NationStates Jolt Archive

how do you know? you didn't watch it
Link please.

OH! That hurt! If you really think that then just pour it out!
You're not a native english speaker, are you?

No, they didn't. You've been lied to. Also soft tissue almost never fossilizes. Even if humans and dinosaurs did live at the same time, and they didn't, finding something like that would be damn near impossible. Well then I guess it is just so damn close to impossible that it happened

Well then I guess it is just so damn close to impossible that it happened
No it did not … I have found no evidence of your claims
I have a feeling you are making it up

You're not a native english speaker, are you? I'm from america if that's what you mean. I was born in Maryland and moved from there so I do know ENGLISH!

Realy??? wheres your evidence because every Biologist I've talked to has said that the Theory of the Evolution of Man has been thuroughly disproven (and yes I have talked with a large number of Biologists in both the US and arround the world. My father is one of the premier Ornithologists in the US and I have attended many of the conferences he has) it has very little evidence to support it and most of what has been found has been proven fraudulent, causing even more doubt as to the validity of the theory.
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

Well then I guess it is just so damn close to impossible that it happened
Dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago.

Humans appeared in their current form about 20,000 years ago.

There's a mountain of evidence and many studies to confirm this. It's incontrivertible.

Humans and dinosaurs did not co-exist.

Well you don't know who I am!
I am getting a better feeling all the time
You dont know who I am but you made claims as to my knoledge of the bible

Well then I guess it is just so damn close to impossible that it happened
You really should try to give some references, no one is going to belive random comments like that. Especially since no one but you has heard anything about it.

Dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago.

Humans appeared in their current form about 20,000 years ago.

There's a mountain of evidence and many studies to confirm this. It's incontrivertible.

Humans and dinosaurs did not co-exist. Well then how do YOU know that?

Well you don't know who I am and what I do for a 12 year old. SO if I were you I wouldn't be jumping to conclusions
Sorry. I didn't know you were 12. I thought I was arguing with an adult. If I knew you were 12 I wouldn't have been such a wise ass.

Well then I guess it is just so damn close to impossible that it happened
Show me a link to a reputable site. Then I'll beleive you. Something that important would be all over newspapers, TV, and internet.

Well then how do YOU know that?
Facts
You dont even have the bible to support your viewpoint

Dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago.

Humans appeared in their current form about 20,000 years ago.

There's a mountain of evidence and many studies to confirm this. It's incontrivertible.

Humans and dinosaurs did not co-exist.
You never watched Jurassic Park did you? It's a documentary on humans coexisting with dinosaurs. ;)

Sorry. I didn't know you were 12. I thought I was arguing with an adult. If I knew you were 12 I wouldn't have been such a wise ass. YOu thought that I was a adult? It's okay. I just want to get out what I know.

Dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago.

Humans appeared in their current form about 20,000 years ago.

There's a mountain of evidence and many studies to confirm this. It's incontrivertible.

Humans and dinosaurs did not co-exist.
Then how do you explain the Flintstones?

So, is this basically a stubborn debate of "I'm right, you're wrong." Where we are only talking and nobody is listening? I just read through most of the "debate" and didn't find a single person who I would stand along side and support. Those who are speaking from a Christian perspective are not being Christ-like in their words and motives, and I, as a Christian apologize for that.
I think some very good points have been made. There are inconsistencies on both sides of this debate so far. And it probably has a lot to do with people regurgitating information that they don't have a clear understanding of. And so, it boils down to a butting of heads. It does make a reasonable ammount of sense that creation, not being scientifically based, not be taught in a classroom. But at the same time, I would prefer that creation be taught in the schools. I don't see that happening though. I do plan on homeschooling my children, because I think the school system is very choked with restrictions. My children will learn about the evolutionist theory, as a theory. There is no sense in sending my child into the world as a naive little thing. But I will also teach creation. And we will discuss the two. Or more options. But, yes, my teaching will be bible based, and in that, my child will learn that the bible is the standard for truth. Everything else will be measured against it. I can't expect though that the agnostic, athiest, muslim, and other population will be gung-ho about a system like that in our schools. And, so, I have a choice, and I'm going to exercise that.

Facts
You dont even have the bible to support your viewpoint No but I have my family to support it since they think it to!

No but I have my family to support it since they think it to!
Emotional support ... which has nothing to do with reality

If I may say... Good Lord....

When I started reading all the posts for this thread, it had 9 pages... by the time I finished, it had 16!

I appreciate that lots of people have opinions on this issue, and in putting forward my opinion I intend to be as objective as I can... and yes, I understand that statement is paradoxical, but hey, what can you do. Put it this way, I'll try and articulate my arguments such that as few toes are stepped on as possible, hmm? Right.

First of all, I believe that apart from a few select liberalist scientists and a few nutjob theories here and there, science and religion will NEVER, EVER coexist in a completely peaceful state. It is nigh on impossible, given that religion will very nearly always be speculation, and many scientific theories will have been proven in one way or another. Once we can accept that, we move on.

I could comment on the 'separation of school and state issue', but not being an American, I feel a little unqualified. However, on education as a whole, I feel that religion in any form should not be taught at school. I am a practising Anglican (Aussie version of Episcopal), so don't think I'm anti-religion at all. I just don't think any doctrine should be forced into a generation. I think religion is something that if people are prepared to find it for themselves, it should be something they should do in their own time, and during which time they feel most comfortable. In one of the early posts, Selestyna wrote: 'The Bible, or any religous text, is open to interpretation.' First and foremost, the BIBLE IS NOT LAW. For most Christians, the Bible is simply a guide for living a life that is acceptable in the eyes of the Lord. I have had many confrontations with diehard fundamentalists who have cursed me for 'associating with homosexuals' - I am not one, but I don't believe they should be banished from society; I believe they are people first off: what they do behind closed doors is their own business. I digress: Fundies also argue with me for being a science student - 'How dare you learn about alternate and fabricated realities!' Okay, back to the Bible - it was written by the same people who thought the Earth was flat.

Stories in the Bible are just ways of putting a religious spin on something the authors probably knew had an alternate and more plausible explanation.

Whether or not we're Buddhist, Christian, etc, many of the principal faiths of the modern world are based on fact. It is undisputed historical fact that there was a prophet named Jesus who walked and talked the place up whereever he went. Whether he did half the stuff the Bible says he did, you can't deny that he must have ticked quite a few people off, and people are still talking about him two thousand years on!

I don't agree with sectarianism in any way - between religions or alternating scientific ideologies. We are all human beings - this forum is a prime example of people being able to constructively debate a topic - and people from all backgrounds, religions, etc. I particularly enjoyed reading Aeridia's post about her friends... I too have many different religions in my social group, and my, do we have some ripper debates!

Molnervia hit it on the head, in many ways: nothing should be taken too seriously, everything about religion is up for debate, there are people with vastly different views and that a lot of public perception about religion comes from reaction to the mainstream media. Being a blogger, I stand against the mainstream media in every form (I'm not saying all bloggers do). I think blogging is a fresh, dynamic way of seeing differing opinions on new topics and then formulating your own. In terms of this debate, my only point to make is that religion should not be forced onto anyone. I voted for this resolution, because of the emphasis it placed on not being superior over any other doctrine. Students should be objectively taught about the full spectrum of ideological theories, then left alone to decide what their 'reality' is. Well that, or they should be taught nothing...

Realy??? wheres your evidence because every Biologist I've talked to has said that the Theory of the Evolution of Man has been thuroughly disproven (and yes I have talked with a large number of Biologists in both the US and arround the world. My father is one of the premier Ornithologists in the US and I have attended many of the conferences he has) it has very little evidence to support it and most of what has been found has been proven fraudulent, causing even more doubt as to the validity of the theory.

Heh, and what about the mere fact that based on their DNA alone, birds and crocodiles are closely related with each other. Also, birds have a pierced acetabulum (which makes them Dinosaurs) and share 40 or so other features with Dinosaurs. Birds are dinosaurs, and they evolved from a common ancestor they share with crocodiles (and some other extinct group like Aetosaurs, Phytosaurs, Pterosaurs and Rauisuchians). :D

Then how do you explain the Flintstones?
They're poorly drawn and they're all animal rights violators. Using hogs as trash cans, mammoths as showers, etc.

not trying to preach... but i think that in light of the discussion here, this is apropos:

1 Corinthians 13:8-12

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.

Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

Realy??? wheres your evidence because every Biologist I've talked to has said that the Theory of the Evolution of Man has been thuroughly [cut obnoxious text size]disproven (and yes I have talked with a large number of Biologists in both the US and arround the world. My father is one of the premier Ornithologists in the US and I have attended many of the conferences he has) it has very little evidence to support it and most of what has been found has been proven fraudulent, causing even more doubt as to the validity of the theory.


Really? That's interesting, because I've talked with a large number of christian pastors both in the US and around the world (My father is the pope), and they all said that creationism has been disproven. So where do we go from there?

Honestly, if you're going to bullshit, at least do it more convincingly than that.

But is it not true that atheism is also a religion to some degree so teaching that also violates the seperation of church and state.

But is it not true that atheism is also a religion to some degree so teaching that also violates the seperation of church and state.
It is not a religion by definition sorry you are wrong (it MAY be a belief depending on the form but not a religion)

I just don't get the pressure to teach Creationism...what's to teach? Creationism is the Poof Theory: there was no universe, and then POOF!

I mean, how the hell long does it take to teach that bullshit? Understanding evolutionary theory, thermodynamics, natural selection, big bang theory, and all the components of scientific life theories actually requires some kind of education, and most kids won't be able to grasp that stuff on their own. But Creationism is the three-year-old's explanation, because anybody over three years old can grasp it easily after about a five minute explanation. We don't waste time "teaching" middle school children that rain is angel tears or thunder is when God goes bowling, so why waste time telling them that God made the universe poof into existence?

But is it not true that atheism is also a religion to some degree so teaching that also violates the seperation of church and state.
Wrong. Secularism and atheism are very different things, and a state can be completely secular without in any way teaching atheism.

But is it not true that atheism is also a religion to some degree so teaching that also violates the seperation of church and state.
No one teaches atheism in science class as far as I know.

I say that teaching creationism and evolution would be better than teaching just one of them. Then the child or student has the choice of beleiving what is true to them or not.

I say that teaching creationism and evolution would be better than teaching just one of them. Then the child or student has the choice of beleiving what is true to them or not.
So, obviously, you support teach ALL Creation theories, right? And you are prepared to sacrifice the necessary class time to give attention to all Creation myths equally, right?

I Think that if you want your chilliin' to learn creationisim, send 'em to a christian school.

It's Friday and I'm HYPER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :sniper: :mp5: :rolleyes: :)

I just don't get the pressure to teach Creationism...what's to teach? Creationism is the Poof Theory: there was no universe, and then POOF!

I mean, how the hell long does it take to teach that bullshit? Understanding evolutionary theory, thermodynamics, natural selection, big bang theory, and all the components of scientific life theories actually requires some kind of education, and most kids won't be able to grasp that stuff on their own. But Creationism is the three-year-old's explanation, because anybody over three years old can grasp it easily after about a five minute explanation. We don't waste time "teaching" middle school children that rain is angel tears or thunder is when God goes bowling, so why waste time telling them that God made the universe poof into existence?
Very true :)

I'd just like to let out "what I know."

Most people in the world have a self-deprecating sense of morals. Things they enjoy and which should be enjoyed have been turned into some sort of "sin" which makes it impossible for them to enjoy the afterlife granted by the greatest prude of all time.

Most people in the world believe that their religion, their church, everything their pastor says is "true." They know this without a doubt, which is why they constantly have to be bombarded by it in order to remain in God's good graces. In addition to this, they also have to spread the word in order to bombard others with it as well.

"A lie will never become the truth. Only the truth can be the truth. No matter how many times a lie is told, it will never become the truth. Only the truth can be the truth."
--- Corporate Avenger "Evolved"

The great thing about the truth is, that you don't have to constantly remind yourself of it for it to remain true. A lie, on the other hand, remains a lie to all, regardless of how many times it is told. The constant reminder of it only makes it easier to tell yourself it is the truth.

Intelligent Design should be renamed with it's original name--Creationism. It has no place in a school. It's place is in the church houses, and places of worship. It belongs with the myth of Jesus and the myth of Noah and his flood. Leave schools to the teachings of Socrates and Aristotle, Newton and Hawking. Leave the schools to Euler and Pythagoras, and Taylor and McLauren. Leave the schools to Hemingway, and Harper Lee.

How far back do we need to go in our world's history to show that a society based on religion is more warlike, more degenerative, more controlling than the one we have now?

I implore you, leave Creation where it belongs, with the study of the Bible in Your friendly neighbourhood church.

I say that teaching creationism and evolution would be better than teaching just one of them. Then the child or student has the choice of beleiving what is true to them or not.
Not in a science class … creationism does not belong there

It is not a religion by definition sorry you are wrong (it MAY be a belief depending on the form but not a religion)

I feel a need to settle this, as it's been debated throughout this thread.

Atheism is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary as:

athe-ism, n. (belief of) the doctrine that there is no God. - atheist, n.

Religion/doctrine are intertwined. But yes, theoretically and academically atheism is not a religion, given that it has no specific religious attributes. That said, it does have doctrinal attributes, which means it attempts to instil a system of teachings.

I'd just like to let out "what I know."

Most people in the world have a self-deprecating sense of morals. Things they enjoy and which should be enjoyed have been turned into some sort of "sin" which makes it impossible for them to enjoy the afterlife granted by the greatest prude of all time.

Most people in the world believe that their religion, their church, everything their pastor says is "true." They know this without a doubt, which is why they constantly have to be bombarded by it in order to remain in God's good graces. In addition to this, they also have to spread the word in order to bombard others with it as well.

"A lie will never become the truth. Only the truth can be the truth. No matter how many times a lie is told, it will never become the truth. Only the truth can be the truth."
--- Corporate Avenger "Evolved"

The great thing about the truth is, that you don't have to constantly remind yourself of it for it to remain true. A lie, on the other hand, remains a lie to all, regardless of how many times it is told. The constant reminder of it only makes it easier to tell yourself it is the truth.

Intelligent Design should be renamed with it's original name--Creationism. It has no place in a school. It's place is in the church houses, and places of worship. It belongs with the myth of Jesus and the myth of Noah and his flood. Leave schools to the teachings of Socrates and Aristotle, Newton and Hawking. Leave the schools to Euler and Pythagoras, and Taylor and McLauren. Leave the schools to Hemingway, and Harper Lee.

How far back do we need to go in our world's history to show that a society based on religion is more warlike, more degenerative, more controlling than the one we have now?

I implore you, leave Creation where it belongs, with the study of the Bible in Your friendly neighbourhood church.

Finally, someone logical and REASONABLE!

. . . When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. . . .

That's funny, I was thinking the exact same thing. From the exact opposite stance, more than likely.

Both sides, don't say there isnt any evidence when you haven't looked far enough into the topic. That gets really annoying, and it comes off to me as trolling.

Science has to do with HOW - the mechanics behind creation (jury is still out).
Faith has to do with WHY - and may involve a vastly different view point. Myth & legends v. probability v. divine design-work.
(Probability is the popular thing today, but the 2nd law of thermodynamics would facilitate DECAY, not enhancement. Enhancement would involve design-work.)

