the rule... :rolleyes:

Dinosaurs, eh Junii? Good that you bring them up here. Have you ever heard about Microraptor? (again, link) (http://online.sfsu.edu/~uy/AnimDiv/lab/Lab9/microraptor.jpg)

Amazing little guy, isn't it? ;)

Anyways, good to see that we largely agree. :p

well like every scientific theory proven to be fact... there are always exceptions to the rule... :rolleyes:
By deffinition they are always open to modification ... they are NEVER in a form where new data cant change them to more fit reality

One of the bigest strengths of science

Sorry but CREATIONISM IS AT DIRECT ODDS ... (note CREATIONISM)




Creationism is the DIRECT translation (including the 6000 year age of the world and all)

But since there is demonstrable evidence for evolution, the evidence for it must have been planted at some point in the creation described in the bible. The facts of evolution do not preclude that creation could have happened the way the bible describes it. Therefore, not at odds. They are able to easily live together in peace.

Well, i have to disagree. Depending on what kind of Creationism you believe in, it sure is at odds - like if you are a Young Earth Creationist, a Day-Age-Creationist, or if you prefer Intelligent Design, they all are inconsistent with Evolution (and science in general!) in varying degrees. Then finally there is that "Evolutionary Creationism" variant prefered by the Catholic Church, but curiously is not accepted as Creationism at all by the previously mentioned groups. :D

And again, i have to re-iterate that the scientific point of view is prettymuch straight-forward compared to all that schizophrenia.

Sorry, perhaps I was giving creationists too much credit in assuming that they would at least accept scientific fact, but I doubt that. Any form of creationism that lives in reality must somehow account for all of the documented evidence of evolution, and therefore assume that the creator planted the evidence for evolution while it created the world in 6 days 6000 years ago or whatever.

Dinosaurs, eh Junii? Good that you bring them up here. Have you ever heard about Microraptor? (again, link) (http://online.sfsu.edu/~uy/AnimDiv/lab/Lab9/microraptor.jpg)

Amazing little guy, isn't it? ;)

Anyways, good to see that we largely agree. :pI like this story (http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/dinobird/story.htm) myself...

By deffinition they are always open to modification ... they are NEVER in a form where new data cant change them to more fit reality

One of the bigest strengths of scienceand it's biggest weakness...

I like this story (http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/dinobird/story.htm) myself...

Nice story, i like it. Thanks for the link. :fluffle:

Nice story, i like it. Thanks for the link. :fluffle:
so... are you a sticktly Evolution train of thought or do you think that there might be some truth hidden in the bible?

and it's biggest weakness...
:confused:

But since there is demonstrable evidence for evolution, the evidence for it must have been planted at some point in the creation described in the bible. The facts of evolution do not preclude that creation could have happened the way the bible describes it. Therefore, not at odds. They are able to easily live together in peace.

There is almost literally NO reason to think that it is more likely that the evolution evidence was planted... Occam's razor takes care of this.

[QUOTE=Straughn]
[snip]
creationism has nothing to stand on but faith (self-delusion).
[QUOTE]
Evolution theory also requires faith
Any postulation requires wherewithal in order to PROVE it
Any postulation that can't hold up to the wherewithal of SCIENTIFIC RIGMAROLE, with evidence and predictability (see Avida again or a number of other posts here) thus has NOTHING TO STAND ON BUT FAITH.
That is where you sit with the creationism stance. That is where it differs SCIENTIFICALLY.
Evolution itself DOES NOT STAND ALONE IN FAITH.
Do you understand now?

People do not realise that the creation story is actually around 4 stories in itself. Look at the origin of the text and you will see what I am on about. I will elaborate at a later time, but a large amount of the bible has the old stories from prevous cultures within it, in order to make it more accessable.

so... are you a sticktly Evolution train of thought or do you think that there might be some truth hidden in the bible?

Technically, yes I think there is some truth hidden in it, but i seriously think it shouldn't be taken literally. Let me explain:
To my knowledge, the Creation story from the Bible was written circa 2500 years ago during the time of Babylonian captivity. In the captivity, the Jews were surrounded with pagans which (amongst other things) were worshipping sun and the moon as gods. So the message of the Creation story was directed towards these pagans: "Look, you are worshipping sun and moon, our God created sun and moon."

Similary, i think that the Deluge story is based on the memory of a catastrophic flooding event that occured at the Black Sea in the 8th millennium BC.

Note: I know that certain Christian fundamentalists will try to kill for me for this, but i don't care at all. This is what i believe. :p

[QUOTE=Stingraydude][QUOTE=Straughn]
[snip]
creationism has nothing to stand on but faith (self-delusion).

