NationStates Jolt Archive

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." --
Albert Einstein

And he's definately not refering to Theism.

"I cannot accept any concept of a God based on the fear of death or blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him I would be a liar." -Einstein

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony of the universe which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem--the most important of all human problems." -Einstein

"It was, of course, a lie which you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as science can reveal it." -Einstein

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty." -Einstein

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
- Albert Einstein

"To me the worst thing seems to be a school principally to work with methods of fear, force and artificial authority. Such treatment destroys the sound sentiments, the sincerity and the self-confidence of pupils and produces a subservient subject."
- Albert Einstein

"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. " Albert Einstein

"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both natural and spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual and a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism." Albert Einstein

I understand your position, I disagree. Any place human origins are taught, competing theories, scientific or otherwise should be taught IMO and particularly in any situation where said education is compulsary.

Which again, only makes sense if you consider all of science to be a relgion (in which case you should be lobbying to get it out of the schools).

Otherwise, you are just being hypocritical. "Sure, it's ok if a scientific theory that seems to maybe contradict someone else's religion is taught, so long as no one challenges my beliefs. Ever."

Are you sure you know what you are saying? Should we teach all that pseudoscientific crap that completely lacks any evidence...

I mean, i'm not just talking about those Creationism-related topics here, i'm also talking about other stuff like Hollow Earth, Flat Earth, Velikovsky's hypotheses, etc. ... and maybe some really crazy stuff like the Raelians and Scientology believe it. :headbang:

Seriously, none of that nonsense should be taught at school... :eek:

Hey why not...?

How I wished there are still only 4 existing elements on the periodic table...

Irreducible complexity: see Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box in which he examines the flagelel motor of mono-cellular creatures. The motor has more than 30 components and every component is required for the motor to function. The complexity cannot be reduced and it is useless without all of the parts in the correct order.

This is incorrect. It assumes that the purpose of every individual part has always been to act as a motor and that the parts have always worked just as they do now. This is essentially ignoring the actual theory of evolution. Behe is a hack, no more, no less.

ID basically assumes that biology is like a Rube Guldberg device - you remove one part and everything fails. This is utterly untrue.

Information: Where does information come from? Information does not develop itself. Without the information from DNA, the first supposed protien, which developed in the primordial soup, would not have been able to fold into anything useable. It would have remained inert.

First of all, this is irrelevant to evolutionary theory. You are speaking of abiogenesis.

Second of all, DNA does nothing to fold proteins. They either fold on their own or are helped along by other proteins. DNA simply codes for the sequence.

Third of all, nucleic acids themselves are theorized to have formed in the primordial soup. It was these which were self-replicating.

Finally, there exists a growing trend in science to accept Inteligent Design. Robert Jastrow, a self-avowed agnostic, admits that he has a problem: he is a materialist and cannot deny the evidence for a creator.

That trend does not exist in credible biologists. Many, many scientists believe in a creator. That is irrelevant. The question is whether professing such a belief is scientific. It is not.

Not one assumption relied on by evolutionists has been proven.

Nothing in science is proven.

However, I don't think the assumptions that mutations produce changes in organisms (which we can demonstrate pretty easily), that genes are passed on to offspring (again, demonstrated pretty easily), or that lots of changes over time makes big changes (again, demonstrated easily) are horrible assumptions.

I have studied the Evolution/Creation debate. I am a conservative Christian (lets get the bias in the open). That said, at the begining of the last century, many ultra-conservative Christians accepted a theistic evolution as fact. It is not required for one to believe Creation to be a Christian. That said, I have never heard any evolutionist convincingly explain the following concepts:

Irreducible complexity: see Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box in which he examines the flagelel motor of mono-cellular creatures. The motor has more than 30 components and every component is required for the motor to function. The complexity cannot be reduced and it is useless without all of the parts in the correct order.

Information: Where does information come from? Information does not develop itself. Without the information from DNA, the first supposed protien, which developed in the primordial soup, would not have been able to fold into anything useable. It would have remained inert.

Finally, there exists a growing trend in science to accept Inteligent Design. Robert Jastrow, a self-avowed agnostic, admits that he has a problem: he is a materialist and cannot deny the evidence for a creator.

Evolution sounds cool - I will admit that. There are days when I wish it were true, because then I could believe in aliens. The facts attest to themselves. Not one assumption relied on by evolutionists has been proven.

If you are an evolutionist, I would respectfully challenge to explain the source of information in the universe and the existence of irrudicble complexity. I do not critcize those who believe in evolution. Have a great day.

If you have studied the evolution/creation debate, then let me ask you something:

Are you aware that Creationism is not just about trying to refute biological evolution? It's trying also about trying to mock a whole number of sciences that contradict Genesis.
Think of topics like archaeology, astrophysics, geology, mineralogy and paleontology. They all tell us with overwhelming evidence (which is very consistent in itself and towards the other disciplines despite they are not or only barely connected with each other) that Earth is billions of years old, and not just 6,000 as the Yecs claim...
Think about Big Bang and Cosmic Background radiation, think about all the rocks and minerals, think about radiometric dating, dendrochonology and ice core samples, think about fossil record and the stratigraphic column etc. Don't you think this fits too well into one piece to be utterly wrong?

Edit: how could i forget to mention plate tectonics and paleomagnetism?

Now I havn't been there myself, but I've heard through multiple sources (including a science teacher who believed in evolution) that there are fossilized clams on Mount Everest.

Sounds like a big flood to me, unless prehistoric clams used to climb mountains maybe.

Funny that you mention clams. Have you heard of these reef-building clams called Rudists? Their giant reefs can be found across the Arabian penninsula and elsewhere in the world. I'm asking you, how can they be preserved in situ if they were supposedly delivered there by a deluge? They must have grown at that place, and that cannot have happened within a year deluge...

Oh, and what about reefs found in areas like Canada or Sibiria? It's too cold there today. Corals (reef builders in general, i mean) need warm tropical and SHALLOW waters to grow there. These areas must have been at different latitudes so that reefs could form there...

Ok so is it crazy to...

be an atheist
have studied evolution
to not believe in evolution


I really don't believe that there is some higher being but please don't draw me into an debate on that (...again :p ) however, I also do not believe in evolution. I don't believe in it because of the "missing link". ok so it takes very special conditions to preserve bones but, come on, not even ONE example? Now I'm not proposing some radical new theory but I'm also not one to accept a bad theory for lack of a better one. Now please, can anybody talk me outta this?

Ok so is it crazy to...

be an atheist
have studied evolution
to not believe in evolution


I really don't believe that there is some higher being but please don't draw me into an debate on that (...again :p ) however, I also do not believe in evolution. I don't believe in it because of the "missing link". ok so it takes very special conditions to preserve bones but, come on, not even ONE example? Now I'm not proposing some radical new theory but I'm also not one to accept a bad theory for lack of a better one. Now please, can anybody talk me outta this?

well, lemme give you one example (in the case of the whales):

Mesonychids -> Ambulocetus -> Rhodocetus -> Basilosaurids

Besides, what are you expecting for a "missing link"? You won't find some kind of chimaera (to quote a creationist: 'half-paw-half-flippers'). That's not how evolution works...

(Edit: want more examples?)

I understand your position, I disagree. Any place human origins are taught, competing theories, scientific or otherwise should be taught IMO and particularly in any situation where said education is compulsary.

It's called a science class for a reason. Let's make a hypothetical proposition:


Thousands of years ago, God told the authors of the Bible "I have made all the numbers, and they are negative infinity to infinity." (Okay, this is unrealistic, but work with me here)

So, that is written in the Bible.