Problems arise when people are unable to discern the difference.

Both sides, don't say there isnt any evidence when you haven't looked far enough into the topic. That gets really annoying, and it comes off to me as trolling.

And how would you know when someone has looked far enough into the opposite side to be able to counter it at every turn in a logical, precise manner?

Science has to do with HOW - the mechanics behind creation (jury is still out).
Faith has to do with WHY - and may involve a vastly different view point. Myth & legends v. probability v. divine design-work.
(Probability is the popular thing today, but the 2nd law of thermodynamics would facilitate DECAY, not enhancement. Enhancement would involve design-work.)

Problems arise when people are unable to discern the difference.
We actually know the WHY behind evolution. It's a conspiracy by these molecules called DNA. :)

I just don't get the pressure to teach Creationism...what's to teach? Creationism is the Poof Theory: there was no universe, and then POOF!

I mean, how the hell long does it take to teach that bullshit? Understanding evolutionary theory, thermodynamics, natural selection, big bang theory, and all the components of scientific life theories actually requires some kind of education, and most kids won't be able to grasp that stuff on their own. But Creationism is the three-year-old's explanation, because anybody over three years old can grasp it easily after about a five minute explanation. We don't waste time "teaching" middle school children that rain is angel tears or thunder is when God goes bowling, so why waste time telling them that God made the universe poof into existence?

If there was nothing, then how else did matter come into existence besides your sarcastic "POOF"?

You see, if we started with nothing, then creation had to take place in order for there to be something, anything, in the universe!

From there, take it anywhere you want to, but if you start with nothing... then something made (at least) the first matter.

If there was nothing, then how else did matter come into existence besides your sarcastic "POOF"?
Um I think you missed the point ... how long do you think it would take to teach creationism ... esentialy the theory boils down to "poof man animal world adam eve (not exact order here)) should take about 5 minuits of class time to teach

I feel a need to settle this, as it's been debated throughout this thread.

Atheism is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary as:

athe-ism, n. (belief of) the doctrine that there is no God. - atheist, n.

Religion/doctrine are intertwined. But yes, theoretically and academically atheism is not a religion, given that it has no specific religious attributes. That said, it does have doctrinal attributes, which means it attempts to instil a system of teachings.

That's not my definition. That's the Macquarie Dictionary's definition. Let's look at the LDS definition.

a-the-istic, n. godless, corrupt, evil, detestable, angry, rebellious.

And they say godless is such a bad thing. While most athiests have very strong opinions in matters concerning religion and its influences, that does not mean it is a strict doctrine, or a collection of people at all. Most become athiests through their own realizations and in a way that completely sets them apart from other athiests. Only one thing really connects all athiests, the lack of belief in (a) god. Not necessarily the Judeo-Christian god, but a god.

And the thing most athiests support most of all? Reason and logic, rather than fear and self-loathing.

and if someone says, "but we didn't start with nothing..." then I will respons, "then how did that stuff come into existence?"

and if someone says, "but we didn't start with nothing..." then I will respons, "then how did that stuff come into existence?"
ok so it takes 3 more seconds to ask the question (besides that a bs question and you know it ... because if all things need a creator so does god)

and if someone says, "but we didn't start with nothing..." then I will respons, "then how did that stuff come into existence?"

You've heard of eternity? Maybe there's this crazy thing called Conservation of Matter and Energy (the same law, really) that says energy cannot be created or destroyed. So it is eternal, maybe this universe has been recycling itself for eternity and will keep doing it until matter/energy can be destroyed.

This is my opinion, and is not meant to represent the opinions of any others.

ok so it takes 3 more seconds to ask the question (besides that a bs question and you know it ... because if all things need a creator so does god)

But... not God... Alpha and Omega... beginning and end.

if that is true, then God always was.

Personally I think religion can filter many things into a life. Wether that person wishes to persue those needs or not is another issue. I do not think that a school should force a religion on a student but offer extra curicular activities that may inter act with this idea. A class for every religion and how to presue it. But the class may not be talked about within the school building while class is not in session or with anyone not attending the class with permission from their parents above a certain age, I think 16 is a good age when kids start making their own decisions. That way people who wish to learn more about religion, or their religion within the shcool may and those who oppose it do not have to worry. Special punishments will have to be brought up about the school to help eliminate descrimination. This is just an idea but if I ran a school, this is what I would do.

ok so it takes 3 more seconds to ask the question (besides that a bs question and you know it ... because if all things need a creator so does god)

Yay!

I say that teaching creationism and evolution would be better than teaching just one of them. Then the child or student has the choice of beleiving what is true to them or not.
Yes! Then we could teach the holocaust as both fact, and a Jewish lie in history class and let the student's make up their mind about that.

But... not God... Alpha and Omega... beginning and end.

if that is true, then God always was.
But that is the exception that breaks the rule ... if one thing can not have a creator there is nothing saying all things cant exist without a creator

I have an assignment for one of you. OR maybe I'll do it.

When you die, and you're kneeling before God awaiting judgment, ask Him about the origins of the universe. Then come back down to earth (let everyone know that you're not Jesus -- imagine the world-wide THUD caused by billions of knees hitting the floor/ground simultaneously) and TELL US.

:D :D Science and religion both have advantages, and both are all about looking for a logical answer (ie where did we come from). However, surely religion causes moreupset and upheaval than science as religious peoples argue amongst themselves about which god is right, or if there is a god at all. Agree? Disagree? Want to clamp me in irons ???? :D :D

I'm all for Intelligent Design. Sometimes, faith has to move stepwise to catch up with the science. At least it recognizes the staggering similarities among all living creatures. The next step is recognizing that evolution could be God's mechanism for creation. Many religious people have already reconciled creation and evolution. Once the more militant creationists realize that their faith is no more threatened by evolution than it was by the heliocentric solar system, evolution won't be a big deal.

I have an assignment for one of you. OR maybe I'll do it.

When you die, and you're kneeling before God awaiting judgment, ask Him about the origins of the universe. Then come back down to earth (let everyone know that you're not Jesus) and TELL US.
Yup and once you share that information with us (or me with others) then you will maybe have a full days lecture ... until that point you have a 10 minuet (with question) explanation of creationism

I have an assignment for one of you. OR maybe I'll do it.

When you die, and you're kneeling before God awaiting judgment, ask Him about the origins of the universe. Then come back down to earth (let everyone know that you're not Jesus -- imagine the world-wide THUD caused by billions of knees hitting the floor/ground simultaneously) and TELL US.

Or maybe you die, that's it, and the "evil"-lutionists were correct.

I'll take Your debate one fallacy by one:

First, Creationism has no scientific basis at all. ---- simply untrue.

it should not be taught in school. ----- you failed to give any reason for this conclusion until later in your post.

Second, If the government supports this action of teaching Creationism, it means that they would be breaking the principle of Separation of church and state. Also by supporting this, it means that the government is supporting the principle that there is a god and that is offensive, biased and unfair.

------ you failed to explain how that could be offensive, biased, or unfair...but allow me to quote someone who obviously had a better understanding of the principle of separation than you did:

"The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, but that wall is a one directional wall; it keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure Christian principles will always stay in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

It was obviously intended for the government not to corrupt and/or control the churches....not that the churches shouldn't influence the government.

second point is so obvious it's disgusting: you are an ATHEIST, yes? Atheism is the belief that God does not exist and that there is no spiritual reality what so ever.

for the government to adopt the position of running itself with no reference to God and behaving as if there was no spiritual reality whatsoever.....THAT IS INDISPUTABLY AN ENDORSEMENT OF ATHEISM. You are not arguing that all spiritual beliefs should be separated from the gov't...you are arguing that YOUR atheism should be adopted by the government... and THAT is just as offensive, biased and unfair. you have no freedom FROM religion.

I'll take Your debate one fallacy by one:

First, Creationism has no scientific basis at all. ---- simply untrue.

it should not be taught in school. ----- you failed to give any reason for this conclusion until later in your post.

Second, If the government supports this action of teaching Creationism, it means that they would be breaking the principle of Separation of church and state. Also by supporting this, it means that the government is supporting the principle that there is a god and that is offensive, biased and unfair.

------ you failed to explain how that could be offensive, biased, or unfair...but allow me to quote someone who obviously had a better understanding of the principle of separation than you did:

"The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, but that wall is a one directional wall; it keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure Christian principles will always stay in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

It was obviously intended for the government not to corrupt and/or control the churches....not that the churches shouldn't influence the government.

second point is so obvious it's disgusting: you are an ATHEIST, yes? Atheism is the belief that God does not exist and that there is no spiritual reality what so ever.

for the government to adopt the position of running itself with no reference to God and behaving as if there was no spiritual reality whatsoever.....THAT IS INDISPUTABLY AN ENDORSEMENT OF ATHEISM. You are not arguing that all spiritual beliefs should be separated from the gov't...you are arguing that YOUR atheism should be adopted by the government... and THAT is just as offensive, biased and unfair. you have no freedom FROM religion.


I dispute it … it is secularism not enforced atheism get your definition right

Creationism is not a scientific theory and does not belong in a science classroom

I was taught both and made my own mind up...

*snip*

First, Creationism has no scientific basis at all. ---- simply untrue.

*snip*


Prove that statement false.

Lol. I can't help but laugh at the atheists who try to discredit the Bible by saying it was written by MEN, then take FAITH in what scientists, who are also men, say.

Unless you are one of these scientists who have "proven" evolution, you have FAITH (or you impart trust) in what these men say.

You claim that the Bible was made up and/or untrue with this argument, but then, on the other side of the same coin, claim that evolution supported by other men MUST be true.

Evolution and the Big Bang theory requires just as much faith as any faith in any religion!!! Second, you have absolutely no explanation for a "Big Bang" unless some kind of "Supernatural" power (which, of course, means above nature, implying outside natural laws), which would pretty much require that said supernatural power to have created these "natural" laws, initiated the "BIG BANG."

Atheism is just as much a faith issue as any other religion, your mind is just too clouded by your own perverted logic to understand. I'm sorry if I have offended anyone, but I'm really tired of Atheists claiming they a). atheism is not a religion b). their belief in Evolution is scientific and c). that creationism/intelligent design is illogical.

If you want to argue that Atheism isn't a faith, then you will need to provide counter-arguments against your a). faith in science b). faith in mankind (or self) c). faith in the nonexistence of any kind of Supernatural Power

Science requires faith, and theories are no more than what their name implies: possible truths that have not, as yet, been proved wrong. There have been some wild theories that have been trusted in FAITH, and have been proven wrong.

Everyone has some form of religion, whether it is the worship of some supernatural or natural power is all that is debatable.

Now, as to why Creationism/ID should be taught: Evolution is taught as an absolute fact, not just a theory. Not only that, but the form of evolution that is taught is against religious beliefs and inherently atheistic (I will give the reader and dissenter that this is dependent on the instructor more than anything else). Evolution should be taught along with other view points that don't necessarily assume a specific religion, but that could possibly accept most and/or all religions. I don't neccessarily say that Creationism should be taught, but that perhaps the Intelligent Design theory should be 1). it could help undergird evolution 2). it would not brainwash children into accepting other beliefs 3). these children in school's are not just children of atheists, but those of multiple religions, so it is clearly unfair to support any religion over another 4). the ID theory would cause the children to logically analyze their religious views and others, and try to reconcile multiple beliefs, as well as help them to make their OWN decisions on personal beliefs as opposed to what WE believe.

I am a Christian, btw, and I believe in Creationism. I am just capable of accepting other views as a personal choice. I also don't want my future children growing up in our screwed up education system (of which I am apart, since I am an education major). It is very likely that I will homeschool my children, though....they would be my and my future wife's responsibility, not the governments. If something were to cause my children to fall, I would be accountable for it. Best to not take risks.

Anyway, this post isn't a flame, it isn't meant to offend anyone, per se, although I'm sure it will. I also did not feel like spending the hour or 2 it would take to read all of the posts, so this is especially not towards any of the several pages of posts that are the precursor to this. I have heard and seen many of the arguments posted by both sides. I am also a fan of having an unashamed faith.

I hope everyone has an awesome day, whether you end up hating me or not.

Wow. When you make such a glaring factual error, it really has a way of putting in doubt everything else you say. Well, let me point it out since no one else has caught it. The first writing of the Torah has not been carbon dated. Why? because we have never found it! We do not have a copy of the original Torah. How do you propose we carbon date something that we havent been able to find? If you still wish to insist otherwise, perhaps you can point me to the museum that contains the original Torah that scientists have carbon dated. Oh, I see, you cant. So, you made up an experiment that did not happen and invented some findings?? That really does alot for your credibility.

pardon me, I was busy sleeping while your were being smug..

to clarify... the age of WRITING is a known because writing samples (cuniform dried clay tablets) have been found alongside organic material in Sumeria (now Iraq) and that organic material was carbon dated.

I did not intend to imply that the age of the Torah was known, although there are examples of the Torah that still exist that go back to 1,000 years or more. I did mean to imply however that the age of the art of writing IS known. A number of historical anthropology books are filled with that information, as are basic textbooks on world history. Therefore, until writing exists, there is no Torah, and Genesis is an oral tradition that was written later according to most biblical scholars that are in the mainstream of Judeo-Christian Historical Study.

The Dead Sea scrolls have been dated for example, has have other examples of written material on parchment etc... most ancient writing that we have examples of however was on stone or dried clay, and we are forced to use nearby organic material from the same archeological layer or date based on the layers of the rock / stone / soil it is found in to determine age.

Hope that clears it up for you

Frankly, and respectfully, I think many of those arguing this issue are missing the real point. This is not a debate between secularism and sectarianism (at least not within the context of compulsory education.)

The real debate is whether our educational system should be based on proof or on faith. Essentially, whether we should promote an accepted explanation of things and events based on faith in the force serving as catalyst, or whether an objective, observable criteria is needed to define the force.

To put it bluntly, do you believe what you are told or what you can see for yourself.

As far as origin theory is concerned, I am more comfortable with Evolution Theory than I am Intelligent Design Theory (aka Creationism.) This has more to do with the fact that compulsory education requires some objectively-measurable standard. The facts underlying Evolution Theory can be measured and tested repeatedly to deterimine whether they are "true" (meaning "identifiable through observation and testing.")

Intelligent Design Theory, by contrast, requires faith in the progenitor of existing species (man, animal, and plant.) How can you prove or disprove the existence of a "Divine Being?" I don't say this as criticism, but simply as an observation.

Further, IDT requires one to accept as "true" (meaning, "accepted in principle as fundamental and foundational") certain precepts which are based in religion (of whatever structure or denomination.) I do not mean arguably "extreme" examples (such as Jonah and the Whale,) but more cogent, palatable precepts (such as "Immaculate Conception.")

Because IDT is more vulnerable to individual interpretation and situational application, I cannot accept it as a mainstay in the curriculum of compulsory education. You can certainly argue whether Jesus is the son of a Divine God, but it is hard to argue with cellular biological principle. While both are clearly ideologocially-based, religious doctrine is a matter of individual belief and acceptance; compulsory education must be a matter of concensus.

You know this could all be cleared up really easy if God would just do a few episodes on Larry King Live. Every one could put this to rest once and for all.

However, untill this god decides to make it's self known there are only two things I can believe. 1) no god, never was, never will be 2) If there is a god, what an asshole.