Everything requires faith in axioms ... there is nothing that exists that you dont have to at some point take an axiom on faith


Thank you. *bows*
Further, finding the PROOF of ANYTHING requires that rigmarole, from the axiom to the conclusion .... having faith alone does nothing, proves nothing, stands AS nothing other than a form of self-delusion. And by not continuing to the CONCLUSION, creationism simply cannot be relied on as anything other than (self)-delusion. Relied upon. By not supplementing WITH PROOF, it is therefore only as i said, (self)-delusion.
Again not to be on same footage as anything of a scientific nature. Should be in the arena of other mythos.

:confused:how many Scientific 'Facts' are proven... false.
How many more will be proven false...

again... for every rule there is the exception.

although I used that argument to mean that not all "Christians" take the bible as a history book.

i couldn't agree more with the original poster, and i laugh at people who disagree. for those of you who do disagree, goto wikipedia and search up science, then read about what science is based on *scientific method*. it then becomes clear that creationism has no place in a science lesson.

creationism also has many problems with it that are unfixable, like it states the world is 4000 - 6000 years old, which has been prooven wrong, the others arent needed at this point because that one is damning enough :)

This is fine with me if you also give equal importance and funding to my equally unfounded belief that the universe was imagined into existence by a flying unicorn at this exact moment and the entire past is an illusion.

Also, you must give equal funding and importance to the native american belief that the world rests on a flying turtle.

And you must give equal funding and importance to my friend's belief that invisible pink psychic tigers are simply creating the illusion that there is evidence for evolution when actually humanity is the result of the mating between a cosmic pillow and a cosmic table lamp.

Do you see now why you can't give a belief that has no scientific basis the same importance and funding in science class as one that does?


As an aside, the theory of evolution does not deny the possibility that god created a universe that simply appears to be the result of an evolution that never occured, and planted all of the evidence. But the thing is, that in terms of the usefulness of the concept of evolution in forwarding scientific knowlededge and our understanding of how our world works, it makes absolutely no difference which we assume. Both lead to the same result.

There is evidence that evolution occured (read Straugh's posts). This thread's argument is not actually between evolution and creationism, since they are not actually at odds. Let me repeat that: evolution is not at odds with creationism. This is only an argument over whether god had a hand in evolution, and that debate has no place in a science class. Those who believe in god and those who don't must all somehow integrate the facts of evolution into their belief structures, which you yourself have already done.
Good post, even though i was mentioned in it. *bows, slinks off*

Technically, yes I think there is some truth hidden in it, but i seriously think it shouldn't be taken literally. Let me explain:
To my knowledge, the Creation story from the Bible was written circa 2500 years ago during the time of Babylonian captivity. In the captivity, the Jews were surrounded with pagans which (amongst other things) were worshipping sun and the moon as gods. So the message of the Creation story was directed towards these pagans: "Look, you are worshipping sun and moon, our God created sun and moon."

Similary, i think that the Deluge story is based on the memory of a catastrophic flooding event that occured at the Black Sea in the 8th millennium BC.

Note: I know that certain Christian fundamentalists will try to kill for me for this, but i don't care at all. This is what i believe. :p Let me know... I'll hide you... :D

the Bible has so much inside that science is only starting to unravel. to take the bible literally like a history book is foolish. but to discount the Bible as rubbish is also foolish.

how many Scientific 'Facts' are proven... false.
Countless.
How many more will be proven false...
Plenty.

I don't see this as any kind of "weakness". When working within the frame of empirical logic, one cannot simply blindly follow something without evidence and credence. The beauty of science is that it is self-correcting. One of the foundations of scientific thought is that once a theory or hypothesis has been proven by something, endless experiments must follow in order to find any holes. From this, we can get a much better understanding of not only the world we live in, but ourselves.

i couldn't agree more with the original poster, and i laugh at people who disagree. for those of you who do disagree, goto wikipedia and search up science, then read about what science is based on *scientific method*. it then becomes clear that creationism has no place in a science lesson.

creationism also has many problems with it that are unfixable, like it states the world is 4000 - 6000 years old, which has been prooven wrong, the others arent needed at this point because that one is damning enough :)hey... here's one who takes the Bible Literally... here a book written thousands of years ago is suppose to know carbon dating... here's a counter agument...
The Titanic was built by engineers and other professionals and experts in the craft... the Ark was built by an old man and his family.

:D

PS...this is not meant as a "jab" but a point that alot of people, not just creationists, take the bible literally... in fact, it's mostly the scientific community that takes the 'Good book' literally.