Skip ahead to today. An argument has sprung up between mathematicians and theologians. It is regarding the "imaginary number." Theologians argue that the Bible says the only numbers that exist are between negative infinity and infinity.

However, the square root of negative one does not fall in to that category. Therefore, the imaginary number was created. And in fact, a whole portion of mathematics has been created just based on the principle that the square root of negative one is 'i'.


Well, my argument here is, the imaginary number is based on mathematics. It makes certain parts of math work better, though it can not be proven that there is such a number as 'i'.

However, theologians want their students to be told that "Some mathematicians believe that 'i' exists, but others think that the only real numbers are from negative infinity to infinity."

And, of course, you have many religous "mathematicians" who claim to have found evidence that 'i' doesn't exist. However, all they have actually done is skew information that actual mathematicians give, and use it as an argument against 'i'.

Why should a mathematician have to say that? In the math class you learn math. In religious studies is where you learn religion.



Well, that's an oversimplified analogy, but the idea is the same.


Evolution is a science.

Creationism is not.


The definition of science guarantees the above two sentences to be true.


Therefore, I would think it would be common sense that science would be taught in the science classroom, and religion be taught elsewhere.

Why can't faith and science coexist?
-I ask you that

The method of religion (irrational faith based believes) and the scientific method are contradictory...

The method of religion (irrational faith based believes) and the scientific method are contradictory...

All religion is not irrational, nor is all faith. Thus there is no contradiction.

Somehow, i have the feeling that this debate is rather pointless in the long-term. The Creationists are so indoctrinated by their beliefs that they will never change their opinion, while the people on the evolution side will never change their opinion since the Creationists continously fail to bring up evidence for their hypothesis... :(

Somehow, i have the feeling that this debate is rather pointless in the long-term. The Creationists are so indoctrinated by their beliefs that they will never change their opinion, while the people on the evolution side will never change their opinion since the Creationists continously fail to bring up evidence for their hypothesis... :(
It's a standoff.

well, lemme give you one example (in the case of the whales):

Mesonychids -> Ambulocetus -> Rhodocetus -> Basilosaurids

Besides, what are you expecting for a "missing link"? You won't find some kind of chimaera (to quote a creationist: 'half-paw-half-flippers'). That's not how evolution works...

(Edit: want more examples?)

I'm not saying I really really don't think Evolution is true. I am saying I really really think creationism is false. I'm just remaining open to more suggestions. I'm not expecting half paw half flipper beings but surely evolution happend gradually with things changing incredibly slowly ... not sudden changes. I'm probably not making a lot of sense, largely because I don't really have a fixed opinion. If it was either or then I'd say evolution - clearly. However it's not and so pass me a cushion - this fence is spikey!

I'm not saying I really really don't think Evolution is true. I am saying I really really think creationism is false. I'm just remaining open to more suggestions. I'm not expecting half paw half flipper beings but surely evolution happend gradually with things changing incredibly slowly ... not sudden changes. I'm probably not making a lot of sense, largely because I don't really have a fixed opinion. If it was either or then I'd say evolution - clearly. However it's not and so pass me a cushion - this fence is spikey!

You've seen webbed toes, right?

I'm not saying I really really don't think Evolution is true. I am saying I really really think creationism is false. I'm just remaining open to more suggestions. I'm not expecting half paw half flipper beings but surely evolution happend gradually with things changing incredibly slowly ... not sudden changes. I'm probably not making a lot of sense, largely because I don't really have a fixed opinion. If it was either or then I'd say evolution - clearly. However it's not and so pass me a cushion - this fence is spikey!

*Wisjersey hands LmB a cushion*

Well, you mentioned incomplete fossil record earlier, it's the big problem. Because of the taphonomic filter, we only see single frames of the film, with a number of frames missing between it. However, there is always a chance of finding the missing frames (lot's of new fossils have been found in recent years, Ambulocetus and Rhodocetus are known only for 10 years or so).

On the contrary, if the Creationists were right these forms should never be found because they shouldn't exist according to their views. Since they claim animals were created separately, transitional forms shouldn't exist. So... evidence is once again on the side of evolution. :)

Of course we still have some unanswered questions. We have relatively poor fossil record of whales from the Oligocene (compared to those spectacular find from the Eocene). Similarly, while we have lot's of feathered dinosaurs and birds from the Early Cretaceous of China, the Archaeopteryx from the late Jurassic remains unchallenged as the earliest bird. Therefore, we have to wait for new fossils from the middle or late Jurassic. But, i'm optimistic that we shall find the fossils from the mentioned epochs some time soon... :)

Why can't faith and science coexist?
-I ask you that

Because, nowadays, they're opposing religions.

Talking about Taphonomy, there are some interesting considerations regarding fossils of terrestrial vertebrates.

If the Yecs were right and the fossil record is primarily the result of a global flood, then we should find almost entirely complete skeletons that should be preserved in situ. We should also find always large numbers of individuals per species of terrestrial vertebrates (large number of population, with a real-life age distribution amongst them), oh and the stratigraphic order shouldn't exist either. Also the sharp difference between marine and terrestrial facies shouldn't exist either.
Instead, we find mostly disarticulated and incomplete skeletons, traces of scavengers, sometimes just bone 'scraps'. Complete skeletons do also exist but are quite rare (you know how paleontologists get euphoric when they find those!). We also see that we usually only have few specimen per species (again, there are some exceptions). We also see that the stratigraphic column is real (trilobites and dinosaurs have never been found in the same sediments), and that there is a big difference between a marine and a terrestrial facies.

Oh, and another taphonomic factor regarding marine environemnts however comes into my mind: what about traces of bioturbation?

Nor will you likely ever see the issue from the perspective of someone who sees belief in evolution as essentially a religious belief. Until you can comprehend what that perspective makes sense you won't ever be satisfied with my answer to that issue.


Twaddle.

Nobody who understands the concept of theory could possibly argue that evolutionary biology is a religious notion.

Not good science, I'll grant you that. But, I've been exposed to enough bad science to be thoroughly convinced that it is taught in the majority of elementary and highschool class rooms as being fact/truth. Either way, both should be presented as competing theories on the origin of species IMO.

But they *aren't* competing theories. The scientific consensus is that creationism - in all its forms - is nonsense. The teaching in science classrooms should be governed by the scientific community - not the church.

Finally, there exists a growing trend in science to accept Inteligent Design. Robert Jastrow, a self-avowed agnostic, admits that he has a problem: he is a materialist and cannot deny the evidence for a creator.

This is simply untrue - there is no such trend.



Evolution sounds cool - I will admit that. There are days when I wish it were true, because then I could believe in aliens. The facts attest to themselves. Not one assumption relied on by evolutionists has been proven.


Such as? What are these assumptions?

A poll over the massive debate on evolution swirling around these threads. Have you:
Studied creationism in-depth and support it,
Studied it in depth and don't support it,
Havn't studied evolution but support it
Havn't studied evolution and believe in creationism

For this purpose, believing in evolution does not include believing evolution exisits but with divine intervention. If you do, PUT THAT IN YOUR POST!
P.S I know this is a simplimication, so please include details in your post. I personally have studied evolution, believe in it and think that, although you have all rights to study it, it should be left out of the science classroom as creationism is not a science. I believe it is enough to put the disclaimer "Although we have lots of evidence for this and it is the most commonly accepted by the scientific community you have every right to believe whatever you want. This is a scientific explination of our existence and creationism is purely based on your personal faith."
It's misleading to say "I believe in evolution." It's the equivalent of saying "I believe in New York City."