No, we shouldn't teach Creationism, as Creationism is about belief. However, Intelligent design is a totally different matter. Intelligent design is a valid scientific theory, just like the theory of Evolution. That's something that has always bugged me about that. They call it a theory and teach it as fact. If you are going to present as a theory, then you must present it as a theory, and present the opposing theory, so that pupils can make up their own minds. And both theories must be equally and fairly taught.

Incorrect. ID has not followed the scientific method, nor has it been tested enough to qualify as a theory. At best, it might be a hypothesis. Of course, it would be an untestable hypothesis, so that would make it impossible to become a theory.

Meanwhile, especially in the lower levels, we teach the theories which are most accepted and have withstood quite a bit of testing. This is because high school is the last education that many will receive, and we don't want to teach anything we aren't pretty darn sure of.

Only then will students be able to make up their own minds on what they think is right.

They can already do that.

I mentioned it before that at least 1/3 of Biology teachers in North America support teaching Creationism.

Biology teachers != biologists.

Listen Up peoples, its not a one or the other argument, and i'd just like to clear a few things up if i can.
Firstly, creationism is a both a scientific and theological argument/theory call it what u will. Both theory's are supported by a wide range of scientific specialists, however as evolution as stated is a process occuring of millions of years its almost impossible to prove and thats a mistake many of its supporters make, they assume that its proven, it is after all the "Theory of Evolution", However Creationism is just the same while there is a lot of supporting evidence ie:intelligent design , it is still a theory.

Incorrect. Creationism is not a theory. For one, it does not follow the scientific method. It begins with a set conclusion which will never change and simply looks for evidence to back that up. You can find evidence for anything if this is how you approach it. Secondly, it is untestable. There is no test that could disprove Creationism and, as such, it is not a scientific theory.

And Creationism is not supported by any actual scientists in their capacity as a scientist.

Secondly, Both theories are not mutually exclusive,

The very basis of Creationism is that evolution did not occur. Creation itself and evolution are certainly not mutually exclusive.

Science does not assume that there is no creator, nor does it assume that there is one. The very idea is outside its realm.

Thats a nice idea from a political perspective but not from a pedagogical one. Separating classes into broad subjects like history and science is meant as a way of matching teachers with their area of expertise. It is not a pedadogical model based on how children learn. The fact is if you teach everything about a a certain topic in the series of lessons, kids will learn it far better than if you separated it into unrelated classes with different teachers. Thats why you dont just teach about the current model of the atom in science class and leave it up to the history teacher to cover the Rutherford model, the Bohr model, and all the others. Kids wont learn it that way. You are unknowingly promoting the politication of the classroom. Politics should have no part in it, everything should be based solely on how to teach best.

Improper analogy. The Bohr model and the Rutherford model, etc. were all scientific theories which were then altered with new evidence. Presenting them demonstrates the progression of science.

If you would like, we could use Creationism to teach what not to do in science, but I doubt the fundies would like that much.

I'll take Your debate one fallacy by one:

First, Creationism has no scientific basis at all. ---- simply untrue.

it should not be taught in school. ----- you failed to give any reason for this conclusion until later in your post.

Second, If the government supports this action of teaching Creationism, it means that they would be breaking the principle of Separation of church and state. Also by supporting this, it means that the government is supporting the principle that there is a god and that is offensive, biased and unfair.

------ you failed to explain how that could be offensive, biased, or unfair...but allow me to quote someone who obviously had a better understanding of the principle of separation than you did:

"The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, but that wall is a one directional wall; it keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure Christian principles will always stay in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

It was obviously intended for the government not to corrupt and/or control the churches....not that the churches shouldn't influence the government.

second point is so obvious it's disgusting: you are an ATHEIST, yes? Atheism is the belief that God does not exist and that there is no spiritual reality what so ever.

for the government to adopt the position of running itself with no reference to God and behaving as if there was no spiritual reality whatsoever.....THAT IS INDISPUTABLY AN ENDORSEMENT OF ATHEISM. You are not arguing that all spiritual beliefs should be separated from the gov't...you are arguing that YOUR atheism should be adopted by the government... and THAT is just as offensive, biased and unfair. you have no freedom FROM religion.
1 I've never seen a creationist put forth any credible evidence for his beleif. Until one does, I'll continue to say there is no evidence to support it.

2 It's been said time and again in this thread that creationism isn't science. It's not testable. Science needs to be testable.

3 Government should not mention god so that it doesn't interfere with religions that recognize gods, goddesses, and no gods. That's true separation of church and state.

Well then how do YOU know that?

Read what I posted. It's been proven over and over and over again. Humans and dinosaurs did not co-exist. Can you read English?

Realy??? wheres your evidence because every Biologist I've talked to has said that the Theory of the Evolution of Man has been thuroughly disproven (and yes I have talked with a large number of Biologists in both the US and arround the world. My father is one of the premier Ornithologists in the US and I have attended many of the conferences he has) it has very little evidence to support it and most of what has been found has been proven fraudulent, causing even more doubt as to the validity of the theory.

As an actual biologist, who reads actual biological papers on a regular basis, I can pretty much conclusively say that you are full of shit.

Lol. I can't help but laugh at the atheists who try to discredit the Bible by saying it was written by MEN, then take FAITH in what scientists, who are also men, say.

I can buy that.

Unless you are one of these scientists who have "proven" evolution, you have FAITH (or you impart trust) in what these men say.

Again, agreed.

You claim that the Bible was made up and/or untrue with this argument, but then, on the other side of the same coin, claim that evolution supported by other men MUST be true.

Here you lost me. There is no MUST. Evolution is a theory which fits the given evidence. Creationism forces the evidence to fit to it. I might be able to see if you believe that God put evolution in place as a means to create, but that isn't what Creationism teaches.

Creationism is a natural defensive response when the religious felt there faith threatened.

Evolution and the Big Bang theory requires just as much faith as any faith in any religion!!! Second, you have absolutely no explanation for a "Big Bang" unless some kind of "Supernatural" power (which, of course, means above nature, implying outside natural laws), which would pretty much require that said supernatural power to have created these "natural" laws, initiated the "BIG BANG."

All right, I've said it before (though not on this thread) and here it is again. The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. It is a completely separate theory as to the rates of expansion in the universe. I can see where you might think they are joined, but they are only joined in the fact that both are products of the scientific method. And while the Big Bang seems very close to the Creation you may believe in, there are mathematical and physical explanations which do not require a supernatural power.

Atheism is just as much a faith issue as any other religion, your mind is just too clouded by your own perverted logic to understand. I'm sorry if I have offended anyone, but I'm really tired of Atheists claiming they a). atheism is not a religion b). their belief in Evolution is scientific and c). that creationism/intelligent design is illogical.

Again I have to disagree. Faith in science is not the same as faith in (a) god. Religion and science can be reconciled, it happens all the time, and is very personal to those who achieve it.
So a lack of faith in (a) god is now a religion? Then I've been an athiest all my life, even while worshipping the Judeo-Christian God. I didn't believe in Zeus. I was an athiest. I didn't believe in Ra. I was an athiest. In this respect, you are an athiest as well. I just believe in one less god than you do. (as a note to whomever wrote this originally: I really like this saying!)

A lack of belief in Creationism is completely logical and scientific. Creationists would have us believe that the universe was created in a short period of time by God. Light travels at 3.00x10^8 meters per second. For some stars this would mean millions of years before the light could reach us. We know the speed of light. We can calculate the distance to stars. We can see the very least amount of time the universe has been around. We can measure the bones we find in the ground with radio-carbon dating and find dinosaurs which existed 65 million years ago.

If you want to argue that Atheism isn't a faith, then you will need to provide counter-arguments against your a). faith in science b). faith in mankind (or self) c). faith in the nonexistence of any kind of Supernatural Power

You and I have both a and b, as you are using a computer and you believe in yourself. The last requires no faith.

Science requires faith, and theories are no more than what their name implies: possible truths that have not, as yet, been proved wrong. There have been some wild theories that have been trusted in FAITH, and have been proven wrong.

Science is not just theories that haven't been proven wrong. They are theories that can be proven wrong. There is a huge difference.

Everyone has some form of religion, whether it is the worship of some supernatural or natural power is all that is debatable.

Wrong. I don't worship nature or (a) god.

Now, as to why Creationism/ID should be taught: Evolution is taught as an absolute fact, not just a theory. Not only that, but the form of evolution that is taught is against religious beliefs and inherently atheistic (I will give the reader and dissenter that this is dependent on the instructor more than anything else). Evolution should be taught along with other view points that don't necessarily assume a specific religion, but that could possibly accept most and/or all religions. I don't neccessarily say that Creationism should be taught, but that perhaps the Intelligent Design theory should be 1). it could help undergird evolution 2). it would not brainwash children into accepting other beliefs 3). these children in school's are not just children of atheists, but those of multiple religions, so it is clearly unfair to support any religion over another 4). the ID theory would cause the children to logically analyze their religious views and others, and try to reconcile multiple beliefs, as well as help them to make their OWN decisions on personal beliefs as opposed to what WE believe.

No thanks. These decisions should be carefully reviewed before being made, and parents can often help that. Do you go to the same church as your parents? They biased you towards that faith because they went there. We should not teach theology in schools because it doesn't belong. School is for secular education. Religion can be found on every street corner, in nearly every bookstore, and in the minds of almost every person you meet. We don't need it being ingrained in our children's mind that there must be a god simply because evolution is taught alongside theology. Need a religion? Consult a religo-hypno-therapist. Need an education? Go to school.

I am a Christian, btw, and I believe in Creationism. I am just capable of accepting other views as a personal choice. I also don't want my future children growing up in our screwed up education system (of which I am apart, since I am an education major). It is very likely that I will homeschool my children, though....they would be my and my future wife's responsibility, not the governments. If something were to cause my children to fall, I would be accountable for it. Best to not take risks.

I couldn't tell you were and did. ;)

Anyway, this post isn't a flame, it isn't meant to offend anyone, per se, although I'm sure it will. I also did not feel like spending the hour or 2 it would take to read all of the posts, so this is especially not towards any of the several pages of posts that are the precursor to this. I have heard and seen many of the arguments posted by both sides. I am also a fan of having an unashamed faith.

I hope everyone has an awesome day, whether you end up hating me or not.

This post isn't a flame, either.

As an actual biologist, who reads actual biological papers on a regular basis, I can pretty much conclusively say that you are full of shit.
As another biologist, who also reads actual biological papers and participates in actual biological research, I concur :).

First of all, I believe that apart from a few select liberalist scientists and a few nutjob theories here and there, science and religion will NEVER, EVER coexist in a completely peaceful state. It is nigh on impossible, given that religion will very nearly always be speculation, and many scientific theories will have been proven in one way or another. Once we can accept that, we move on.

What a silly thing to claim. Science and religion are both searches for truth, simply in different areas. There is absolutely no reason that they cannot coexist, so long as each sticks to its own subject matter.

There have been debates as to whether or not Creationism should be allowed to be taught in schools. Basically, Creationism states that a God created everything. I am an atheist and have many problems with this.

First, Creationism has no scientific basis at all. Yes, I know that I cant disprove it because I cant prove that God doesnt exist. But it should not be taught in school.

Second, If the government supports this action of teaching Creationism, it means that they would be breaking the principle of Separation of church and state. Also by supporting this, it means that the government is supporting the principle that there is a god and that is offensive, biased and unfair.

Please, I do not mean to offend anyone. I merely want to hear others opinion in this. So if I have offended you or your religion, I sincerely apologize.

You haven't offended me. However, as offensive as you find Creationism and God, I find evolutionary theory equally if not more offensive.

The issue of seperation of church and state you bring up is valid. I would prefer that the government not fund any education that deals with the origin of man and stick to the three R's. At least at the elementary and highschool levels.

You haven't offended me. However, as offensive as you find Creationism and God, I find evolutionary theory equally if not more offensive.

The issue of seperation of church and state you bring up is valid. I would prefer that the government not fund any education that deals with the origin of man and stick to the three R's. At least at the elementary and highschool levels.

What's so "offensive" about evolutionary theory? There's overwhelming evidence for it. If you find that offensive, you should go out into the field and destroy all sedimentary rocks and destroy all the fossils... and you should go into the cell of all living beings and destroy their blasphemous DNA. :D

and if someone says, "but we didn't start with nothing..." then I will respons, "then how did that stuff come into existence?"

Completely irrelevant in a discussion of evolution.

What's so "offensive" about evolutionary theory? There's overwhelming evidence for it. If you find that offensive, you should go out into the field and destroy all sedimentary rocks and destroy all the fossils... and you should go into the cell of all living beings and destroy their blasphemous DNA. :D

I believe evolutionary theory to be nothing more than the gross mis-interpretation of information as a result of human fallibility. I find its teaching to be demoralizing to society and therefore offensive.

You haven't offended me. However, as offensive as you find Creationism and God, I find evolutionary theory equally if not more offensive.

The issue of seperation of church and state you bring up is valid. I would prefer that the government not fund any education that deals with the origin of man and stick to the three R's. At least at the elementary and highschool levels.

The difference is that religion (and creationism) is based on faith and belief.

Evolution, and all other science, is based on the idea of proof.

There's a difference. You can't teach genetics without accepting evolution. Are you going to suspend all government funding for research into genetics as well? Did you know that quantum physics (the basis of all modern electronics) is based on concepts that make it impossible to accept an all-knowing God?

Are you going to take off your watch because it offends you? If it's electronic, it has a device in it called a tunnel diode - and if quantum physics were not fundamentally TRUE the tunnel diode could not possibly work.

I'm a Pentacostal Christian - and I don't get wrapped up in a knot about whether Noah really existed, or whether the world was created in six days - or even whether God created the Universe.

All I do know is that Jesus runs my personal life - how I live and how I treat others. That's far more important than asking the Bible to explain everything.

Science is very, very good at what it does. Consistently.
Religion is very, very good at what it does. Consistently (for me).

Two very different things - let science do what science does - explain the physical world. And let religion do what religion does - explain the spiritual world.

You know this could all be cleared up really easy if God would just do a few episodes on Larry King Live. Every one could put this to rest once and for all.

However, untill this god decides to make it's self known there are only two things I can believe. 1) no god, never was, never will be 2) If there is a god, what an asshole.

i'm sure he's happy to hear #2...

I believe evolutionary theory to be nothing more than the gross mis-interpretation of information as a result of human fallibility. I find its teaching to be demoralizing to society and therefore offensive.

Heh, check this out:

I believe creation to be nothing more than the gross mis-interpretation of information as a result of human fallibility. I find its teaching to be demoralizing to society and therefore offensive.

i'm sure he's happy to hear #2...

Yes I am.

Heh, check this out:

I believe creation to be nothing more than the gross mis-interpretation of information as a result of human fallibility. I find its teaching to be demoralizing to society and therefore offensive.

I thought the same thing when I saw it! :cool:

The difference is that religion (and creationism) is based on faith and belief.

Evolution, and all other science, is based on the idea of proof.

There's a difference. You can't teach genetics without accepting evolution. Are you going to suspend all government funding for research into genetics as well? Did you know that quantum physics (the basis of all modern electronics) is based on concepts that make it impossible to accept an all-knowing God?