Countless.

Plenty.

I don't see this as any kind of "weakness". When working within the frame of empirical logic, one cannot simply blindly follow something without evidence and credence. The beauty of science is that it is self-correcting. One of the foundations of scientific thought is that once a theory or hypothesis has been proven by something, endless experiments must follow in order to find any holes. From this, we can get a much better understanding of not only the world we live in, but ourselves.
Hallelujah!
*bows*

Countless.

Plenty.

I don't see this as any kind of "weakness". When working within the frame of empirical logic, one cannot simply blindly follow something without evidence and credence. The beauty of science is that it is self-correcting. One of the foundations of scientific thought is that once a theory or hypothesis has been proven by something, endless experiments must follow in order to find any holes. From this, we can get a much better understanding of not only the world we live in, but ourselves.but many were 'proven true' until proven wrong. baising your life philosophy (as most hard core scientists do) on something so shifty is not the safest thing to do...

it's like building your house upon sand... hmmmm :)

again. the original point was the similarity in the creationism itinerary quoted in the bible and the Evolution path qouted by the scientific community... can you explain how simple people back then knew that birds were created before the land animals when only now our scientists are finding out that the Dinosaurs are more like birds than reptiles? how bout that plants were created before then... alge is considered the simplist of complex multi-celled organisms. or that man was created last. why make man last... wouldn't it suit the human EGO to place man near the beginning since he was suppose to have all dominion over the earth?

when you don't take the bible literally, it becomes mythological. when your allowed/to bend the rules of a religion it's no longer a religion or you are no longer a follower. i think the fact their is more than one type of christainity pretty much speaks for itself.

JuNii, maybe you should look up what these *simple* people actually knew. they weren't so simple at all. infact most technology through the ages was actually being *rediscovered* and was already known of by these *simple* people.

when you don't take the bible literally, it becomes mythological. when your allowed/to bend the rules of a religion it's no longer a religion or you are no longer a follower. i think the fact their is more than one type of christainity pretty much speaks for itself.
Excellent post. You rock!
*bows*

JuNii, maybe you should look up what these *simple* people actually knew. they weren't so simple at all. infact most technology through the ages was actually being *rediscovered* and was already known of by these *simple* people.

Pfff, only after the fall of Rome until the end of the Renaissance. That's roughly 1,000 years. And don't forget about the many technological advances the Chinese made during that period.

when you don't take the bible literally, it becomes mythological. when your allowed/to bend the rules of a religion it's no longer a religion or you are no longer a follower. i think the fact their is more than one type of christainity pretty much speaks for itself.Look through your state law books. there are tons of laws people ignore... why are they not taking them seriously... for example there is a law in Hawaii that states "Both hands must be on the handlebars of your bike." yet there is another law that states "You must alway use hand signals when turning" WTF... look through your state law books and you'll see alot of laws in place that have not been revoked.

if you're not taking the law literally, then by your points, that makes it all myths.

and let's take the Constitution literally... thank you for proving that there is no Separation of Church and State. :D

It's not written in the Constitution nor in any Admendments in the Bill of Rights. It's mentioned as a "Footnote" that it was "written in a letter to a Pastor."

what... Don't take the Constitution or the Bill of Rights Literally... the documents that America was founded on and the foundation of her laws... myth??? yeah right...

but many were 'proven true' until proven wrong. baising your life philosophy (as most hard core scientists do) on something so shifty is not the safest thing to do...
Lol! Yes that's right, "hard-core" scientists have met their deaths by empirically testing all aspects of life. Damn them, they should have just believed!

Science is not a religion. If somebody asks what guides your life or what you use to base your morality on VERY few people are going to answer "science". You can't compare the two. Religion is a belief, science is a system of analysis.

Lol! Yes that's right, "hard-core" scientists have met their deaths by empirically testing all aspects of life. Damn them, they should have just believed!

Science is not a religion. If somebody asks what guides your life or what you use to base your morality on VERY few people are going to answer "science". You can't compare the two. Religion is a belief, science is a system of analysis.exactly! Religion and Science can co-exsist... however there are those who say it cannot. there are those that say "if it cannot be proven, it doesn't exsist."

"Prove God's exsistance..."

Being Religious isn't the same as rejecting science. Granted there are Religions out there that do, but on the same side, there are scientists who simply won't have faith.

Faith cannot be proven... only experienced.