The scientific method is the most rigorous and rational means we have of comprehending the universe. Evolution has been proven as a process the universe uses to extend and develop life. It's not a matter of "belief," it's a matter of "fact." Whether anyone "believes in it" or not is irrelevant. Fact is not subject to "belief."

By being antagonistic toward evolution, Christian fundamentalists are not only marginalizing themselves, they are giving all persons of faith a black eye.

I really don't believe that there is some higher being but please don't draw me into an debate on that (...again :p ) however, I also do not believe in evolution. I don't believe in it because of the "missing link". ok so it takes very special conditions to preserve bones but, come on, not even ONE example? Now I'm not proposing some radical new theory but I'm also not one to accept a bad theory for lack of a better one. Now please, can anybody talk me outta this?

So MRSA doesn't exist? Wow - what a relief!

It's a standoff.

Only in the minds of creationists - for scientists there is no debate, ergo no standoff.

QUESTION FOR "CREATIONISTS:"

Why is it so important that evolution be disproven? What's up with that?? The basic tenants of Christianity do not require that you believe in "creationism." God does not need your help to "prove" anything He has said or done. All you're doing is making yourself appear ignorant and pig-headed. You don't think that God, as God, can use any process or technique He desires to bring forth life? Did God not create human beings with a burning desire to learn? Why choose some inconsequential and unwinnable battle to "prove" your faith?

This entire "creationism" issue totally mystifies me!

QUESTION FOR "CREATIONISTS:"

Why is it so important that evolution be disproven? What's up with that?? The basic tenants of Christianity do not require that you believe in "creationism." God does not need your help to "prove" anything He has said or done. All you're doing is making yourself appear ignorant and pig-headed. You don't think that God, as God, can use any process or technique He desires to bring forth life? Did God not create human beings with a burning desire to learn? Why choose some inconsequential and unwinnable battle to "prove" your faith?

This entire "creationism" issue totally mystifies me!

They are weak of faith and cannot accept that interpretation is required when reading the biblical texts because they are too weak minded to understand the undercurrents and symbolism in the bible. The weakness of their faith requires them to find 'evidence' to justify their beliefs to themselves. Without such evidence, they fear they'd be forced to accept god does not exist.

They are weak of faith and cannot accept that interpretation is required when reading the biblical texts because they are too weak minded to understand the undercurrents and symbolism in the bible. The weakness of their faith requires them to find 'evidence' to justify their beliefs to themselves. Without such evidence, they fear they'd be forced to accept god does not exist.

Sad but true, sad but true.

The simplest way to debunk literal interpretation of the Bible is to ask if the Earth is flat, and if men have fewer ribs than women. If the fundamentalist says no, they've contradicted themselves, because a literal Bible states both of these things.

The simplest way to debunk literal interpretation of the Bible is to ask if the Earth is flat, and if men have fewer ribs than women. If the fundamentalist says no, they've contradicted themselves, because a literal Bible states both of these things.

it also suggests pi is 3 or under

it also suggests pi is 3 or under

Don't forget that the Earth is the center of the universe, and the sun goes around it.

The simplest way to debunk literal interpretation of the Bible is to ask if the Earth is flat, and if men have fewer ribs than women. If the fundamentalist says no, they've contradicted themselves, because a literal Bible states both of these things.

really, where? Is it another of those really wierd out of context quotes which actually make a bit of sense when read with the surrounding passages kind of verses?

really, where? Is it another of those really wierd out of context quotes which actually make a bit of sense when read with the surrounding passages kind of verses?

Well, the "rib" part is described in the creation of man in Genesis. The "world is flat" comes from the repeated use of the phrase "to the four corners of the earth in Revelation (and others):

Revelation 7:1
[ 144,000 Sealed ] After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.

Revelation 20:8
and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore.

In context, you can assume it to be a metaphor for the entire world, but a literal interpratist has to believe it means the Earth is flat, or otherwise they are not professing literalism by assuming it to be a metaphor.

Hi,
can't even believe there is a discussion about this in the 21. century. :headbang:
Haven't heard anybody discussing this with such an intense before coming in here. I believe god exists, but that doesn't make evolution impossible, just because some humans had a special imagination of the world some thousand years ago.
I do not think you have to study biology in depth just to see some evidence for evolution.
:confused: But here you go. To me its a non-issue

The "world is flat" comes from the repeated use of the phrase "to the four corners of the earth in Revelation (and others):

Well 4 corners does not necessarily mean a flat world,
it could be a tetraheder too :D

Well 4 corners does not necessarily mean a flat world,
it could be a tetraheder too :D

is the word used the same for corners and vertices?

They are weak of faith and cannot accept that interpretation is required when reading the biblical texts because they are too weak minded to understand the undercurrents and symbolism in the bible. The weakness of their faith requires them to find 'evidence' to justify their beliefs to themselves. Without such evidence, they fear they'd be forced to accept god does not exist.
Not bad! Not bad! :)

I have studied the Evolution/Creation debate. I am a conservative Christian (lets get the bias in the open). That said, at the begining of the last century, many ultra-conservative Christians accepted a theistic evolution as fact. It is not required for one to believe Creation to be a Christian. That said, I have never heard any evolutionist convincingly explain the following concepts:

Irreducible complexity: see Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box in which he examines the flagelel motor of mono-cellular creatures. The motor has more than 30 components and every component is required for the motor to function. The complexity cannot be reduced and it is useless without all of the parts in the correct order.I'm not an expert, but I have it on good authority that the motor without one particular component is useless as a motor, yes, but is surprisingly alike (and may well function like) an excretive component that is used to attack other bacteria. A single mutation changed the function drasticaly, but the form only by the lowest level, and instead of attacking predatory mono-cellular creatures to discourage them, it started (inadvertantly, given it doesn't have a 'consciousness', just a biofeedback 'instinct' thing) running away from them.

It is also perfectly coneivable that the motor with 30+ components developed from one that had 31+ component, the mutation being the loss of something, and the lineage could be different from all those you can model with 29+ components.

Information: Where does information come from? Information does not develop itself. Without the information from DNA, the first supposed protien, which developed in the primordial soup, would not have been able to fold into anything useable. It would have remained inert.Patterns and 'information' can arise in nature from nothing as complicated all the time. The only things that govern the formation of ice-crystals are the shapes of water-molecules (essentially small, obtuse angles) and the way that hydrogen-bonds form between them at various temperatures, all of which is essentially quantum-mechanics on up. Yet they produce complex snowflakes. Imagine how much effort you'd have to put in to put crystalising water-vapour through a process to copy your favourite snowflake (just the right amount of pressure, temperature and humidity changes at the right time) yet that template snowflake 'designed' itself from scratch with no agency. There's a lot of 'information', in that snowflake, way more than can be casually obtained from the observation of it, yet it was formed without inteligent application of the original conditions... So with DNA. We can see bits of how the 'usable' DNA (beautiful snowflake) developed in the first place, but that doesn't mean that there was anyone there in the first place dictating how the DNA was put together (how the snowflake grew), it's just that all the attempts to put DNA together (to create other snowflakes) that didn't create useful strands (didn't look like your 'ideal' snowflake) did not then become the ancestor DNA of interest (was not considered beautiful enough to be the object of your recreation).

Finally, there exists a growing trend in science to accept Inteligent Design. Robert Jastrow, a self-avowed agnostic, admits that he has a problem: he is a materialist and cannot deny the evidence for a creator.I cannot deny the evidence of a creator, and Jastrow is free to hypothesise what he likes, to be honest, but he's not going to convince me that one must exist.