Are you going to take off your watch because it offends you? If it's electronic, it has a device in it called a tunnel diode - and if quantum physics were not fundamentally TRUE the tunnel diode could not possibly work.

I'm a Pentacostal Christian - and I don't get wrapped up in a knot about whether Noah really existed, or whether the world was created in six days - or even whether God created the Universe.

All I do know is that Jesus runs my personal life - how I live and how I treat others. That's far more important than asking the Bible to explain everything.

Science is very, very good at what it does. Consistently.
Religion is very, very good at what it does. Consistently (for me).

Two very different things - let science do what science does - explain the physical world. And let religion do what religion does - explain the spiritual world.

Sir, you need to retake science class. Science never proves anything it just suggests whether the null or research hypothesis is more likely to be true based on whatever current technology allows us to measure.

I forgot to add, you can teach genetics without teaching evolution. You can't explain one species becoming another without it, but you can't prove that has ever happened either.

Lol. I can't help but laugh at the atheists who try to discredit the Bible by saying it was written by MEN, then take FAITH in what scientists, who are also men, say.

I have yet to meet anyone who has faith in what scientists say. They believe, as scientists believe, that the scientific process will lead to truth. If you disagree, that is fine.

Evolution and the Big Bang theory requires just as much faith as any faith in any religion!!!

Incorrect. A religion cannot be tested and a religion will not change. Both evolution and the Big Bang Theory can be tested, and have been tested. If they had not yet been tested, and held up to testing, they would not be theories. Meanwhile, should new evidence that contradicted them come along, they would be scrapped or modified.

Science requires faith, and theories are no more than what their name implies: possible truths that have not, as yet, been proved wrong. There have been some wild theories that have been trusted in FAITH, and have been proven wrong.

Here is the problem: they weren't trusted in on faith. They were the best at the time. When new evidence came along, they were changed. This is the way science works.

Now, as to why Creationism/ID should be taught: Evolution is taught as an absolute fact, not just a theory.

Your argument is already ruined, as this is patently untrue.

Not only that, but the form of evolution that is taught is against religious beliefs and inherently atheistic (I will give the reader and dissenter that this is dependent on the instructor more than anything else).

There is nothing inherently atheistic in evolution, as it makes no assertions whatsoever about the existence of any deity.

Evolution should be taught along with other view points that don't necessarily assume a specific religion, but that could possibly accept most and/or all religions.[/quote[

Only if they are taught in two separate classrooms, as religion is not science.

[QUOTE=Yeshua Christ]I don't neccessarily say that Creationism should be taught, but that perhaps the Intelligent Design theory should be

No such thing. The ID idea is (a) not scientific, as it is untestable (b) not tested enough to qualify as a theory, even if the underlying hypothesis were scientific.

I am a Christian, btw, and I believe in Creationism. I am just capable of accepting other views as a personal choice. I also don't want my future children growing up in our screwed up education system (of which I am apart, since I am an education major). It is very likely that I will homeschool my children, though....they would be my and my future wife's responsibility, not the governments. If something were to cause my children to fall, I would be accountable for it. Best to not take risks.

If your faith (or your children's) is so weak that they cannot learn about a scientific theory without "falling", there is no faith there to speak of and they have already fallen.

Heh, check this out:

I believe creation to be nothing more than the gross mis-interpretation of information as a result of human fallibility. I find its teaching to be demoralizing to society and therefore offensive.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and you are entitled not to have creationism forced upon you by the federal government. I am only asking for the same freedom.

Well I'm a VERY strong Christian and I think that God and all of it should be teached in school. I mean (in my religion) God create EVRYTHING. And that he is alive. So everything doesn't have to have a scientic reason. I mean do you think that the desiples in the Bible just made up stuff? So if they are telling the truth then God made the world. And so peole should know the truth! And if I have offended some people I'm sorry but that's what I think.

You're an idiot.






You're an idiot.

I believe evolutionary theory to be nothing more than the gross mis-interpretation of information as a result of human fallibility. I find its teaching to be demoralizing to society and therefore offensive.
Some people beleive that the Jews faked the holocaust. They find Jews offensive. Should we teach their point of view in history classes?

Atheism is just as much a faith issue as any other religion, your mind is just too clouded by your own perverted logic to understand. I'm sorry if I have offended anyone, but I'm really tired of Atheists claiming they a). atheism is not a religion b). their belief in Evolution is scientific and c). that creationism/intelligent design is illogical.
Are you implying that evolution is somehow atheist dogma or something? All atheist do not belive in evolution, but most christians I know belive in evolution.

Science requires faith, and theories are no more than what their name implies: possible truths that have not, as yet, been proved wrong. There have been some wild theories that have been trusted in FAITH, and have been proven wrong.
That's the whole point, if they are proven wrong they won't be taught in schools anymore. Creationism on the otherhand can't be proven wrong, let alone true.

You haven't offended me. However, as offensive as you find Creationism and God, I find evolutionary theory equally if not more offensive.

Who said anything about finding Creationism or God offensive? The statement is simply that they do not belong in a science classroom.

The issue of seperation of church and state you bring up is valid. I would prefer that the government not fund any education that deals with the origin of man and stick to the three R's. At least at the elementary and highschool levels.

Yes, no science, no history, no music, no art. I agree. We should raise idiot children who can read, writel, and do math, but have nothing to read, write, or do math about. Critical thinking skills are bad, mmm'kay?

Some people beleive that the Jews faked the holocaust. They find Jews offensive. Should we teach their point of view in history classes?

Oh, good point there! Creationism is actually a kind of historical revisionism! Prehistorical, that is.

Some people beleive that the Jews faked the holocaust. They find Jews offensive. Should we teach their point of view in history classes?

Some people may claim that it didn't happen, but there is living proof of it. That works for me... the same cannot be said of evolutionary theory or creationary theory.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and you are entitled not to have creationism forced upon you by the federal government. I am only asking for the same freedom.

If you believe we should do away with science in the schools, then by all means, lobby for it. Our country will stop progressing technologically and we will eventually be overrun, but I suppose that's the price we pay for keeping the weak of faith from learning.

Some people may claim that it didn't happen, but there is living proof of it. That works for me... the same cannot be said of evolutionary theory or creationary theory.
There's plenty of evidence to back up evolution.

Some people may claim that it didn't happen, but there is living proof of it. That works for me... the same cannot be said of evolutionary theory or creationary theory.

Well, evolution is permanently happening. Think about bacterias becoming resistent to antibiotics - that's an example of evolution. And there's much more. If you take all the genetic, morphological and paleontological evidence into consideration, this all fits too well together to have been created. Or think about the present-day distribution of animals, and the connection with plate tectonics. This fits perfectly together.

Believing into an act of creation in the face of overwhelming evidence of an evolution would be folly.

Who said anything about finding Creationism or God offensive? The statement is simply that they do not belong in a science classroom.



Yes, no science, no history, no music, no art. I agree. We should raise idiot children who can read, writel, and do math, but have nothing to read, write, or do math about. Critical thinking skills are bad, mmm'kay?

Dem, you should know me better than that by now. We've had this discussion before. As for the first statement you qouted it was a direct response to the statement made at the beginning of this thread in which it was stated that the poster found creationism and the teaching of the existance of God offensive.

I'm not asking for no science or art or music or history and I don't want to raise "idiots". I was raised believing in creation and that belief does not make me an idiot. There is much more to science than evolutionary theory.

Sir, you need to retake science class. Science never proves anything it just suggests whether the null or research hypothesis is more likely to be true based on whatever current technology allows us to measure.

I forgot to add, you can teach genetics without teaching evolution. You can't explain one species becoming another without it, but you can't prove that has ever happened either.

Better go through your house and remove anything with a tunnel diode in it. It's direct proof that quantum physics is true. You know, the science that says that at a low level, everything is non-deterministic and that it isn't possible to know everything. You know - an all-knowing God isn't possible at all by that theory.

You probably find that offensive, so start by throwing away your digital watch (yes, most of the analog ones are digital on the inside), and unplugging your computer and throwing it away.

There's plenty of evidence to back up evolution.

Not living proof. And that evidence can be explained in other ways. Those who believe in evolution like it is a religion refuse to acknowledge many of them granted, but there are other explanations.

Even if "Creationism" were to be taught.... Which one?

You do of course realize that even amogst Christians there are at least three different theories regarding "Creationism". And they are all covered in the most basic Theology courses in most seminaries

I will outline the three, for those not versed in Creation Theology:

Young Earth Creation(Also known as "Literal Creationism" or "Special Creation" and the one usually pushed under the term "creationism").

This is the normal, what everyone has heard. 7-day creation about 6000 or so years ago... Little need to go further.

Progressive Creationism(Also called the "Day-Age Theory" or "Old Earth Creationism")

This one involves spreading the concept of Genesis 1 out. Each "day" represents an "epoch" or "age"... And is not a litteral 24-hour day. Generally views the universe as several million years old.

Theistic Evolution(Also called Evolutionary Creationism)

This one sees Genesis 1 as a metaphor. Evolution occured, but was guided by the Hand of God. All other science is accepted... Universe viewed in the scientifically normal billions of years old.

Well, evolution is permanently happening. Think about bacterias becoming resistent to antibiotics - that's an example of evolution. And there's much more. If you take all the genetic, morphological and paleontological evidence into consideration, this all fits too well together to have been created. Or think about the present-day distribution of animals, and the connection with plate tectonics. This fits perfectly together.

Believing into an act of creation in the face of overwhelming evidence of an evolution would be folly.

Not evolution from one species to another. Only of adaptation within a species. Each of the other things you mentioned have alternate explanations as well. It is simply a matter of what you chose to believe...

I'm not asking for no science or art or music or history and I don't want to raise "idiots". I was raised believing in creation and that belief does not make me an idiot.

Well, if you believe into Creation without knowning about evolution, that does not make you an idiot. But, believing into it in the face of evidence that says something different is pretty folly...

Not evolution from one species to another. Only of adaptation within a species.
No, not "evolution from one species to another;" evolution from one species over geologic time ( read: millions of years! ) into several others, repeatedly, continuously, and inevitably.

Better go through your house and remove anything with a tunnel diode in it. It's direct proof that quantum physics is true. You know, the science that says that at a low level, everything is non-deterministic and that it isn't possible to know everything. You know - an all-knowing God isn't possible at all by that theory.

You probably find that offensive, so start by throwing away your digital watch (yes, most of the analog ones are digital on the inside), and unplugging your computer and throwing it away.

Just because a theory isn't accurate in its foundation doesn't mean that technology can't be created from it. You could base a whole host of technology on energy=wave theory. Of course you can do the same with energy=partical theory as well. And we did and still don't completely understand the nature of energy do we?

Not living proof. And that evidence can be explained in other ways. Those who believe in evolution like it is a religion refuse to acknowledge many of them granted, but there are other explanations.

There are very few people who believe in evolution like a religion, and no-one like that has any influence in the scientific community. Most people believe in evolution like a highly likely scientific theory, which is what it is. You're not complaining about people believing in something like the theory of relativity like a religion. Most theories with as much evidence as evolution are taken as being probably true.

Just because a theory isn't accurate in its foundation doesn't mean that technology can't be created from it. You could base a whole host of technology on energy=wave theory. Of course you can do the same with energy=partical theory as well. And we did and still don't completely understand the nature of energy do we?

Then explain to me, why have fossils of horses never been found in Antarctica and Australia?

Just because a theory isn't accurate in its foundation doesn't mean that technology can't be created from it. You could base a whole host of technology on energy=wave theory. Of course you can do the same with energy=partical theory as well. And we did and still don't completely understand the nature of energy do we?

But for us to have technology that works on a theory, there must be some basis to the theory in general terms, even if we don't funnly understand the details.

Well, if you believe into Creation without knowning about evolution, that does not make you an idiot. But, believing into it in the face of evidence that says something different is pretty folly...


I find that mental challenge far less difficult than the one that says that that which exists magically appeared from that which does not exist in the absence of a magician no less...

Then explain to me, why have fossils of horses never been found in Antarctica and Australia?

World wide cataclismic flood...

Not evolution from one species to another. Only of adaptation within a species. Each of the other things you mentioned have alternate explanations as well. It is simply a matter of what you chose to believe...
How can you explain that human and cow fossils are never seen mixed with dinosaur fossils? If they all existed at the same time you'd expect to see them in the same strata of rocks. You'd expect to find discarded dinosaur bones in caves inhabited by early humans.

I find that mental challenge far less difficult than the one that says that that which exists magically appeared from that which does not exist in the absence of a magician no less...

We don't know exactly how everything that exists came into existance, so to assume either magic or a magician is to be very impatient and naive.

World wide cataclismic flood...
Of which there is not enough geographical evidence to prove

World wide cataclismic flood...

ROTF, flood! Don't get me started talking about that Deluge nonsense, please... there's no evidence for any global flood. There's not even enough water on the planet for that....

... besides, you have not answered my question with that.

World wide cataclismic flood...
They got swept away?

Just because a theory isn't accurate in its foundation doesn't mean that technology can't be created from it. You could base a whole host of technology on energy=wave theory. Of course you can do the same with energy=partical theory as well. And we did and still don't completely understand the nature of energy do we?

Actually, we know almost everything about energy that we need to know short of the engineering solutions to some problems. In fact, it's been proven that this universe you see every day isn't the only one - it can be demonstrated using a tabletop experiment.

The theories are nearly complete, and it's likely that we'll see the end of new physics in the next 100 years.

There are very few people who believe in evolution like a religion, and no-one like that has any influence in the scientific community. Most people believe in evolution like a highly likely scientific theory, which is what it is. You're not complaining about people believing in something like the theory of relativity like a religion. Most theories with as much evidence as evolution are taken as being probably true.


In your opinion. IMO everyone that believes in evolution, believes in it like a religion.

200 years ago, your statement about evolution would have been equally credible if said about creation. Who knows what the next 200 years will tell us. Assuming, from an evolutionary perspective, we don't destroy the world and ourselves first, or from a creationistic perspective, that Christ doesn't come first.

In anycase, I'd love to stay and discuss this further but I'm past due at returning to work. So, it'll have to wait for another day. Sorry...

In your opinion. IMO everyone that believes in evolution, believes in it like a religion.

200 years ago, your statement about evolution would have been equally credible if said about creation. Who knows what the next 200 years will tell us. Assuming, from an evolutionary perspective, we don't destroy the world and ourselves first, or from a creationistic perspective, that Christ doesn't come first.

In anycase, I'd love to stay and discuss this further but I'm past due at returning to work. So, it'll have to wait for another day. Sorry...

Ouch! :headbang:

In your opinion. IMO everyone that believes in evolution, believes in it like a religion.

It's not a matter of opinion. If it was a religion, then scientists would not be testing it to look for evidence in favour or against the theory. It is quite clear that people believe in it as a scientific theory. In a religion, you don't need proof. No true scientist would say that they believed evolution was true to a probability of 100%.

There have been debates as to whether or not Creationism should be allowed to be taught in schools. Basically, Creationism states that a God created everything. I am an atheist and have many problems with this.

First, Creationism has no scientific basis at all. Yes, I know that I cant disprove it because I cant prove that God doesnt exist. But it should not be taught in school.

Second, If the government supports this action of teaching Creationism, it means that they would be breaking the principle of Separation of church and state. Also by supporting this, it means that the government is supporting the principle that there is a god and that is offensive, biased and unfair.