Look through your state law books. there are tons of laws people ignore... why are they not taking them seriously... for example there is a law in Hawaii that states "Both hands must be on the handlebars of your bike." yet there is another law that states "You must alway use hand signals when turning" WTF... look through your state law books and you'll see alot of laws in place that have not been revoked.

if you're not taking the law literally, then by your points, that makes it all myths.

and let's take the Constitution literally... thank you for proving that there is no Separation of Church and State. :D

It's not written in the Constitution nor in any Admendments in the Bill of Rights. It's mentioned as a "Footnote" that it was "written in a letter to a Pastor."

what... Don't take the Constitution or the Bill of Rights Literally... the documents that America was founded on and the foundation of her laws... myth??? yeah right...

I'm going to ignore that silly argument about the Constitution.

What I do not understand about your posts, JuNii, is this: if you do not take the Bible literally, why do you support teaching creationism?

In the Arkansas cases that led to the holding that creationism could not be taught alonside evolution, the plaintiffs included scientists (including many devoutly Christian scientists) and most major religious organizations. Half the expert witnesses were theologians. Much of the point was that evolution was not inconsistent with religious beliefs. Only a narrow scope of religious belief cannot be reconciled with evolution.

You must not support Creation Science, as it assumes a very narrow, literal reading of the Bible that most major Christian sects reject. Unlike evolution, Creation Science cannot be reconciled with most major religions.

exactly! Religion and Science can co-exsist... however there are those who say it cannot. there are those that say "if it cannot be proven, it doesn't exsist."

"Prove God's exsistance..."

Being Religious isn't the same as rejecting science. Granted there are Religions out there that do, but on the same side, there are scientists who simply won't have faith.

Faith cannot be proven... only experienced.

Fine. Agreed. Why teach creationism? It is a specific religious belief that is inconsistent with many religions. Evolution isn't. It can co-exist with religion.

Fine. Agreed. Why teach creationism? It is a specific religious belief that is inconsistent with many religions. Evolution isn't. It can co-exist with religion. because religion teaches how to live... as Religion is pushed aside, the moral code is weakened. Centuries ago, the Word HELL was considered the pinnical of profanity... now children in elementary schools are saying words that are even worse... reveling in the shock that it causes.

Decades ago, the thought of a child holding a weapon and killing someone was only in nightmares... now there is yet another school shooting spree committed by a student.

Decades ago, Humans acted like humans... nowdays, they use the exscuse "animals do it why can't we?"

Decades ago. people could walk the parks of cities at night without fear...

Decades ago... if someone screamed for help, people would rush out to help.

Can you imagine a world where people will share their homes with the homeless without fear of harm? Where parents won't have to worry that their children won't take drugs or do anything illegal because the children know right from wrong? where scientific discoveries are done responsibliy and the scientist knows that the people who use their discoveries will use them to benifit all of man?

Religion (again all religion) can teach that. instead of squashing Religion... it should be held up. If one Religion should fall... then let it... it was tried and it failed. The Government should not favor one Religion but niether should it ignore Religion in Total.

because religion teaches how to live... as Religion is pushed aside, the moral code is weakened. Centuries ago, the Word HELL was considered the pinnical of profanity... now children in elementary schools are saying words that are even worse... reveling in the shock that it causes.

Decades ago, the thought of a child holding a weapon and killing someone was only in nightmares... now there is yet another school shooting spree committed by a student.

Can you imagine a world where people will share their homes with the homeless without fear of harm? Where parents won't have to worry that their children won't take drugs or do anything illegal because the children know right from wrong? where scientific discoveries are done responsibliy and the scientist knows that the people who use their discoveries will use them to benifit all of man?

Religion (again all religion) can teach that. instead of squashing Religion... it should be held up. If one Religion should fall... then let it... it was tried and it failed. The Government should not favor one Religion but niether should it ignore Religion in Total.

So you would actively teach "Religion" in schools. Not comparitive religion. But religious beliefs.

And how to you teach "all religion" without favoring one?

Fine. Agreed. Why teach creationism? It is a specific religious belief that is inconsistent with many religions. Evolution isn't. It can co-exist with religion.

I think they want to teach Creationism because certain Christian fundamentalists feel offended by Evolution. Because of that they began cooking up their Creation 'Science'. But think about it. Why deceive people with pseudoscience to encourage faith? That's rather-counterproductive, IMHO. I think that this in fact deters people from being Christians, at least scientists and intellectual people. Anybody agrees?

Religion (again all religion) can teach that. instead of squashing Religion... it should be held up. If one Religion should fall... then let it... it was tried and it failed. The Government should not favor one Religion but niether should it ignore Religion in Total.
I completely agree with you! Religion should be taught, not in a science class, because it doesn't belong there, but in a theology class. No one religion should be given any special treatment over the other.