Evolution sounds cool - I will admit that. There are days when I wish it were true, because then I could believe in aliens. The facts attest to themselves. Not one assumption relied on by evolutionists has been proven.Well, ignoring the fact that 'proven' is a term that no-one can use (in science, because absolute proof is restricted to pure mathematics, and in creationism because the 'proofs' are either patently wrong or rely upon the unprovable 'There is a God' statement) and instead use the 'lay' version of the word, then evolution hypothesised that there was a link between dinosaurs and birds, and 'lo, such links were discovered years later. That sounds like a lay-proof to me. Not the best example, but I leave it for the experts in the field to produce the best ones (and correct me if necessary, of my misconceptions regarding that episode, given that I;'m willing to learn...)

If you are an evolutionist, I would respectfully challenge to explain the source of information in the universe and the existence of irrudicble complexity. I do not critcize those who believe in evolution. Have a great day.And yourself.

is the word used the same for corners and vertices?
Sorry I do not know, didn't learn hebrew at all. But my guess would be there does not exist an distinction between these two.
Correct me if I'm wrong!

Sorry I do not know, didn't learn hebrew at all. But my guess would be there does not exist an distinction between these two.
Correct me if I'm wrong!

revelations would be greek, would it not?

revelations would be greek, would it not?

Yup. All of the NT is.

the greek word is 'gonia' which could be construed as corner or vertex I think.

So yes, the world could be a tetrahedron

the greek word is 'gonia' which could be construed as corner or vertex I think.

So yes, the world could be a tetrahedronThe example of 'flat Earth' in the Bible that I'm most aware of (and I forget chapter and verse, but it's obviously NT) is where Jesus is taken to the mountaintop and shown the entire world.

It must be reasonably flat (certainly not convexly spherical) to see the entire world from a mountaintop, and if the shape does not matter (bending of light, X-Ray vision through the body, or even being shown a model of the planet that could be turned in the hands) then why the mountaintop?

Very well said, Bakamongue. I applaude your diplomatic and well thought out answer. I was getting upset reading the arrogant arguments on both sides and the tangents of semantics that are essentially irrelevant to the debate. It never ceases to amaze me how often evolution is misused and misunderstood. ::stands and applaudes::

Because, nowadays, they're opposing religions.

That is not correct that way. It's more the other way round. Religions oppose those fields of science that they feel contradict their beliefs.

Not bad! Not bad! :)

Believes based on faith are nothing more than delusions.

-Wade
---------------------------
http://wadejq.blogspot.com

Believes based on faith are nothing more than delusions.

Really? And you know this how exactly?

Evolutionists and creationists should handle this problem like grown adults by fighting it out in alleys with rusty razors

Can i ask someone who doesn't believe in evolution where they think we came from?

Evolutionists and creationists should handle this problem like grown adults by fighting it out in alleys with rusty razors

What is an evolutionist?

What is an evolutionist?

evolutionist is a word made up by creation 'science' advocates to attempt to bring evolution to the level of creationism and make it look like and even sided debate

evolutionist is a word made up by creation 'science' advocates to attempt to bring evolution to the level of creationism and make it look like and even sided debate

Exactly as I thought. =)

Which again, only makes sense if you consider all of science to be a relgion (in which case you should be lobbying to get it out of the schools).

Otherwise, you are just being hypocritical. "Sure, it's ok if a scientific theory that seems to maybe contradict someone else's religion is taught, so long as no one challenges my beliefs. Ever."
:rolleyes: :confused: Have I not stated that all pespectives or none should be taught or,as an alternative, that parents be allowed to choose what their child is taught on a repeated basis?

:rolleyes: :confused: Have I not stated that all pespectives or none should be taught or,as an alternative, that parents be allowed to choose what their child is taught on a repeated basis?

Evolutionary biology isn't a "perspective".

And parents most definitely should *not* be involved in specifying their children's education - with the exception, obviously, of fully qualified science teachers working for education authorities in curriculum development.

:rolleyes: :confused: Have I not stated that all pespectives or none should be taught or,as an alternative, that parents be allowed to choose what their child is taught on a repeated basis?
Then you'd have to teach all creation myths from all religions. To me they all fit better in religion or theology class.

Evolutionary biology isn't a "perspective".

And parents most definitely should *not* be involved in specifying their children's education - with the exception, obviously, of fully qualified science teachers working for education authorities in curriculum development.

And they have more right to decide what a child learns than his/her rightful parents exactly why??

And they have more right to decide what a child learns than his/her rightful parents exactly why??


Because the parent is most likely to inflict their own ignorances on the child - parents who, for example, have little background in languages won't regard it as important for their children to study languages [on balance of probabilities].

Those parents who adhere to invalid relgious concepts won't see it as important - or even desirable - for their children to be exposed to actual science. That is not something a society should encourage - quite the opposite.

Then you'd have to teach all creation myths from all religions. To me they all fit better in religion or theology class.

That which forms one's belief structure is the essence of religion, which is why I argue that science is religion, at least for many. I don't know that there is a real difference between the science and religion other than the methodology used in coming to a particular belief. The idea that scientific knowledge is somehow superior to other forms of knowledge is a value judgment that no one has the right to make or impose on others.

Because the parent is most likely to inflict their own ignorances on the child - parents who, for example, have little background in languages won't regard it as important for their children to study languages [on balance of probabilities].

Those parents who adhere to invalid relgious concepts won't see it as important - or even desirable - for their children to be exposed to actual science. That is not something a society should encourage - quite the opposite.

Who are you to claim that a religious belief is "invalid". Just because someone has a different perspect on reality than you do, doen't give you the right to impose your belief structure on them any more than it gave Hitler the right to impose eugenics on Europe.

:rolleyes: :confused: Have I not stated that all pespectives or none should be taught or,as an alternative, that parents be allowed to choose what their child is taught on a repeated basis?
Evolution is just an example of applied scientific process and the outcome … do you have problems with your kids learning other theories such as wave form physics or any of the other thousand examples?

Evolution is just a reading of the current data if you have a problem with evolution your real problem is with the conclusion drawn off of all available data

It has nothing to do with an opposing belief it is just a theory based off of the real world and all but an example (in the classroom) of science in practice
I am sorry to say this PR but I am glad (with as extremely hard core catholic as my parents are) I am glad they would have not chosen to limit my learning because their viewpoint did not fit observable data they found my education and future more important then filtering out all opposing viewpoints

They let me learn my beliefs and learn what was important in my life … they were great parents

Who are you to claim that a religious belief is "invalid". Just because someone has a different perspect on reality than you do, doen't give you the right to impose your belief structure on them any more than it gave Hitler the right to impose eugenics on Europe.
The problem is ultimatly you are fighting observeable reality not the belief directly (I am not saying that the theory is 100 percent correct yet but the more data we get the more accurate it should become)

Who are you to claim that a religious belief is "invalid". Just because someone has a different perspect on reality than you do, doen't give you the right to impose your belief structure on them any more than it gave Hitler the right to impose eugenics on Europe.

This thread is about creationism. That is a religious belief, and it is invalid. It isn't a "perspective", it is a factual claim - a factual claim which is refuted by the evidence, making it an invalid account.

A "perspective" would be "King Lear is better than Henry V".

That which forms one's belief structure is the essence of religion, which is why I argue that science is religion, at least for many. I don't know that there is a real difference between the science and religion other than the methodology used in coming to a particular belief. The idea that scientific knowledge is somehow superior to other forms of knowledge is a value judgment that no one has the right to make or impose on others.

Take the "science is better than religion" argument out of it for a minute.

Science, or more specifically, biology, is taught in school. Everything in that class must relate to the scientific method. Evolution does. Creationism does not.