Please, I do not mean to offend anyone. I merely want to hear others opinion in this. So if I have offended you or your religion, I sincerely apologize.
i live in canada, and am a christian, and i must say your arguments are sound. however, the united states was founded as a christian country. it should stay that way. i do agree that creationism should not be taught in schools, at least not until there is evidence to support it. but if the government of a country declared its belief in God when it was founded, then it should continue to do so.

i live in canada, and am a christian, and i must say your arguments are sound. however, the united states was founded as a christian country. it should stay that way. i do agree that creationism should not be taught in schools, at least not until there is evidence to support it. but if the government of a country declared its belief in God when it was founded, then it should continue to do so.
It was NOT founded by Christians nor was it founded as a Christian country … sorry wrong try again :p

And where did it declare this belief in god?

i live in canada, and am a christian, and i must say your arguments are sound. however, the united states was founded as a christian country. it should stay that way. i do agree that creationism should not be taught in schools, at least not until there is evidence to support it. but if the government of a country declared its belief in God when it was founded, then it should continue to do so.
This person does not represent the knowledge basis of all canadians. Most of us know better.

Not living proof. And that evidence can be explained in other ways. Those who believe in evolution like it is a religion refuse to acknowledge many of them granted, but there are other explanations.
Scientific explanations or "God changed the rate of radioactive decay" supernatural ones? Supernatural explanations aren't allowed in science because they're untestable.

This person does not represent the knowledge basis of all canadians. Most of us know better.
Don’t worry most of us are smarter then that :fluffle:

World wide cataclismic flood...
There's no evidence of that flood. Also why did it sweep two continents clean of that one particular type of fossil and left behind many others? Why didn't it sweep other continents clean of those particular fossils?

In your opinion. IMO everyone that believes in evolution, believes in it like a religion.
And based on that, you have demonstrated your ignorance of science.

Go read a book instead of continuing in your ignorance.

Don’t worry most of us are smarter then that :fluffle:
I know, but there are those who aren't.

Actually, we know almost everything about energy that we need to know short of the engineering solutions to some problems. In fact, it's been proven that this universe you see every day isn't the only one - it can be demonstrated using a tabletop experiment.

The theories are nearly complete, and it's likely that we'll see the end of new physics in the next 100 years.

Which is what people said prior to Einstein's theory of special relativity. It'll probably lead into more concretions of the theory, and then a new theory will develop and be berated by the scientific community, until somebody else publishes a paper which also suggests the same thing. Quantum physics will be taught in colleges, but anybody in the know will think that the new theory is where the cosmic truth lies. It's a cycle, happens all the time.

And based on that, you have demonstrated your ignorance of science.

Go read a book instead of continuing in your ignorance.

Yeah. Evolution isn't a lifestyle, and I don't know anybody who worships the process of change.

Religion in schools is always used through dogmatic methods which lead to a dependent society, religion is utter dependence on imaginary hope and there is not need to teach religion for it serves no moral purpose; religion is not needed to decide right from wrong and holds little use in later life. Organised religion is dangerous and should not be encouraged, organised religion serves to create a hierachy for profiteering, or for manipulation of the followers.
Believing in God is fine, but the religions which define beliefs are not.

Dem, you should know me better than that by now. We've had this discussion before. As for the first statement you qouted it was a direct response to the statement made at the beginning of this thread in which it was stated that the poster found creationism and the teaching of the existance of God offensive.

You agreed that the teaching of God in the public schools would be a problem.

I'm not asking for no science or art or music or history and I don't want to raise "idiots". I was raised believing in creation and that belief does not make me an idiot. There is much more to science than evolutionary theory.

Well, you did say only the three R's. Of course, only one of the three R's starts with R, so I guess you could shove anything in there.

You are correct. Believing in creation does not make you an idiot. Believing that Creationism is science makes you ignorant of science. And anyone who would be turned away from faith by hearing that there is a scientific theory that seems to contradict their faith has none at all.

And yes, there is much more to science than evolutionary theory, but evolutionary theory is a huge part of science. In fact, the controversies raised over it have made it a perfect conduit for teaching the methods of science.

Besides, if we are going to pick and choose what people like and don't like about science and only teach the "comfortable" things, then we may as well not teach it at all. Ignoring things is not scientific thinking.

I find that mental challenge far less difficult than the one that says that that which exists magically appeared from that which does not exist in the absence of a magician no less...

Point to the part of evolutionary theory that states this.

i live in canada, and am a christian, and i must say your arguments are sound. however, the united states was founded as a christian country. it should stay that way. i do agree that creationism should not be taught in schools, at least not until there is evidence to support it. but if the government of a country declared its belief in God when it was founded, then it should continue to do so.

You live in Canada, so you are forgiven for being so completely and utterly wrong. The US was not founded as a Christian country. In fact, we have a treaty (which is only below the Constitution in its power) which explicitly states that.

In your opinion. IMO everyone that believes in evolution, believes in it like a religion.

You need to look up the definition of the word opinion.

Actually, we know almost everything about energy that we need to know short of the engineering solutions to some problems. In fact, it's been proven that this universe you see every day isn't the only one - it can be demonstrated using a tabletop experiment.

Correction. It has not been proven. It has been supported.

Of course, science can only measure that which is within the universe, so anything outside of it would be outside the realm of science anyways.

Personal responsibilit, judging from your posts in this thread you would be a prime candidate for this discussion:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=417372

Feel free to volunteer to participate if you're interested in a detailed discussion of what evolution actually says.

In order to form compromise on this issue... I say that we base the curriculum off of the theological view of Evolutionary Creationism, also called Theistic evolution... But that the actual theism of the theory be ommited from the curriculum...

There, we can teach Evolution and Creation.... Oh, wait, we already do that!... NM, let's just leave it like it is...

DO NOT SAY THAT AGAIN!!!!!

Why does x believe y/why is y true?
Because ________ says so.

_______ can be any arbitrary thing - the Tanakh, the Gospels, the Qur'an, the Vedas, mom or dad, the old wise man down the street, take your pick.

It's difficult not to laugh at a progression like that one. An appeal to authority has no scientific (rational, logical, etc) bearing upon any subject. It's not evidence, it's not support.

Similar would be someone claiming evolution is true/accurate/whatever because "scientists say so!" - it's not. It's true/accurate/whatever because anyone can test its principles and either support it or indicate something is inaccurate or even flawed.

I DIDN'T LAUGH AT YOUR RELIGION!!!!!!!

It's not about religion - I certainly hope the laughter wasn't at religion.

Correction. It has not been proven. It has been supported.

Of course, science can only measure that which is within the universe, so anything outside of it would be outside the realm of science anyways.

Well supported. And they measure the effects that something NOT in our universe is having on particles in OUR universe.

then how do you explain about 4 years ago they found a fosilized heart of a dinosaur and a spear through it? and they even showed it.

Sorry. No.

Provide a firm source (a reputable news article online, a scholarly journal, whichever) and perhaps. As there won't be one, I'm afraid people have to dismiss this off hand.

Adam and Eve were adults when they came to the earth noto babies right? ANd the had age to them right? So couldn't ht earth have age to it just like Adam and Eve?

Friend, you hold firm to your beliefs, which is commendable. What you fail to do is answer the question asked - what at all exists in the Bible (or indeed anywhere else) that supports a 1 million year old Earth?

No one is asking whether the Earth could have been "created with age". No one, I'm aware, brought up Eden, except for you. What people are asking is what in the Bible indicates an age of 1 million years - not whether it could have been "created aged".

Well supported. And they measure the effects that something NOT in our universe is having on particles in OUR universe.

If we can measure it, it is a part of our universe.

If we can measure it, it is a part of our universe.

That's not what I was taught. I was taught that particles from an adjacent and parallel universe are interacting with particles in ours. We live in a multiverse, but are of the constant opinion that we're in a single universe.

But we're not in a single universe.

If there was nothing, then how else did matter come into existence besides your sarcastic "POOF"?

You see, if we started with nothing, then creation had to take place in order for there to be something, anything, in the universe!

From there, take it anywhere you want to, but if you start with nothing... then something made (at least) the first matter.

Or there was never a "creation" to begin with.

It's very possible - but with current understanding, impossible to explore - that what we call the "Big Bang" was only one event, giving rise to what we call the "Universe", in a substantially (infinitely?) larger Universe/Multiverse.

Adam and Eve were adults when they came to the earth noto babies right? ANd the had age to them right? So couldn't ht earth have age to it just like Adam and Eve?

It is a myth. Story. Parable. Call it what you will. The bible was never intended to be taken literally.

Well then how do YOU know that?

No one knows that. Absolute knowledge is impossible.

We just happen to have a very good idea about it, based on extensive and wide ranging research and consideration of empirical data and theoretical parameters.

That's not what I was taught. I was taught that particles from an adjacent and parallel universe are interacting with particles in ours. We live in a multiverse, but are of the constant opinion that we're in a single universe.

But we're not in a single universe.

The universe is defined by what we can measure. If we find other dimensions, and we can measure and interact with them, they are part of our universe.

Edit: Meanwhile, the multiverse/alternate reality ideas are much more in the realm of philosophy than science.

Lol. I can't help but laugh at the atheists who try to discredit the Bible by saying it was written by MEN, then take FAITH in what scientists, who are also men, say.

Unless you are one of these scientists who have "proven" evolution, you have FAITH (or you impart trust) in what these men say.

...

Evolution and the Big Bang theory requires just as much faith as any faith in any religion!!! Second, you have absolutely no explanation for a "Big Bang" unless some kind of "Supernatural" power (which, of course, means above nature, implying outside natural laws), which would pretty much require that said supernatural power to have created these "natural" laws, initiated the "BIG BANG."

Peace be with you.

Faith is a funny little thing.

Faith, at its root, contains the same concept as "truth" - indeed, remaining faithful to someone or something is to remain true.

I take faith, to give two examples, in the theory of gravity and in my friends.

Faith is not unfounded - without foundation, there is no reason to have "faith" that something is "true".

I take faith in gravity because the theory has been supported amply over four centuries, without fail (save for when one theory of gravity has been replaced by a more accurate one).

I take faith in my friends because I have reason to believe that they will act as friends and remain as friends, based on past conduct and and understanding of them.

Blind faith is not faith, as faith requires reason - blind faith is the surrender of all reason, believing someone or something for no (good?) reason.

I just believe in one less god than you do. (as a note to whomever wrote this originally: I really like this saying!)

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.

C. Richard Dawkins

I'm fairly certain that something along those lines was said before, though. :)

Fossilised heart, eh?

Soft tissue usually isn't fossilised. Fossilisation happens when rock replaces calcium in bony/hard tissue. If soft tissue was fossilised, how come we still don't know what dinosaur skin looked like?!?

Creationism should be taught in schools. There is no firm evidence of evolution. Think about it this way. Orange trees always make oranges, right? So according to evolution, an apple can come out of the tree, am I not correct? We did not come from ooze. If we evolved, why are their still primates on the earth? This THEORY of evolution has no rationale behind it. The minority of people believe it, and want everyone to think their way. Creationism is very true, not just because I am a devout christian, but because it makes since. Liberals need to leave the school system alone, so that it may teach what is right, and not just minorities theory's.

Well, as an independent Christian (I do not identify myself with any branch...whole different subject, though), as well as having been a tiny bit of a shcolar in my school days......

I would like to see both sides represented, properly, in their respective places. As has been mentioend, Evolution is science, Creationsim is faith.

So Creationism should be taught, but not up agaisnt science. it will fall every time that way.

Put it in its own arena. Philosophy is a good department for it. Or perhaps a theology department...although that could get mixed and very contencious.

Would the more hardcore religious zealots be happy? No. Would the sceince nuts be satsified? Probably not. Would the 95|% of the population lodged somewhere on the varying scale between the two be better off for it? I think so.

Creationism should be taught in schools. There is no firm evidence of evolution. Think about it this way. Orange trees always make oranges, right? So according to evolution, an apple can come out of the tree, am I not correct? We did not come from ooze. If we evolved, why are their still primates on the earth? This THEORY of evolution has no rationale behind it. The minority of people believe it, and want everyone to think their way. Creationism is very true, not just because I am a devout christian, but because it makes since. Liberals need to leave the school system alone, so that it may teach what is right, and not just minorities theory's.
Um. No.


Nowhere in evolution does it say t...


Wait. Primates still around?


This is a joke post. No one is that stupid.

Creationism should be taught in schools.

Out with the Constitution,eh?

here is no firm evidence of evolution.

What exactly would constitute "firm evidence"?

Think about it this way. Orange trees always make oranges, right? So according to evolution, an apple can come out of the tree, am I not correct?

No, you are not any where close to correct. Perhaps you should make at least some small attempt at being knowledgeable about something if you wish to then argue against it?

If we evolved, why are their still primates on the earth?

Because they also evolved, in a different way. Fairly simple to understand, if you aren't hung up on the idea that human beings are somehow the perfect animals.

This THEORY of evolution has no rationale behind it.

The strawman that you are arguing with has no rationale. The actual theory certainly does.

Creationism is very true, not just because I am a devout christian, but because it makes since.

Do you believe in the Priestly or Yahwist version of Christianity? Or do you follow the King James Version Bible, which translates most of it incorrectly?

Creationism should be taught in schools. There is no firm evidence of evolution. Think about it this way. Orange trees always make oranges, right? So according to evolution, an apple can come out of the tree, am I not correct? We did not come from ooze. If we evolved, why are their still primates on the earth? This THEORY of evolution has no rationale behind it. The minority of people believe it, and want everyone to think their way. Creationism is very true, not just because I am a devout christian, but because it makes since. Liberals need to leave the school system alone, so that it may teach what is right, and not just minorities theory's.
No, seriously. You're not really that ignorant about evolution, are you? If so, you probably shouldn't have any say in the matter. It's like a person who's never even seen a car before saying that they should be banned.

Creationism should be taught in schools. There is no firm evidence of evolution. Think about it this way. Orange trees always make oranges, right? So according to evolution, an apple can come out of the tree, am I not correct? We did not come from ooze. If we evolved, why are their still primates on the earth? This THEORY of evolution has no rationale behind it. The minority of people believe it, and want everyone to think their way. Creationism is very true, not just because I am a devout christian, but because it makes since. Liberals need to leave the school system alone, so that it may teach what is right, and not just minorities theory's.


Right, our diet has a lot to do with the size of our brain. More protein = bigger brain. The four most intellgent species on the planet:

Human: omnivore
dolphin: carnivore
dog: carnivore
pig: omnivore

How many highly intelligent herbivores can you name? And your vegetarian dog doesn't count, he's still a carnivore...

What a silly thing to claim. Science and religion are both searches for truth, simply in different areas. There is absolutely no reason that they cannot coexist, so long as each sticks to its own subject matter.

Since the subject matter of both biology and religion is 'the origin of mankind', that's harder than you might think.

Right, our diet has a lot to do with the size of our brain. More protein = bigger brain. The four most intellgent species on the planet:

Human: omnivore
dolphin: carnivore
dog: carnivore
pig: omnivore

How many highly intelligent herbivores can you name? And your vegetarian dog doesn't count, he's still a carnivore...
I though monkeys would have cracked the top 4...

Not that it discredit your point, but you know, them are some smart monkeys.