Can you imagine a world where people will share their homes with the homeless without fear of harm? Where parents won't have to worry that their children won't take drugs or do anything illegal because the children know right from wrong? where scientific discoveries are done responsibliy and the scientist knows that the people who use their discoveries will use them to benifit all of man?
Your ideals are noble, but a little utopian (you're not a commie are you? :D )

So you would actively teach "Religion" in schools. Not comparitive religion. But religious beliefs.

And how to you teach "all religion" without favoring one?in a perfect world... each religion would be a separate class.

and each would be an elective course taught by it's respective leader. IE. Priest, Rabi, Clergy...

I completely agree with you! Religion should be taught, not in a science class, because it doesn't belong there, but in a theology class. No one religion should be given any special treatment over the other.


Your ideals are noble, but a little utopian (you're not a commie are you? :D )nah... I'm a Stupid Lil Dreamer... :D
everyone dreams of an Eden... and while the exact dream may be impossible... I remember a time when cars can be left unlocked and no one would do anything about it.

I think they want to teach Creationism because certain Christian fundamentalists feel offended by Evolution. Because of that they began cooking up their Creation 'Science'. But think about it. Why deceive people with pseudoscience to encourage faith? That's rather-counterproductive, IMHO. I think that this in fact deters people from being Christians, at least scientists and intellectual people. Anybody agrees?Hehehe... can you imagine that argument... I don't wanna learn that because it's against my religion?

the sad thing is that while it would work for Athiest, Agnostics, and other religions... Christians would be laughed at and ignored...

And how to you teach "all religion" without favoring one?
I think that's a pretty easy one to answer. Put in place strict guidelines on what can and cannot be taught. That way, even a priest would be forced to give only a small percent of his time talking about his specific religion, and he would be required not to place a degree of favouritism.

Decades ago, Humans acted like humans... nowdays, they use the exscuse "animals do it why can't we?"


That argument is nonsense. Consider this, immorality amongst humans existed long before scientists discovered the principles of evolution.
Likewise, i could otherwise argument the other way round "No wonder people treat each other like dirt if they are being taught they were created from dirt." and make Christianity responsible for imorality, but i don't do that. :p

That argument is nonsense. Consider this, immorality amongst humans existed long before scientists discovered the principles of evolution.
Likewise, i could otherwise argument the other way round: "No wonder people treat each other like dirt if they are being taught they were created from dirt." :ppsst... look at most of the homosexuality threads... some people put that forward as arguments... :D

"Homosexuality exsists in the animal kingdom, so why is it wrong for humans..."

psst... look at most of the homosexuality threads... some people put that forward as arguments... :D

"Homosexuality exsists in the animal kingdom, so why is it wrong for humans..."

Ummm... to be honest, i never looked at the homosexuality threads, really. And that it would exist in the animal kingdom would be new to me. :confused:

I always thought of homosexuality as something very unnatural.
Anyways, i don't want this to become a thread about that topic. :headbang:

Decades ago, Humans acted like humans
Nope. Humans always have and always will act like animals. The question is what KIND of animal do we choose to act like? A destructive, horrific beast, or a caring and giving creature? Sadly, humanity's history is littered with examples of the former.

EDIT: DAMMIT! FORMER!

Ummm... to be honest, i never looked at the homosexuality threads, really. And that it would exist in the animal kingdom would be new to me. :confused:

I always thought of homosexuality as something very unnatural.
Anyways, i don't want this to become a thread about that topic. :headbang:Agreed... [setting ingore sheilds for that topic]

Nope. Humans always have and always will act like animals. The question is what KIND of animal do we choose to act like? A destructive, horrific beast, or a caring and giving creature? Sadly, humanity's history is littered with examples of the latter.Sadly, the only caring and giving you see are parents or within family units. (tribes, pride etc.) but I've always believed that Humans are suppose tob e above all of that.

and I've been proven wrong too many times... :(

I always thought of homosexuality as something very unnatural.
It's not.

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

Um...quick question...what proof? What research has proven evolution anything more than a theory? If you could just provide a little bit of hard information to break down the whole creation/evoultion feud that would help alot.

Thanks. :) This has probably been said before, but a theory is a hypothesis with proof behind it - therefore, as a theory, it has to have proof by definition.

A destructive, horrific beast, or a caring and giving creature? Sadly, humanity's history is littered with examples of the latter. Er… I think that came out wrong!

Yes yes and yes, I couldn't agree more. It causes far to much problems in the world, there are too many dif religions to accomodate a few.