Therefore, it is reasonably obvious to teach evolution in the science class, and creationism elsewhere (mythology? religious studies? fictional literature?)

Evolution is just an example of applied scientific process and the outcome … do you have problems with your kids learning other theories such as wave form physics or any of the other thousand examples?

Evolution is just a reading of the current data if you have a problem with evolution your real problem is with the conclusion drawn off of all available data

It has nothing to do with an opposing belief it is just a theory based off of the real world and all but an example (in the classroom) of science in practice
I am sorry to say this PR but I am glad (with as extremely hard core catholic as my parents are) I am glad they would have not chosen to limit my learning because their viewpoint did not fit observable data they found my education and future more important then filtering out all opposing viewpoints

They let me learn my beliefs and learn what was important in my life … they were great parents

All I'm saying is that they should have had the right to chose.

As for evolution, it is the currently accepted interpretation of the data. To say more than that is not even good science. Essentailly, it is sciences best guess. Nothing more, nothing less. Why should it hold a more promenent place in the educational system than any other best guess?

That wording of the question and responses was obviously biased in favor of evolution. Also, the amount of people who have studied the theory of Intelligent Design are not reflected in that survey. I have studied both, but anyone who has put some time into the Intelligent Design theory will quickly see that they are on the right track. Evolution is false. I have read Darwin's Origin of Species as well as supplementary materials. I have also read many things that support Creationism. I fall in the Creationist ranks. Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell have excellent books available.

Even if there was a fair poll, however, the results would not change how I believe. What's right isn't always popular, and what's popular isn't what's always right. Plus, I realize that this server is bombarded with Godless Europeans and internet freaks, so skewed results are what I expect.

What I find quite humorous about this entire mess is Darwinists insistence to attack. What do you gain? If you believe in evolution, you believe in ultimate meaninglessness. God is not involved in evolution. The evolutionary process is by definition random and disorderly without regard to purpose to meaning, so why would God be involved with no purpose?

I now propose Pascal's Paradox to you Darwinists: If you are right about evolution and there being no God, then you win nothing. We all die and nobody will know the difference. But if you are wrong and the Christian God of not just mercy but also justice rules the day, you Godless Darwinists will spend eternity apart from God in a place known as hell. Given the circumstances, I recommend you be 100% certain in your decision and do yourself--do your soul the justice of fully exploring all angles of this argument. Too much is at stake!

The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. Read it! Then read The Case for Christ!

Take the "science is better than religion" argument out of it for a minute.

Science, or more specifically, biology, is taught in school. Everything in that class must relate to the scientific method. Evolution does. Creationism does not.

Therefore, it is reasonably obvious to teach evolution in the science class, and creationism elsewhere (mythology? religious studies? fictional literature?)

Fine, but then you have to make both optional classes.

I'd still prefer to see both taught side by side in an "origins of life" class.

All I'm saying is that they should have had the right to chose.

As for evolution, it is the currently accepted interpretation of the data. To say more than that is not even good science. Essentailly, it is sciences best guess. Nothing more, nothing less. Why should it hold a more promenent place in the educational system than any other best guess?
The problem is not everyone is intelligent nor competent to choose that sort of decision for their kid … the choice could lead to a horrible future for the kid that may not be readily apparent, depriving them of tools that could make all the difference for them .

Take the "science is better than religion" argument out of it for a minute.

Science, or more specifically, biology, is taught in school. Everything in that class must relate to the scientific method. Evolution does. Creationism does not.

Therefore, it is reasonably obvious to teach evolution in the science class, and creationism elsewhere (mythology? religious studies? fictional literature?)


Science is not at odds with religion! That is just what Darwinists want you to think so you will reject religion. Science confirms religion! Go to the UN Proposals and add your endorsement to the resolution concerning learning BOTH theories! If you can't, encourage your delegate to bring it to a vote!

Even if there was a fair poll, however, the results would not change how I believe. What's right isn't always popular, and what's popular isn't what's always right. Plus, I realize that this server is bombarded with Godless Europeans and internet freaks, so skewed results are what I expect.

While I might agree with some of your points, name calling is entirely uncalled for and if you truly believe in Christ and His teaching, you will recognize that rather than berating or belittling your enemy, you are supposed to love him/her.

The problem is not everyone is intelligent nor competent to choose that sort of decision for their kid … the choice could lead to a horrible future for the kid that may not be readily apparent, depriving them of tools that could make all the difference for them .

So, where do you draw the line with parental rights? What if religionists had been successful in forcing others to be taught in religious theory forever, would that be okay with you? I just think it is a dangerous abridgement of parental rights.

That wording of the question and responses was obviously biased in favor of evolution. Also, the amount of people who have studied the theory of Intelligent Design are not reflected in that survey. I have studied both, but anyone who has put some time into the Intelligent Design theory will quickly see that they are on the right track. Evolution is false. I have read Darwin's Origin of Species as well as supplementary materials. I have also read many things that support Creationism. I fall in the Creationist ranks. Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell have excellent books available.

Reading "Darwin's Origin of Species" is not learning evolution. Evolution is a science which has only become popular within the last hundred years, and this is because scientific evidence has been found to back it up.

I do not believe that you seriously studied evolution, because if you had you would at least see the reason behind it.


Even if there was a fair poll, however, the results would not change how I believe. What's right isn't always popular, and what's popular isn't what's always right. Plus, I realize that this server is bombarded with Godless Europeans and internet freaks, so skewed results are what I expect.

As for the poll, it was not ever argued that it was scientific, nor was it argued that it was not biased. I fail to see your point. Besides, I'm not European, but I'm fairly certain that most Europeans are not "Godless." They just understand the difference between science and religion.


What I find quite humorous about this entire mess is Darwinists insistence to attack. What do you gain? If you believe in evolution, you believe in ultimate meaninglessness. God is not involved in evolution. The evolutionary process is by definition random and disorderly without regard to purpose to meaning, so why would God be involved with no purpose?

Who attacked you? And, why would you just believe something because "it makes me feel better." Besides, the evolutionary 'process' may be random, but the results are far from it.

I now propose Pascal's Paradox to you Darwinists: If you are right about evolution and there being no God, then you win nothing. We all die and nobody will know the difference. But if you are wrong and the Christian God of not just mercy but also justice rules the day, you Godless Darwinists will spend eternity apart from God in a place known as hell. Given the circumstances, I recommend you be 100% certain in your decision and do yourself--do your soul the justice of fully exploring all angles of this argument. Too much is at stake!

The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. Read it! Then read The Case for Christ!

Pascal's logic is flawed on so many levels, as has been discussed many times. The only reason his Paradox lives on is because of Christians who want to find a method to convert others.

First of all, Pascal's logic (or lack thereof) assumes that there are only two choices, Christians and atheists. What about all the other Gods?

Secondly, what you are telling atheists to do is to believe in something that they don't believe in simply out of fear of going to hell. I think any Christian would tell you that that line of thinking will not get you in to heaven any more than not believing.

So, where do you draw the line with parental rights? What if religionists had been successful in forcing others to be taught in religious theory forever, would that be okay with you? I just think it is a dangerous abridgement of parental rights.
Maybe we should look at making school optional rather then picking and choosing classes
Religion has an obvious place of learning ... church
Science and the arts have theirs ... school
I would rather see people just not go and deal with getting a living then degrading the quality of education the rest of us are getting but still managing to get the same degree

While I might agree with some of your points, name calling is entirely uncalled for and if you truly believe in Christ and His teaching, you will recognize that rather than berating or belittling your enemy, you are supposed to love him/her.