Read what I posted. It's been proven over and over and over again. Humans and dinosaurs did not co-exist. Can you read English? Yes I CAN read English!! And again how do YOU know that?

Yes I CAN read English!! And again how do YOU know that?
Archeology

Creationism should be taught in schools. There is no firm evidence of evolution. Think about it this way. Orange trees always make oranges, right? So according to evolution, an apple can come out of the tree, am I not correct? We did not come from ooze. If we evolved, why are their still primates on the earth? This THEORY of evolution has no rationale behind it. The minority of people believe it, and want everyone to think their way. Creationism is very true, not just because I am a devout christian, but because it makes since. Liberals need to leave the school system alone, so that it may teach what is right, and not just minorities theory's.

Ack!

I'm almost not sure where to begin responding.

Orange trees always make oranges - within variance. One orange produced by the tree may have DNA that codes for a sweeter taste, another one coding for a more acidic taste.

Should each one give rise to a line of orange trees, at least some of which continue to bear fruit, there will eventually be drift, causing the genomes of the various lines apart - in isolation, or where a niche may be unoccupied or able to be assaulted, this leads to speciation.

The reason orange trees continue to give rise to oranges is caused by the opposite of genetic drift - sexual reproduction/recombination. Any two orange trees cross fertilize, ensuring offspring are akin to the parents, although not identical. There is variation, but so long as there is cross breeding, not enough to give rise to new species.

Apples are coded for by very different DNA than oranges. Mutations are discrete and most often insignificant, where not fatal. One type of orange will give rise to another type of orange, one type of apple to another apple. Only if the entire DNA of an apple (the seeds of an apple) were altered to that of an orange might an apple tree give rise to an orange tree. Scientifically speaking, that's impossible. Undesirable, at that - if you want an orange, plant an orange tree, not engineer an apple.

There are most certainly still primates on Earth - us among them. Evolution doesn't mean that different branches of familes die out - there are many different kinds of flowers, many different kinds of roses. It is not impossible - indeed, it is the norm - for different but closely related species to co-exist. At various points in human evolution, there are thought to have existed two, three, possibly more, different proto-humans at one time, in cases often in the same geographical regions.

The Theory Of Evolution exists only because there is rationale supporting it. No THEORY can exist where there is no evidence supporting it - I won't try and give that evidence here, there are plenty of texts, journals, articles, and so on, that provide ample evidence and reasoning.

A majority of people accept it - including many devout religious people. Different surveys will find different answers, but despite the virulent and vitriolic opposition, based upon biased and unfounded absolutes, to the scientific theory, around half of all Americans accept evolution as accurate, a stat that increases significantly the more training and education one has in scientific matters.

As for "liberals", etc, I'll ignore that. "Intelligent Design" is very much so a "minority theory" (it's not a theory, but hey). Yet, that is precisely what some, a very vocal minority, are attempting to enforce upon everyone else.

Archeology And that's not real proof.

Religion in government brings nothing but death - history shows it. Placing Creationism in school systems, let alone allowing it to corrupt science, one of the few chances for human society to progress , is absolutely absurd.

I pretty much agree with you on all points (especially with the Crusades II bit), but I find myself disagreeing a little with religion in government brings nothing but death. Yes, absolutely people have died because of overzealous, religous leaders, but during the crusades, for example, people were rather narrow-minded. They refused to acknowledge other religions. I'd like to think we've moved on since then. But I also see how Bush is bringing religion into government. I cringe every time he says, "God bless America," because I think of all the people who suddenly feel disconnected from their country.
My point is, is that religion doesn't completely annihilate (sorry if that is spelt incorrectly) groups of people in a country as it might have in the past. Martin Luther King, Jr. used religous ideals to change government policy in the South. That SAVED people.
I still think religion should be involved as little as possible in our government, but we can't completely delete it from our world. Whether we want to admit it or not and whether we LIKE it or not, our country was founded on mainly Christian ideas. I don't always like it, but that's how it is.

And that's not real proof.

Apparently nothing is.

And that's not real proof.
Why?

Apparently nothing is. You have to say more than one word to be proof.

Creationism should be taught in schools. There is no firm evidence of evolution.

. . .I suppose if you torture the definition of "evidence" enough, then yes. But most people would think that the whole of the fossil record, the whole of geology, the whole of genetics, and the phenomenal harmony between them is some pretty damn strong evidence.

Think about it this way. Orange trees always make oranges, right? So according to evolution, an apple can come out of the tree, am I not correct? We did not come from ooze. If we evolved, why are their still primates on the earth?

. . .And your argument at this point is. . .what again? The reason why there are still primates if we evolved from primates is because one of our common genetic ancestors evolved in several different ways. One branch of the family evolved into us. Another evolved into chimps, another to gorillas, another to orangutans, and so on. I'm not seeing what is so hard about this.

This THEORY of evolution has no rationale behind it.

Well, if you ignore the fact that its the simplest way to explain the largest amount of data that we have about the fossil record, then no, it doesn't have a rationale behind it. That's kind of a big thing to ignore, though.

The minority of people believe it, and want everyone to think their way.

What does this have to do with anything? What is true and what the public believes are quite different things, my friend. If you were to find a poll in which 90% of the people said they didn't believe in gravity, would that mean you'd suddenly start hovering three inches off the ground?

Creationism is very true, not just because I am a devout christian, but because it makes since. Liberals need to leave the school system alone, so that it may teach what is right, and not just minorities theory's.

And the evidence for this truth is. . .what again?

I'm not going after because you are a member of the persecuted majority. I'm going after you because what you are saying does not agree with how reality is, and God would not fool us. If you are a faithful Christian, then you ought to at least trust in the Lord enough to believe what your eyes tell you about the world and what your mind can apprehend through the scientific method.

:) Ack!

I'm almost not sure where to begin responding.

Orange trees always make oranges - within variance. One orange produced by the tree may have DNA that codes for a sweeter taste, another one coding for a more acidic taste.

Should each one give rise to a line of orange trees, at least some of which continue to bear fruit, there will eventually be drift, causing the genomes of the various lines apart - in isolation, or where a niche may be unoccupied or able to be assaulted, this leads to speciation.

The reason orange trees continue to give rise to oranges is caused by the opposite of genetic drift - sexual reproduction/recombination. Any two orange trees cross fertilize, ensuring offspring are akin to the parents, although not identical. There is variation, but so long as there is cross breeding, not enough to give rise to new species.

Apples are coded for by very different DNA than oranges. Mutations are discrete and most often insignificant, where not fatal. One type of orange will give rise to another type of orange, one type of apple to another apple. Only if the entire DNA of an apple (the seeds of an apple) were altered to that of an orange might an apple tree give rise to an orange tree. Scientifically speaking, that's impossible. Undesirable, at that - if you want an orange, plant an orange tree, not engineer an apple.

There are most certainly still primates on Earth - us among them. Evolution doesn't mean that different branches of familes die out - there are many different kinds of flowers, many different kinds of roses. It is not impossible - indeed, it is the norm - for different but closely related species to co-exist. At various points in human evolution, there are thought to have existed two, three, possibly more, different proto-humans at one time, in cases often in the same geographical regions.

The Theory Of Evolution exists only because there is rationale supporting it. No THEORY can exist where there is no evidence supporting it - I won't try and give that evidence here, there are plenty of texts, journals, articles, and so on, that provide ample evidence and reasoning.

A majority of people accept it - including many devout religious people. Different surveys will find different answers, but despite the virulent and vitriolic opposition, based upon biased and unfounded absolutes, to the scientific theory, around half of all Americans accept evolution as accurate, a stat that increases significantly the more training and education one has in scientific matters.

As for "liberals", etc, I'll ignore that. "Intelligent Design" is very much so a "minority theory" (it's not a theory, but hey). Yet, that is precisely what some, a very vocal minority, are attempting to enforce upon everyone else.

HERE, HERE!! Good lord... Why do liberals get blamed for all this? Just because people don't agree that God has myserious magical powers makes us a liberal? Then again... I am a liberal, so why am I complaining? :)

I though monkeys would have cracked the top 4...

Not that it discredit your point, but you know, them are some smart monkeys.

True I suppose, monkeys are quite smart. But again, they're omnivorous. The more intelligent species of money will eat meat when offered to them to supplimnet their diet. I maintain my position on the subject

Originally Posted by Poplotus
Creationism should be taught in schools. There is no firm evidence of evolution. Think about it this way. Orange trees always make oranges, right? So according to evolution, an apple can come out of the tree, am I not correct? We did not come from ooze. If we evolved, why are their still primates on the earth? This THEORY of evolution has no rationale behind it. The minority of people believe it, and want everyone to think their way. Creationism is very true, not just because I am a devout christian, but because it makes since. Liberals need to leave the school system alone, so that it may teach what is right, and not just minorities theory's.

Wow are you stupid. And i mean offense. Apparently a) the entire scientific community is a minority of liberals b) A mysterious God creating the universe in seven days makes more sense than a theory proven and proven again thousands of times c) Evolution = anything random can happen

Go read up and then come back and post, idiot

Should the Theory of Creation be taught in schools?

Always an interesting topic. No good answers, but sometimes good debates.

In my opinion, both the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution should get the same treatment. Both or neither. Science shouldn't play favorites.

Creation Theory only states that some Power created the Universe by design. Not necessarily God.

By the way, dig out a copy of the US Constitution. No Separation clause. Never was, probably never will be.

It only states that Congress shall pass no laws abridging the free practice of religion. Whether that is Christian, Hindu, Wiccan, or Athiest. Again, it should be all or nothing. It would be no better if Congress mandated Atheism than any other. The Founding Fathers wanted to keep the government from starting and forcing one, not that one's religious belief should become a criminal offense.I agree. Teach both or teach neither. If parents would rather their child not learn one or the other, send them to a different school, for God's sake (no offense to the religious among us). Case closed.

Wow are you stupid. And i mean offense. Apparently a) the entire scientific community is a minority of liberals b) A mysterious God creating the universe in seven days makes more sense than a theory proven and proven again thousands of times c) Evolution = anything random can happen

Go read up and then come back and post, idiotPlease stop flaming, or I will have to report you to our Chief Law Enforcement Officer here on NS.

I haven't read the entire thread yet, so I may be repeating someone.

I am a christian, and therefore some may say I am biased. But I am also an engineer and base my work on absolutes and things that are proven. I have heard many points from both sides. I have actually seen a seminar on creation science. In this seminar the guys actually compares both creation and evolution. And he actually proves things scientifically. I remember one point he made was about the Sahara desert. Did you know the Sahara desert is growing? According to the rate at which it was growing, it was non-existent around 4000 years ago. About the time of the flood. He has many other points as well. And also, I know this may sound funny, but if we evolved from lesser beings (i.e. monkeys) then why haven't the monkey's become extinct?

I haven't read the entire thread yet, so I may be repeating someone.

I am a christian, and therefore some may say I am biased. But I am also an engineer and base my work on absolutes and things that are proven. I have heard many points from both sides. I have actually seen a seminar on creation science. In this seminar the guys actually compares both creation and evolution. And he actually proves things scientifically. I remember one point he made was about the Sahara desert. Did you know the Sahara desert is growing? According to the rate at which it was growing, it was non-existent around 4000 years ago. About the time of the flood. He has many other points as well. And also, I know this may sound funny, but if we evolved from lesser beings (i.e. monkeys) then why haven't the monkey's become extinct?
Two in a row.


My god. I really hope you aren't as ignorant about engineering as you are about evolution.

And that's not real proof.
Yeah it is. Why are there no human remains in the same rock strata as dinosaur bones? Because humans didn't live at the same time as dinosaurs. That's the proof.

I haven't read the entire thread yet, so I may be repeating someone.

I am a christian, and therefore some may say I am biased. But I am also an engineer and base my work on absolutes and things that are proven. I have heard many points from both sides. I have actually seen a seminar on creation science. In this seminar the guys actually compares both creation and evolution. And he actually proves things scientifically. I remember one point he made was about the Sahara desert. Did you know the Sahara desert is growing? According to the rate at which it was growing, it was non-existent around 4000 years ago. About the time of the flood. He has many other points as well. And also, I know this may sound funny, but if we evolved from lesser beings (i.e. monkeys) then why haven't the monkey's become extinct?They have. The monkeys we evolved from also evolved into modern-day primates according to evolution, and no longer exist. I would suggest you read up on Darwin's The Origin of Species and then come back to post.

You have to say more than one word to be proof.

The word, friend, is not proof. The word is an entire discipline of science founded in long and thorough study and research.

The word only serves to point the way to the proof, for you to find it.

I agree. Teach both or teach neither. If parents would rather their child not learn one or the other, send them to a different school, for God's sake (no offense to the religious among us). Case closed.

Creationism should only be taught if it were as scientifically valid a theory as evolutionary theory. It isn't. As such, no it should not be taught.

If your standard is simply that they are competing theories who each have their supporters, then perhaps you'd also recommend teaching Aristotelian theories of the spheres in physics class. Nevermind that Aristotle can't explain why there are eclipses of Venus and Newton and Kepler can, it's the avoidance of controversy we're looking for in our classrooms. . .

I agree. Teach both or teach neither. If parents would rather their child not learn one or the other, send them to a different school, for God's sake (no offense to the religious among us). Case closed.
Let's also teach the germ theory of disease along with a course on evil spirits that cause disease and how to exorcise them. Let's teach the holocaust, and teach the position of the holocaust deniers too. Let's teach that the world is round, and also give the flat earth point of view. We wouldn't want anyone to be upset by the truth, so let's teach lies along with it.

Well I'm a VERY strong Christian and I think that God and all of it should be teached in school. I mean (in my religion) God create EVRYTHING. And that he is alive. So everything doesn't have to have a scientic reason. I mean do you think that the desiples in the Bible just made up stuff? So if they are telling the truth then God made the world. And so peole should know the truth! And if I have offended some people I'm sorry but that's what I think.
if you are going to argue here yuo should at least learn to spell correctly it is deciple not desiple

if you cant say the pledge of allegiance in a classroom because the word god is in it then why can you teach that god created this planet, solar system, univers, our species, etc., etc.

you are right in saying that science does not have to find a reason for everything but keep in mind that 100 years ago people that animals were created spontaneously (people thought that flys were born from rotting meat not that other flys have children) and you cant say one way or the other until it is proven. this brings up the point of the agnostics (i am one) that state that there is not enough scientific proof as the whether God exists or what god to worship.

one last thing that everybody should be forced to read whenever they enter the forums:
JUST BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE SOMETHNG DOESNT MAKE IT TRUE, you have to look at all other possible viewpoints and then still it is a belief not a fact so dont criticize people for their beliefs unless they are racist, discriminating, etc. it is unfair to judge someone based on their beliefs so keep an open mind whenever on the forums.

edit one more last thing:
Dont use the "i saw a show on______" or "i went to this seminar that proved _______" unless the show/seminar/learning area also had people of the opposing side talking at it. most of those shows are very biased and cant be trusted about whether or not they are providing accurate non-biased data and they are most likely jsut gonna show the stuff that helps their side. when u are arguing with a less educated friend do u mention the stuff that might help their argument? no you just use stuff to help them think that your side is right. if you are going to go to a seminar or anything on evolution or any other topic you should either go to one that has people of both sides or one where it is more of an open debate.

sorry if i sound biased these are just my opinions go with them or against them but if you disagree please provide a valid argument

Please stop flaming, or I will have to report you to our Chief Law Enforcement Officer here on NS.
Poplotus really did have it comming for his ignorant and error-filled post.

Archeology


Actually, there are parts to archeology that can be disproven. Such as carbon dating. There assumptions made when you use carbon dating that aren't necessarily true. Sometimes they are, but not always.

Also, I have heard that they can base it one the depth that they find bones (correct me if I am wrong) but in my opinion that really wouldn't matter. Look at mudslides. Something could be 1 foot underground one day, then a mudslide, and boom, in a matter of hours, the same something could be 20 feet underground.

Yeah it is. Why are there no human remains in the same rock strata as dinosaur bones? Because humans didn't live at the same time as dinosaurs. That's the proof. Hmmm....and you'll know this by.... by hearing things?

I haven't read the entire thread yet, so I may be repeating someone.

I am a christian, and therefore some may say I am biased. But I am also an engineer and base my work on absolutes and things that are proven. I have heard many points from both sides. I have actually seen a seminar on creation science. In this seminar the guys actually compares both creation and evolution. And he actually proves things scientifically. I remember one point he made was about the Sahara desert. Did you know the Sahara desert is growing? According to the rate at which it was growing, it was non-existent around 4000 years ago. About the time of the flood. He has many other points as well. And also, I know this may sound funny, but if we evolved from lesser beings (i.e. monkeys) then why haven't the monkey's become extinct?Why would monkeys go extinct? Just because one population of primates evolves to humans, why wouldn't other populations of primates evolve in other directions?

As for the sahara growing, it's rate of growth isn't constant. It's linked to climate changes. To extrapolate it's current rate of growth back to the mythical flood is to ignore tremendous ammounts of data we have on climate changes throughout the history of the world.

As for your mythical flood, there's no evidence it ever took place.

Poplotus really did have it comming for his ignorant and error-filled post.True. But even so, flaming is still not allowed. I'm not reporting the offender to the CLEO this time because he had a reason to flame, but next time...

if you are going to argue here yuo should at least learn to spell correctly it is deciple not desipleLOL x oo

Actually, there are parts to archeology that can be disproven. Such as carbon dating. There assumptions made when you use carbon dating that aren't necessarily true. Sometimes they are, but not always.

Also, I have heard that they can base it one the depth that they find bones (correct me if I am wrong) but in my opinion that really wouldn't matter. Look at mudslides. Something could be 1 foot underground one day, then a mudslide, and boom, in a matter of hours, the same something could be 20 feet underground.
1 Not only carbon dating is used to determine age. Other radioisotopes, geological evidence and more is used. Point 1 is shot to hell.

2 Mudslides? In order to become a fossil remains must stay covered and compacted for a very long time. Long enough to turn to stone. Stone is not mud, and doesn't slide very easily. Point two shot to hell.

Your post has now become pointless. Sorry.

Actually, there are parts to archeology that can be disproven. Such as carbon dating. There assumptions made when you use carbon dating that aren't necessarily true. Sometimes they are, but not always.

Also, I have heard that they can base it one the depth that they find bones (correct me if I am wrong) but in my opinion that really wouldn't matter. Look at mudslides. Something could be 1 foot underground one day, then a mudslide, and boom, in a matter of hours, the same something could be 20 feet underground.
carbon dating is very accurate to with a few thousand years or whatever it is
the process is by looking at a radioactive isotope of carbon (i think it is carbon-14) and checking the amount of it and using the known half life of carbon-14(if thats the right one if not its a different one).

but they compare to the ages of the rock around somethnig because that would be possible. they dig and can tell the ages of rock and use that to tell how old a dinosaur is

Hmmm....and you'll know this by.... by hearing things?
Mostly by reading things from people who have studied the rock strata and the fossils, but the fossils are available for me to see. I can always volunteer to help out on a dig and see for myself. That's the difference between science and creationism. Science invites you to check whether the current theory is right or wrong for yourself. Creationism sticks to it's story in spite of the facts, and calls you a sinner or a liar if you find evidence that disproves it.

In fact creationism is the lie, creationists are liars, and it's all done in the name of a religion that sees lying as a sin. Because of that creationists are liars and hypocrites.

Mostly by reading things from people who have studied the rock strata and the fossils, but the fossils are available for me to see. I can always volunteer to help out on a dig and see for myself. That's the difference between science and creationism. Science invites you to check whether the current theory is right or wrong for yourself. Creationism sticks to it's story in spite of the facts, and calls you a sinner or a liar if you find evidence that disproves it.

In fact creationism is the lie, creationists are liars, and it's all done in the name of a religion that sees lying as a sin. Because of that creationists are liars and hypocrites. As someone said to me. It could be a fake.

Actually, there are parts to archeology that can be disproven. Such as carbon dating. There assumptions made when you use carbon dating that aren't necessarily true. Sometimes they are, but not always.

Also, I have heard that they can base it one the depth that they find bones (correct me if I am wrong) but in my opinion that really wouldn't matter. Look at mudslides. Something could be 1 foot underground one day, then a mudslide, and boom, in a matter of hours, the same something could be 20 feet underground.
So... because part of the science that is Archeology is not 100% accurate, we should throw the whole field to the wind?

The guy asked how do we know that humans and dinosaurs didn't co-exist. Archeology tell us this by various ways, one of them who happens to be carbon-dating. Even if you remove that small part of the proof, we still have overwhelming evidence that dinosaurs and human didn't co-exist. We don't KNOW for sure, as always, but short of a time-machine, there's no way to know.

Now, if you need actual incontroversial proof to accept the notion that dinosaurs and humans didn't co-exist, I'll ask an actual incontroversial proof that God exist before accepting the teaching of Creationism.

As someone said to me. It could be a fake.
That a hell of a lot of fakes...

And not a single evidence that it is a fake. :)

As someone said to me. It could be a fake.
What could be a fake? Archaeology? If something is faked in archaeology another scientist would build his career by discrediting the lie. Real science is self-correcting.

That a hell of a lot of fakes...

And not a single evidence that it is a fake. :) Hey I'm just repeating what someone said to me today on this site.

Since the subject matter of both biology and religion is 'the origin of mankind', that's harder than you might think.

The exact details of the origin are not necessary in any religion (unless it is something like getting sneezed out of an alien lifeform).

And that's not real proof.

If science really bothers you, you should back away from your computer, take off all of your clothing, and start wrestling your own food.

I agree. Teach both or teach neither. If parents would rather their child not learn one or the other, send them to a different school, for God's sake (no offense to the religious among us). Case closed.

Yes, science = bad. Now kindly step away from your computer, remove your clothing, leave your house (on foot), and begin killing your food by hand.

I haven't read the entire thread yet, so I may be repeating someone.

I am a christian, and therefore some may say I am biased. But I am also an engineer and base my work on absolutes and things that are proven. I have heard many points from both sides. I have actually seen a seminar on creation science. In this seminar the guys actually compares both creation and evolution. And he actually proves things scientifically. I remember one point he made was about the Sahara desert. Did you know the Sahara desert is growing? According to the rate at which it was growing, it was non-existent around 4000 years ago. About the time of the flood. He has many other points as well. And also, I know this may sound funny, but if we evolved from lesser beings (i.e. monkeys) then why haven't the monkey's become extinct?

I don't know what type of engineer you are, but I would expect more from someone in the sciences. Using scientific terms does not equate something to science. I, too, have seen Creationist arguments. They are quite convincing, unless you have actual scientific knowledge and an understanding of the scientific method. Then you realize how very silly their "proofs" are.

Hey I'm just repeating what someone said to me today on this site.
What, about the dinosaur heart fossil with a spear in it? Show me one link to that "fact" from a reputable website and I'll beleive you. Until then I think it's bull. Meanwhile there are countless reputable science websites that back up archaeology.

Yes, science = bad. Now kindly step away from your computer, remove your clothing, leave your house (on foot), and begin killing your food by hand.Science ? bad. Science ? good, either. Science = facts.

And I can't step away from my computer. I'm surfing the internet on a public computer.

Actually, there are parts to archeology that can be disproven. Such as carbon dating. There assumptions made when you use carbon dating that aren't necessarily true. Sometimes they are, but not always.

Carbon dating is not the only form of radiometric dating, nor have there been any instances in which we have observed a change in half-life of the chemicals involved.

Science ? bad. Science ? good, either. Science = facts.

Incorrect. Science cannot prove anything, and is thus not "facts". It is made up of hypotheses, evidence, and theories.

Well I'm a VERY strong Christian and I think that God and all of it should be teached in school. I mean (in my religion) God create EVRYTHING. And that he is alive. So everything doesn't have to have a scientic reason. I mean do you think that the desiples in the Bible just made up stuff? So if they are telling the truth then God made the world. And so peole should know the truth! And if I have offended some people I'm sorry but that's what I think.

Isn't this a wonderful example of what being a "very strong Christian" does to education? I lost count of the errors in spelling and grammar after the second sentence.

Solar radiation impacting with the atmosphere will sometimes turn Nitrogen (N-14) knocking a single neutron out of the Nitrogen.... This results in the Nitrogen becomming Carbon-14... an unstable isotope of Carbon. The C-14 atoms combine readily with oxygen in the atmosphere, and are absorbed by respiration in living organisms. During the organisms life-time, this C-14 is constantly replenished... At death, however, the source can no longer be renewed, and the C-14 levels slowly drop. (decaying to normal carbon).

Dating works by comparing the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon, with an assumption that the original ratio of carbon-14 to normal carbon has been constant throughout earth history. Carbon-14's half-life is about 5,370 years. The dating method is only reliable to about 50,000 years, afterwhich time the amount of Carbon-14 becomes too small for any accurate readings.

Several things are assumed in the process, one being that the C14 levels in the atmosphere are constant... We know this is not the case. C14 levels are effected by industrial polution and the release of more C12 into the atmosphere... They are effected at the actual production level as well... The Earth's Magnetic field is slowly weakining, and goes through stages of weakening, and sometimes even reversion.... Allowing in more solar radiation, which produces more C14.... Also, the Sun itself does not emit a constant stream of radiation, it goes through flucuations, as well as being on a steady and slow incline....

The relative solar incline, however, is not enough. The pace by which solar radiation increases does not effect the results, because its pace is too slow, and places it outside of the normative use of Carbon-14... So it's effect on the final result does not matter... It is infintesimal.

The fluctuations in solar radiation occur over an 11 year period, and are relatively normal. It's effect as well would have little impact on error in the dating methods.

C12 effects in the atmosphere from industrialization are recent... Assuming the sample rate is assumed post-industrial, which we do... That would make C14 presence much greater in sampled from pre-industrial times (a bulk of C-14 dating)... Higher initial C-14 rates would make samples from those periods even OLDER and not YOUNGER as many of the opposition would purport. Meaning we would need to actual INCREASE the ages of the samples based on the assumption, and not decrease them.

Error rates in C-14 dates increase relative to the age.... The older the sample, the less C-14 is present, making "calculations" harder.... This goes from a century or so for relatively recent samples, to thousands of years for older samples... Without any direct knowledge of samples older than 50,000 years.

For normal paleontoligical dating, the preffered method is either Argon, Potasium or Uranium dating.... Uranium being the oldest normally available (with a half-life of ~4.5 billion years), and not C-14 dating. Obviously any descrepancies in process of C-14 dating have no impact on the other forms, which rely on the decay of natural radio-isotopes found in the earth's crustal layers.

Incorrect. Science cannot prove anything, and is thus not "facts". It is made up of hypotheses, evidence, and theories. And unless we're going to play a philosophical game and suspend the theory of causailty, without which most of our daily functions are pointless (how do I know the button I'm pressing on the keyboard won't make it explode? It didn't explode yesterday, but it could today. How do I know that pressing that button will make an "s" appear on my screen and not a "q"? There's an "s" drawn on it, but if there's no causality...), we're just going to have to agree that if one thing happens consistently before another, it just might have caused it. Thus, certain scientific laws can be established. That is, as long as you are willing to believe that your eyes are reporting something real, not an illusion cast upon you by an evil alien mastermind.

Isn't this a wonderful example of what being a "very strong Christian" does to education? I lost count of the errors in spelling and grammar after the second sentence.
She's 12. What can you expect?

Incorrect. Science cannot prove anything, and is thus not "facts". It is made up of hypotheses, evidence, and theories.All of these hypotheses, evidence, and theories have been proven hundreds of times. I've yet to see a single proof for creationism. Would you like to try? I mean besides the Bible and religious nonsense. I'm referring to physical evidence and observations.

And unless we're going to play a philosophical game and suspend the theory of causailty, without which most of our daily functions are pointless (how do I know the button I'm pressing on the keyboard won't make it explode? It didn't explode yesterday, but it could today. How do I know that pressing that button will make an "s" appear on my screen and not a "q"? There's an "s" drawn on it, but if there's no causality...), we're just going to have to agree that if one thing happens consistently before another, it just might have caused it. Thus, certain scientific laws can be established. That is, as long as you are willing to believe that your eyes are reporting something real, not an illusion cast upon you by an evil alien mastermind.Nothing can be proved, really. You can't prove that I'm not standing right behind you with a knife upraised to stab you. Even if you don't see me, I might be invisible. And invisibility hasn't been disproved. It's just never been proved.

Nothing can be proved, really. You can't prove that I'm not standing right behind you with a knife upraised to stab you. Even if you don't see me, I might be invisible. And invisibility hasn't been disproved. It's just never been proved.
The point is that if we want to actually live instead of curling up in a corner somewhere and staring at anything we see, wondering if it's real or not, we have to assume certain things, including causality and most of the basics of science. Where you go from there is your own business.
And you might want to check your sense of humor at the door. It's failing to amuse.

All of these hypotheses, evidence, and theories have been proven hundreds of times. I've yet to see a single proof for creationism. Would you like to try? I mean besides the Bible and religious nonsense. I'm referring to physical evidence and observations.I didn't think so. (I know it's been only 10 minutes, but on General, ten minutes is practically forever.)

The point is that if we want to actually live instead of curling up in a corner somewhere and staring at anything we see, wondering if it's real or not, we have to assume certain things, including causality and most of the basics of science. Where you go from there is your own business.
And you might want to check your sense of humor at the door. It's failing to amuse.I didn't say it was a sense of humor. *stabs BelMarduk*

I didn't say it was a sense of humor. *stabs BelMarduk*
::rolls eyes::
Cogito ergo sum. "I think therefore I am." I don't know about you. Or anything else. Including that alleged knife.
Play your games with someone who doesn't already know them.

I haven't read the entire thread yet, so I may be repeating someone.

I am a christian, and therefore some may say I am biased. But I am also an engineer and base my work on absolutes and things that are proven. I have heard many points from both sides. I have actually seen a seminar on creation science. In this seminar the guys actually compares both creation and evolution. And he actually proves things scientifically. I remember one point he made was about the Sahara desert. Did you know the Sahara desert is growing? According to the rate at which it was growing, it was non-existent around 4000 years ago. About the time of the flood. He has many other points as well. And also, I know this may sound funny, but if we evolved from lesser beings (i.e. monkeys) then why haven't the monkey's become extinct?