In Ecclesiastes, Solomon says "There is a time to love, and a time to hate." We don't hate people obviously, but there IS a time to express our hate for certain ideas and groups pushing bad agendas. That was not name-calling. Name-calling is attaching a label to someone without substance or good cause. Wouldn't you say that it is fairly logical to assume that on a UK server there will be lots of people from the UK? They will not disagree with you! They know that the majority of Brits are secular and Godless! Do you deny that internet freaks are out there? Many internet freaks tend to lean distinctly in one way, and I will let you guess which.

Hate the sin, love the sinner. That's what I believe in, not just love love love as some of you New Ageist types believe in. Tough issues require tough talk.

Oh hey, Personal responsibilit, i have something for you that you might find interesting. I made some interesting conclusions back on page 18, i'd love to hear your opinion on it. You will see that this is unexplainable by Yecs (one of the many example why YEC is folly). Please read it, tell me what you think. :)

Fine, but then you have to make both optional classes.

I'd still prefer to see both taught side by side in an "origins of life" class.

Make biology an optional class? Simply because one group of people doesn't believe in a theory that is taught in that class?

So, if you didn't believe that pi was 3.14... and instead thought it was 4, because that's what your God said, would you be proposing to make geometry an optional class?


Biology is part of science, and science is taught in school. Religion has not been taught in school, except in elective classes.


Leave creationism in those elective classes, or in Church. Tell your kids not to believe evolution, but to believe creationism. But, don't censor other kids' right to learn science just because you are afraid it will make them believe evolution. If their faith is strong, they will listen to you.

Maybe we should look at making school optional rather then picking and choosing classes
Religion has an obvious place of learning ... church
Science and the arts have theirs ... school
I would rather see people just not go and deal with getting a living then degrading the quality of education the rest of us are getting but still managing to get the same degree

I'd be okay, if the gov. just stopped taxing people to support systems they don't believe in and didn't force parents to send their kids to schools that teach things they don't believe it. It is very much an abridgment of personal freedom IMO. I don't want the educational system to collapse, but dealing with a system that people to do and learn things that violate their personal beliefs was the reason we founded this country on the principle of personal freedom.

That wording of the question and responses was obviously biased in favor of evolution. Also, the amount of people who have studied the theory of Intelligent Design are not reflected in that survey. I have studied both, but anyone who has put some time into the Intelligent Design theory will quickly see that they are on the right track. Evolution is false. I have read Darwin's Origin of Species as well as supplementary materials. I have also read many things that support Creationism. I fall in the Creationist ranks. Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell have excellent books available.
Origin of species != The modern theory of evolution

Even if there was a fair poll, however, the results would not change how I believe. What's right isn't always popular, and what's popular isn't what's always right. Plus, I realize that this server is bombarded with Godless Europeans and internet freaks, so skewed results are what I expect.
I don't think that the US has a higher pecentage of theists than Europe does.
What I find quite humorous about this entire mess is Darwinists insistence to attack. What do you gain? If you believe in evolution, you believe in ultimate meaninglessness. God is not involved in evolution. The evolutionary process is by definition random and disorderly without regard to purpose to meaning, so why would God be involved with no purpose?
Sure there is pupose. The purpose of evolution is to give organisms the possibility to adapt to changing conditions.

I now propose Pascal's Paradox to you Darwinists: If you are right about evolution and there being no God, then you win nothing. We all die and nobody will know the difference. But if you are wrong and the Christian God of not just mercy but also justice rules the day, you Godless Darwinists will spend eternity apart from God in a place known as hell. Given the circumstances, I recommend you be 100% certain in your decision and do yourself--do your soul the justice of fully exploring all angles of this argument. Too much is at stake!!

The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. Read it! Then read The Case for Christ!
I never understood Pascal's Paradox it seems a bit silly to me. The point of religion is faith I can't choose to believe just on the off chance there is a hell waiting for me if I don't.

Also, many creationsits seem to think that evolution=atheism, it doesn't. Practically all christians I know believe the theory of evolution and that the bible should not be taken literally.

I'd be okay, if the gov. just stopped taxing people to support systems they don't believe in and didn't force parents to send their kids to schools that teach things they don't believe it. It is very much an abridgment of personal freedom IMO. I don't want the educational system to collapse, but dealing with a system that people to do and learn things that violate their personal beliefs was the reason we founded this country on the principle of personal freedom.
Would be simpiler to make just seperate degrees specifiying thoes who have a scientific backround and thoes that dont (though I would hate to see the emplyoment and college accpetance statistics)

*points to Texpunditistan*
I fail to see why God couldnt just have said:
"Let there be a small chimp-like creature that will one day evolve the use of a thumb, out comepete all other small, chimp-like creatures and eventualy develope higher intelligence, construct buildings and so on!

Cuz that is not what the bible teaches you.

In Ecclesiastes, Solomon says "There is a time to love, and a time to hate." We don't hate people obviously, but there IS a time to express our hate for certain ideas and groups pushing bad agendas. That was not name-calling. Name-calling is attaching a label to someone without substance or good cause. Wouldn't you say that it is fairly logical to assume that on a UK server there will be lots of people from the UK? They will not disagree with you! They know that the majority of Brits are secular and Godless! Do you deny that internet freaks are out there? Many internet freaks tend to lean distinctly in one way, and I will let you guess which.

Hate the sin, love the sinner. That's what I believe in, not just love love love as some of you New Ageist types believe in. Tough issues require tough talk.

Okay, I am not a new ageist but you seem to be calling a bunch of people freaks and making value judgments about people you don't know and have no right to condemn even if you were correct. If I recall correctly, the only people Jesus ever had a harsh word for were those who condemned, labeled, berated and belittled others, in which case, I'd be cautious if I were you.

What we were like when we were created, of course we may have evolved, b ut wouldnt you think at the same time we could have been created.
Why?

Very few living things 'create' non-living things in nature, with the exeption of humans, otters, ants, etc.

Most species get by without the use of 'tools', the only thing they create is their own offspring.

Why would God (if he/she exists) be any different? He/she may have spat the very first single cell organisms onto the face of the earth. But why would he/she have created the rocks and bare earth? These are just non-living collections of elements, they dont need to have been created, if God did create them, then who created the original elements that he/she used to create them?

If he/she did indeed create life, then who created God? Or did God just 'evolve' from nothing?

I'd be okay, if the gov. just stopped taxing people to support systems they don't believe in and didn't force parents to send their kids to schools that teach things they don't believe it. It is very much an abridgment of personal freedom IMO. I don't want the educational system to collapse, but dealing with a system that people to do and learn things that violate their personal beliefs was the reason we founded this country on the principle of personal freedom.

Let me tell you something. Think about the consequences of that. Creationists essentially want to dictate the scientific community what it has to conclude (i.e. only a conclusion that is conform with beliefs is valid in the eyes of Creationists), and not what conclusions the evidence brings...

Darwin did not invent Biology. Nor did he invent animal husbandry and crop farming. Obviously we can change the size and shape of things that we breed (plant or animal) but we can't change a tomato into a cucumber, nor breed cats from a stock of dogs, no matter how long we try, and that, in essence, is what Darwin proposed when he assumed that the known truth of biological inheritance of traits might be the cause of the animal diversity we see in the world around us.

So when you guys argue for, or against, Evolution, you seem to be thinking of biology and evolution as the same thing, they are not.

Oh hey, Personal responsibilit, i have something for you that you might find interesting. I made some interesting conclusions back on page 18, i'd love to hear your opinion on it. You will see that this is unexplainable by Yecs (one of the many example why YEC is folly). Please read it, tell me what you think. :)

I think it is a an evolutionist version of prosetlizing evolution. :p Its actually fairly well written theory, the problem is, it assumes numerous things about how the flood happened and certainly doesn't possibly take into account all potential flood models.

Let me tell you something. Think about the consequences of that. Creationists essentially want to dictate the scientific community what it has to conclude (i.e. only a conclusion that is conform with beliefs is valid in the eyes of Creationists), and not what conclusions the evidence brings...

I don't want to dictate what anyone concludes. I just want the freedom to teach my children and have them taught the conclusions that I have come to. Science is the dept that is attempting to force its belief structure on others here... Not to say that creationists haven't done that in the past, but that doesn't excuse scientist forcing their beliefs on other any more than it would justify Hitler forcing his beliefs on the world not does it...

I don't want to dictate what anyone concludes. I just want the freedom to teach my children and have them taught the conclusions that I have come to. Science is the dept that is attempting to force its belief structure on others here... Not to say that creationists haven't done that in the past, but that doesn't excuse scientist forcing their beliefs on other any more than it would justify Hitler forcing his beliefs on the world not does it...
I think he was thinking more of scientific research then teaching

I don't want to dictate what anyone concludes. I just want the freedom to teach my children and have them taught the conclusions that I have come to. Science is the dept that is attempting to force its belief structure on others here... Not to say that creationists haven't done that in the past, but that doesn't excuse scientist forcing their beliefs on other any more than it would justify Hitler forcing his beliefs on the world not does it...

how many times, they're not beleifs. I couldnt care less if someone proved evolution false as long as a decent alternative model was found that supported all the facts.

I think he was thinking more of scientific research then teaching

Okay, then I'm lost. I thought we were discussing the educational system and how it should function, particularly at the elementary and intermediate levels, not how science should study the world...

Darwin did not invent Biology. Nor did he invent animal hunbandry and crop farming. Obviously we can change the size and shape of things that we breed (plant or animal) but I can't change a tomato into a cucumber, nor breed cats from a stock of dogs, no matter how long I try, and that, in essence, is what Darwin proposed when he assumed that biological inheritence might be the cause if animal diversity.

So when you guys argue for or against Evolution, you seem to be thinking of biology and evolution as the same thing, they are not.
That is not at all what Darwin or anyone else but you have proposed. Cats and dogs as well as tomatoes and cucumbers do have common ancestry though. We don't see evolution being the same as biology. I happen to study biology at a university and we have exactly one course on evolution in the curiculum. I suggest you do some more reading on the subject.

how many times, they're not beleifs.


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that subject.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that subject.

nah. You dont get to decide other people's motivations. I dont 'beleive' in evolution. I think its true. You cant change that so i dont really see how you can disagree.

I just wanted to point out (particularly to East Memphrica) this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418178&page=1) thread, which just so happens to be a single evolutionist explaining evolution (he understands science quite well) to a select group of Christians who were interested in learning why evolutionists believe what they believe.

If you truly want to study evolution, I highly recommend that thread as a starter.

Okay, then I'm lost. I thought we were discussing the educational system and how it should function, particularly at the elementary and intermediate levels, not how science should study the world...
It is actually possible to disprove evolution, that's a big difference from creationism. You need some fact though, a few articles in scientific journals and so on, soon you'd have creationism being taught in biology class. That's what scientists did to get evolution taught in biology class.

I think it is a an evolutionist version of prosetlizing evolution. :p Its actually fairly well written theory, the problem is, it assumes numerous things about how the flood happened and certainly doesn't possibly take into account all potential flood models.

Heh, thanks. And also thanks for taking your time and reading. :)

Regarding the assumptions about biblical flood, i thought that these were general assumptions by Yecs, and i simply 'jumped on the train' in that respect. Besides, i'm having trouble imagining different interpretations if you take things literal (oh, and isn't my last statement contradictionary in itself?) :confused:

That is not at all what Darwin or anyone else but you have proposed. Cats and dogs as well as tomatoes and cucumbers do have common ancestry though. We don't see evolution being the same as biology. I happen to study biology at a university and we have exactly one course on evolution in the curiculum. I suggest you do some more reading on the subject.

I suggest that YOU might need to be the one to go back ang reread what Evolution is proposing.

For example, the fact is that we CAN theoretically breed horses backwards and get prehistoric races back, as a matter of fact, it's been done. We CAN breed backwards to anything in a given species’ history. If evolution is correct we should be able to breed backwards to the common ancestor of all cats and dogs (if there is one) or cucumbers and tomatoes (if there is one), but biology has so far been unable to confirm either of those. That part of the theory of evolution has not been verifiable. I suggest that biology confirms the theory of evolution only partially.

The inheritance of adult traits to the offspring is truth, Evolution is the theory that takes that truth and proposes that it may lead to interspecies developments if given enough time. As of yet, we have been unable to confirm this.

Okay, then I'm lost. I thought we were discussing the educational system and how it should function, particularly at the elementary and intermediate levels, not how science should study the world...
We were ... I think he wasent (thats what I got from it anyways I could be wrong)

It is actually possible to disprove evolution, that's a big difference from creationism. You need some fact though, a few articles in scientific journals and so on, soon you'd have creationism being taught in biology class. That's what scientists did to get evolution taught in biology class.

Wait, what!?

You're saying all scientists did was find one piece of evidence and write some articles in scientific journals!?


The studies that have produced the theory of evolution as we know it today have been long, arduous, and many. Don't downplay science, it isn't easy to get an acceptable scientific theory, and evolution has stood the test fairly well, scientifically speaking.


If creationism wanted to become a scientific theory, the first assumption would have to be that it could be wrong. In that context, and with the scientific evidence we've gathered today, creationism would be struck down as fast as it arose as a scientific theory.

I don't want to dictate what anyone concludes. I just want the freedom to teach my children and have them taught the conclusions that I have come to. Science is the dept that is attempting to force its belief structure on others here... Not to say that creationists haven't done that in the past, but that doesn't excuse scientist forcing their beliefs on other any more than it would justify Hitler forcing his beliefs on the world not does it...

Again, i have to say science does not have a 'belief structure' as you claim. I'm asking you, what do... let's say chemistry, mathematics, medicine and physics have to do with belief? Nothing!

I suggest that YOU might need to be the one to go back ang reread what Evolution is proposing.

For example, the fact is that we CAN theoretically breed horses backwards and get prehistoric races back, as a matter of fact, it's been done. We CAN breed backwards to anything in a given species’ history. If evolution is correct we should be able to breed backwards to the common ancestor of all cats and dogs (if there is one) or cucumbers and tomatoes (if there is one), but biology has so far been unable to confirm either of those. That part of the theory of evolution has not been verifiable. I suggest that biology confirms the theory of evolution only partially.

The inheritance of adult traits to the offspring is truth, Evolution is the theory that takes that truth and proposes that it may lead to interspecies developments if given enough time. As of yet, we have been unable to confirm this.

Although biology only partially confirms the validity of evolution, geology and chemistry also play a big part. Biology is not the only science which intertwines with the theory of evolution.

And evolution has not been proven yet. Nobody ever said it has. But, the evidence gathered strongly supports it.

As for the breeding "back," I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying we could breed enough birds theoretically and eventually get a dinosaur? Or just something close to a dinosaur? We can't look in to an animals genetic makeup to see what the genes looked like in the past. On the macro scale, we may be able to do something similar (though it would take an immense amount of time), but on the micro scale, the scale of genetics, there is no history that can tell us the specific genetic structure of, say, T-Rex.

Again, i have to say science does not have a 'belief structure' as you claim. I'm asking you, what do... let's say chemistry, mathematics, medicine and physics have to do with belief? Nothing!