Are you saying that you believe that the ENTIRE surface of the Earth was covered with water about 4000 years ago? Do you know that, if all the ice in the polar regions melted, the sea level would only rise by something like a meter (could be a foot too, not exactly sure, just that it's small), certainly not enough to cover all points on all land masses.

Are you saying that you believe that the ENTIRE surface of the Earth was covered with water about 4000 years ago? Do you know that, if all the ice in the polar regions melted, the sea level would only rise by something like a meter (could be a foot too, not exactly sure, just that it's small), certainly not enough to cover all points on all land masses.

Well, you're a bit off. I reckon that the water from all polar caps would be equivalent to circa 80-100m.

Otherwise, regarding impossibility of deluge, i'm refering to what i said earlier today (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=417557)...

Survival of the fittest. The most fit or the most successful monkeys, the ones who adapted the most successfully evolvede into humans. The less successful ones did not. At least, I think. If im wrong someone please correct me because im not really sure. I know the basics of evolution or whatnot but I ve never actually learned it.

Well, you're a bit off. I reckon that the water from all polar caps would be equivalent to circa 80-100m.

Otherwise, regarding impossibility of deluge, i'm refering to what i said earlier today (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=417557)...


Um, how come then that there's a clay mound 5000 years old sitting in a field in Co. Meath in Ireland, called Newgrange, (well known, you might have heard of it), which would have been washed away if there had been a global flooding?

And, where does your reckoning come from?

Um, how come then that there's a clay mound 5000 years old sitting in a field in Co. Meath in Ireland, called Newgrange, (well known, you might have heard of it), which would have been washed away if there had been a global flooding?

And, where does your reckoning come from?

Sorry, i haven't heard of Newgrange before. Regarding the 80-100m... well, geology. :)

Survival of the fittest. The most fit or the most successful monkeys, the ones who adapted the most successfully evolvede into humans. The less successful ones did not. At least, I think. If im wrong someone please correct me because im not really sure. I know the basics of evolution or whatnot but I ve never actually learned it.

Humans aren't exactly descended from monkeys, rather an ancient offshoot of apelike creatures, which are different from monkeys in the same way wolves are different from dogs. A diverse diet including meat introduced protein into our diets which gave our brains the opportunity to grow and develop. We stood upright as a defense measure. It allowed us to see over tall grasses and also to expend less energy while walking and running (there are stories of African tribesmen who hunt by following their prey all day till it falls down with exhaustion). This standing up left our hands free, which we used to pick up rocks and sticks to use as tools, in the same ways chimps will use a twig to 'fish' for termites in a mound and baboons will use a rock to break the shells of nuts and fruit. The ice age allowed humans to follow two different evolutionary paths - Neanderthal, which was thick, hairy and stocky, and with limited brain function and low intelligence, but perfectly adapted for life on the tundra, and Cro Magnon, a much more intelligent species, thin and light, much more suited to living life on a dry and warmer desert landscape. They had the foresight to store water underground in hollowed out shells in case they should need water if they came by that way again.

A very quick and basic tutorial in human evolution as I know it

The ice age allowed humans to follow two different evolutionary paths - Neanderthal, which was thick, hairy and stocky, and with limited brain function and low intelligence, but perfectly adapted for life on the tundra,

Umm, that is not correct. The neanderthal had actually a higher brain volume (1500 cm^3 on average) than today's humans (about 1360 cm^3). Besides, there were many other, earlier branches of human evolution, such as the herbivorous Paranthropus, or the dwarf-like Homo floresiensis.

When I said monkey I was referring to simian species. I know it wasnt exactly from monkeys I just was lazy and to save time just wrote monkey.

Sorry, i haven't heard of Newgrange before. Regarding the 80-100m... well, geology. :)

Take a look at Newgrange here:

http://www.knowth.com/newgrange.htm

I also found a very interesting site regarding the flood and how it couldn't have possibly have been a global event. There's also an interesting twist on the whole ark thing; some texts say that Noah was ordered to take only 'clean' animals, or animals which were suitable for sacrifice, aboard the ark. Which leaves the question: how come there is such a huge number and variety of animals on the earth today?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Umm, that is not correct. The neanderthal had actually a higher brain volume (1500 cm^3 on average) than today's humans (about 1360 cm^3). Besides, there were many other, earlier branches of human evolution, such as the herbivorous Paranthropus, or the dwarf-like Homo floresiensis.

Actually, it was the Cro Magnons which had the higher brain capacity. I think you've gotten a little confused...

Take a look at Newgrange here:

http://www.knowth.com/newgrange.htm

Ah, interesting. Thanks for the link.

And yeah, talkorigins.org is a very nice site. :)

how come there is such a huge number and variety of animals on the earth today?

Evolution. :D

Actually, it was the Cro Magnons which had the higher brain capacity. I think you've gotten a little confused...

I don't think so. I took the figures from "Vertebrate Palaeontology" by Michael J. Benton (2nd edition, from 2000). It's good read, btw. Otherwise, check out Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal). :)

I don't think so. I took the figures from "Vertebrate Palaeontology" by Michael J. Benton (2nd edition, from 2000). It's good read, btw. Otherwise, check out Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal). :)

The brain was shaped differently, with smaller frontal lobes as far as I can remember, which left them with a decreased ability to organise, plan ahead, etc, etc, etc. The skull slopes backward unlike ours which goes pretty much straight up, allowing development of a larger frontal lobe area in our brains, which allows us to do things the Neanderthals could never do

The brain was shaped differently, with smaller frontal lobes as far as I can remember, which left them with a decreased ability to organise, plan ahead, etc, etc, etc. The skull slopes backward unlike ours which goes pretty much straight up, allowing development of a larger frontal lobe area in our brains, which allows us to do things the Neanderthals could never do

I don't think that their intellectual capabilities were the reason for their demise. The dwarf people from Flores for example had way smaller brain, and survive longer than the Neanderthals (in proportion to their body they were however about as big as those of the Erectus - but still smaller than those of either Cro-Magnon or Neanderthals).

I don't think that their intellectual capabilities were the reason for their demise. The dwarf people from Flores for example had way smaller brain, and survive longer than the Neanderthals (in proportion to their body they were however about as big as those of the Erectus - but still smaller than those of either Cro-Magnon or Neanderthals).

I never said they died off because of their brain size. I think they died off because of competition from other species, and because they were so specialised and limited in their ability to survive in a climate any different from what existed during the last ice age. One other suggestion was that we are the result of interbreeding between Cro Magnon and Neanderthal. We don't know

Did you know the Sahara desert is growing? According to the rate at which it was growing, it was non-existent around 4000 years ago.

Yeah, so the sahara desert is only 4000 years old. So what? The Namib Desert is about 80 million years old.

And unless we're going to play a philosophical game and suspend the theory of causailty, without which most of our daily functions are pointless (how do I know the button I'm pressing on the keyboard won't make it explode? It didn't explode yesterday, but it could today. How do I know that pressing that button will make an "s" appear on my screen and not a "q"? There's an "s" drawn on it, but if there's no causality...), we're just going to have to agree that if one thing happens consistently before another, it just might have caused it. Thus, certain scientific laws can be established. That is, as long as you are willing to believe that your eyes are reporting something real, not an illusion cast upon you by an evil alien mastermind.

The scientific viewpoint is that, if something happens 1000 times in response to a stimulus, it will most likely continue in that vein. However, a scientists would never claim that they have proven that causality, as a scientist must always be open to the idea that, on the 1001th try, something completely different might happen.

Meanwhile, if all you are looking for is something that has held up to examination so long that it might as well be proven, then you will have no problem with teaching the concepts of evolution in the schools.

All of these hypotheses, evidence, and theories have been proven hundreds of times. I've yet to see a single proof for creationism. Would you like to try? I mean besides the Bible and religious nonsense. I'm referring to physical evidence and observations.

(a) Nothing in science is ever proven. It is a logical impossibility. The scientific method can support a given hypothesis. It can provide so much support that a given layperson might call it "proven", but it can never actually prove anything.

(b) Why would I try to prove Creationism? Science already has a theory derived from all of the evidence - it is called evolution.

The point is that if we want to actually live instead of curling up in a corner somewhere and staring at anything we see, wondering if it's real or not, we have to assume certain things, including causality and most of the basics of science. Where you go from there is your own business.
And you might want to check your sense of humor at the door. It's failing to amuse.

Making assumptions does not equate to having something proven.

I can logically assume that, if I drop my computer, it will fall to the ground. Why? Because over many, many years, no one has reported dropping something of its weight and not having it fall. I cannot, however, say that it has been proven that it will fall. I can logically assume that this is due to a force called gravity, which is described by physics. Why? Because the theory of gravity has been upheld time and time and time again. I cannot, however, say that the theory of gravity has been proven.

I also found a very interesting site regarding the flood and how it couldn't have possibly have been a global event.

Of course not. But there is quite a bit of evidence for a flood so huge that the ancient peoples in the Sumerian area probably would have thought it affected the whole world.

There's also an interesting twist on the whole ark thing; some texts say that Noah was ordered to take only 'clean' animals, or animals which were suitable for sacrifice, aboard the ark.

Actually, the two verses that are disparate both still include the unclean animals. In one, Noah is to take two of every animal, a male and its mate. In the other, he is to take seven of the clean animals and two of the unclean.

Not that it is really important, as it has nothing to do with the point of the story.

Of course not. But there is quite a bit of evidence for a flood so huge that the ancient peoples in the Sumerian area probably would have thought it affected the whole world.

I do agree whole-heartedly that there probably was a massive flood in that particular region, in fact, there is evidence in the form of a massive mud plain approximately 4000 years old in the area. I believe that there was a flood, as for Noah, I really don't know, there is no evidence that the man existed, but there is no evidence that he didn't exist either, so I remain undecided on his existance and will not knock a person who believes either way.


Actually, the two verses that are disparate both still include the unclean animals. In one, Noah is to take two of every animal, a male and its mate. In the other, he is to take seven of the clean animals and two of the unclean.

Not that it is really important, as it has nothing to do with the point of the story.

Thanks for the extra information. The reason I pointed that out was to support my arguement that the flood could not have been worldwide if only specific animals were taken aboard, as diversity of species could not spring up from these seven pairs and repopulate the Earth within 4000 years. Maybe I should have explained my reasoning a little clearer...

But... not God... Alpha and Omega... beginning and end.

if that is true, then God always was.

Which is fine in terms of theology... but has no practical application.

I do agree whole-heartedly that there probably was a massive flood in that particular region, in fact, there is evidence in the form of a massive mud plain approximately 4000 years old in the area. I believe that there was a flood, as for Noah, I really don't know, there is no evidence that the man existed, but there is no evidence that he didn't exist either, so I remain undecided on his existance and will not knock a person who believes either way.
Thanks for the extra information. The reason I pointed that out was to support my arguement that the flood could not have been worldwide if only specific animals were taken aboard, as diversity of species could not spring up from these seven pairs and repopulate the Earth within 4000 years. Maybe I should have explained my reasoning a little clearer...

Oh, regarding the impossibility of a global flood, i've put this handy list together:

- There is not enough water on Earth for a global flood. If there was, where did it come from, and where did it go to afterwards?

- There is no geological evidence for a global flood. If you think fossils and sediments are evidence for a global flood, then you evidently have no understanding of even the most simple basics of geology.

- Dendrochronology date back to circa 10,000 years and ice core samples date back to over 700,000 years, and neither say anything about a global flood.

- Who says it's possible to build such a gigantic wooden boat and maintain it with just such a small number of people, and who says it would survive such an event?

- It would have been impossible for the ark to to hold all animal species of the world. All the millions of insect species would never have found room in it. And if you add all the *known* extinct species, the figure gets even higher.

- It would have been impossible to feed all these species during the flood and afterwards, and it would have been impossible of preventing them from feeding on each other.

- How do you explain that there are more extinct species than living ones if you assume that they were all saved from the flood on board of Noah's Ark. Just for your information, Dinosaurs are not the only extinct group of animals.

- How do you explain the present-day (and fossil) distribution and restriction of certain types of animals? For example why are there Marsupials in Australia, and why have fossils of horses never been found in Antarctica and Australia?

- Some species of animals do not have two genders, they are hermaphrodites and some even reproduce via parthenogenesis. Talking about pairs...

- The Deluge would have been an extreme population bottleneck. There is no evidence for such a bottleneck in the gene pool of the living species, and it's unlikely that they would have recovered from it.

- Most aquatic ecosystems would have died because of the change of salinity.

- Most plants would not have survived the year of flood.

:)

You haven't offended me. However, as offensive as you find Creationism and God, I find evolutionary theory equally if not more offensive.

The issue of seperation of church and state you bring up is valid. I would prefer that the government not fund any education that deals with the origin of man and stick to the three R's. At least at the elementary and highschool levels.
I don't see the connection.

"Origins of man" is a religious issue to the religious... but entirely mechanical to those who do not accept a 'god'.

To remove the teaching of this 'tool' from school for such a reason, would be like banning wrenches, because they are atheistic.

By the way: if schools ONLY taught reading, writing and arithmetic, where would our next generation of doctors come from?

World wide cataclismic flood...

Which removed ALL the fossils from some areas, but left other areas densely populated with fossils?

Curiously delicate and artistic flood...

Which removed ALL the fossils from some areas, but left other areas densely populated with fossils?

Curiously delicate and artistic flood...
Ohoh, and dropped them in order so that the cruder organisms are at the bottom and the larger, more complex ones are at the top.

And that's not real proof.

Weak argument... you still have not provided any 'evidence' for the alleged 'dinosaur heart - human spear' thing.

Ohoh, and dropped them in order so that the cruder organisms are at the bottom and the larger, more complex ones are at the top.

Clever flood, too.... maybe we should be worshipping the flood?

As someone said to me. It could be a fake.

Even if that were the case... who has the technology to implant fake fossils in virgin rock...?

Umm, that is not correct. The neanderthal had actually a higher brain volume (1500 cm^3 on average) than today's humans (about 1360 cm^3). Besides, there were many other, earlier branches of human evolution, such as the herbivorous Paranthropus, or the dwarf-like Homo floresiensis.

Brain volume wouldn't necessarily be the determining characteristic on intelligence... the conformation of the brain is a more likely indicator.

Brain volume wouldn't necessarily be the determining characteristic on intelligence... the conformation of the brain is a more likely indicator.

Well, you have a point there. Also, brain volume isn't necesserily a characteristic for success, either. (after all, bacterias are the most successful lifeforms on the planet, and their intelligence is zero :D )

Well, you have a point there. Also, brain volume isn't necesserily a characteristic for success, either. (after all, bacterias are the most successful lifeforms on the planet, and their intelligence is zero :D )

(Must resist temptation to make sarcastic comments about American presidents....)

(Must resist temptation to make sarcastic comments about American presidents....)

:D :D :D :D :D

:D :D :D :D :D

(Okay, I admit it.... I'm a bad boy...)

:D

I personally think that creationism should be at least mentioned, and that evolution should be taught as a theory.

When there are two legitimate arguments to a question I don't think that public schools should pick sides either direction.

Also, not all Christian creationists believe that the universe was created in six, twenty-four hour days, and not all evolutionists are atheists.

Creationism should be taught in schools. But in R.E. classes, not science classes.

Evolution is taught as a theory. It is, however, the scientific definiton of a theory. The basic definition is "the closest we've got to a fact". This whole theory thing has already been explained.