The problem is not that pure science is itself a belief system, but that practitioners of science, such as the human beings in charge of the scientific research (for example), are themselves incapable of being pure science. They bring with them preconceived notions, and points of view, for being able to interpret the evidence and results they achieve. It happens all the time.

Go to a cosmology convention or an archaeological convention, there will be hours and hours of arguing, heated hatred, with little or no resolution at the end of it about what the 'scientific evidence' they both know to be true actually means. The same is true here.

Wait, what!?
I'm not downplaying anything, but it could be done if there was some evidence, (which I haven't seen btw). All I'm saying is that creationists should go the same way as the scientist who have made the theory of evolution, get some facts to support it.

The problem is not that pure science is itself a belief system, but that practitioners of science, such as the human beings in charge of the scientific research (for example), are themselves incapable of being pure science. They bring with them preconceived notions, and points of view, for being able to interpret the evidence and results they achieve. It happens all the time.

Go to a cosmology convention or an archaeological convention, there will be hours and hours of arguing, heated hatred, with little or no resolution at the end of it about what the 'scientific evidence' they both know to be true actually means. The same is true here.

Although there are variations on what the scientific evidence supporting evolution actually means, these variations are small and don't suggest in any way that the theory is completely false.

For example, some scientists might argue that birds may not be directly decended from dinosaurs. That, however, does not automatically mean evolution is wrong. It means we need to find more evidence to support or contradict the idea that birds are decended directly from dinousaurs.


As I said before, biology is not the only science which lends credence to the theory of evolution. Geology and chemistry play a major role as well.

I'm not downplaying anything, but it could be done if there was some evidence, (which I haven't seen btw). All I'm saying is that creationists should go the same way as the scientist who have made the theory of evolution, get some facts to support it.

Sorry about that, I misunderstood your point. :D

Wait a minute.
So unless YOU personally experienced it, nothing in history actually existed? After all, without a time machine, I can never really know whether or not Nazi Germany existed, or the Inquisition, or the Crusades, or the Viking conquests, or anything else for that matter!!!
Remember, it is the victors who write the history books. You will trust everything else in history that you have been told actually happened, but you need video proof for evolution? What is that?

You personally can never truly know what happened in the past. How do you know that WW2 existed? Perhaps it is a massive practical joke by our grandparents upon younger generations. Just because it is written does not make it true. You can believe it to be true, but you cannot truly be sure it is.

Evolution, unless observed, shall forever remain a theory. Simply put, unless something can be observed, it is NEVER a law/fact. We will never know for sure if Evolution is fact(Barring some significant scientific discover).

Also, by reading many of the posts in this thread, I have become dismayed. So many believe that they have "studied" evolution, when in fact they have not. Studying evolution does not mean paying attention in 9th grade biology class for the two days you go over it. No, studying means devoting PERSONAL time on the issue, finding information on ALL sides of the issue, combing through information, and formulating results for yourself. I personally have put many hundreds of hours into studying this issue. I have read volumes of scientific journals, some of which are larger than the bible, old and new testament combined. Do you have to do this work to be consider "studying evolution"? Of course not. But you need to put more than a few half-hearted hours into it.

Simply put, High School teachers are not adequately prepared to teach Evolution. What is taught is VERY basic Darwinism, which is regarded in contemporary times as far to basic to hold much value. Darwinism(Actually, not even the first theory of Evolution) just doesn't hold up very well as science advances.

Also, many religious fanatics wonder why Evolution is taught in school. Well, here's the thing: what is taught in school is fact. A horrible travesty as Evolution is not fact. I believe in Evolution, but it is important to seperate it from Fact and Theory. Evolution is not Law. It has never been. Unfortunately, it is taught as such. Evolution is far to advanced to be taught in high school. First, teachers generally are not prepared to teach it, and second people are not prepared to learn. Perhaps then Evolution should be taught later in education. I agree on some cases with some religious groups who think evolution should not be taught, but for VASTLY different reasons. Should it be completely dismissed? No. Not even Creationism should be dismissed in school(It does have some importance), but it should not be indepth as High School teachers are not prepared to go in-depth in either.

The problem is, though, is that Evolution is also a gateway topic, so to speak. Evolution is comprised of many important subjects, from Micro-Biology, to genetics, to chemistry, and even physics. By learning Evolution, you can better understand many other important ideas and subjects.

Basically, Evolution taught is not Evolution studied.

Although there are variations on what the scientific evidence supporting evolution actually means, these variations are small and don't suggest in any way that the theory is completely false.

For example, some scientists might argue that birds may not be directly decended from dinosaurs. That, however, does not automatically mean evolution is wrong. It means we need to find more evidence to support or contradict the idea that birds are decended directly from dinousaurs.


As I said before, biology is not the only science which lends credence to the theory of evolution. Geology and chemistry play a major role as well.

This goes with the breeding back I was going to talk about anyway:

Breeding back is an attempt to assemble the genes of an extinct subspecies or domesticated breed, which may still be present in the larger gene pool of the overall species or other interbreedable species.

One animal this has been attempted with is the aurochs , an extinct forerunner of cattle . The product of these attempts is the Heck Cattle . Another pominent breeding back effort is the Quagga-Project to bring back theextinct subspecies of the Plains Zebra called Quagga . A phenotypic copy of the tarpan has also been produced.

Breeding back is controversial, especially claims that an extinct animal has been recreated. Phenotypical reconstruction(similar appearance) does not assure behavioral similarity. For some of the species that are being bred back, question remainabout the ecological niche, hardiness, and disease resistance of the original species. For instance, the aurochs died out almost400 years ago and the records kept cannot definitively answer some of these questions.


With all of that in mind, we can consider, does Evolution actually have hard evidence? Sure it has inheritable traits on its side, but no one has yet been able to breed a new species of anything yet. There are no known common denominators between different species.

A breed and species are two different things. If it was not already known, modern biology could prove that a Great Dane and Toy Poodle are of the same background because they can be bread, they are both dogs but different breeds. But a lynx and fox, for example, cannot say the same thing dispite them both being mammals, they won’t breed because they are different species.

Science can confirm that the Dane and Poodle started out as the same thing, through proving that they can be breed and breed backwards, but it has not yet been able to confirm that the fox and the lynx have the same ancestry, but Evolution proposes that they do (by saying all mammals came from one common ancestor).

See the difference? There is no great evidence for macro Evolution, none at all as a matter of fact. And just because a majority of today's biology teachers believe it to be true does not make it so.

(FYI: just because I know the flaws of Evolutionary Theory does not mean that I'm endorsing classic Creationism as has been defined in this thread. Neither system seems to be able to explain the world we see around us. Someone should spend some time coming up with a new theory, because both of these are broken and unfixable).

For example, the fact is that we CAN theoretically breed horses backwards and get prehistoric races back, as a matter of fact, it's been done. We CAN breed backwards to anything in a given species’ history. If evolution is correct we should be able to breed backwards to the common ancestor of all cats and dogs (if there is one) or cucumbers and tomatoes (if there is one), but biology has so far been unable to confirm either of those. That part of the theory of evolution has not been verifiable. I suggest that biology confirms the theory of evolution only partially.
.

For this post, assume Evolution exists.

Now this is laughable. You are basing this on Genetic Memory, which does exist, but not in they way you think it does. It is true that we maintain some of the genes of past generation(Taking into the account of the theory of Evolution), however the vast majority of our genes have changed. Genes don't just stack up onto each other over the course of evolution. They CHANGE completely. We cannot do reverse breeding because the genes do not exist. We MIGHT be able to reverse breed certain traits, however to reverse breed fully is impossible. The best we can do is genetic alteration into a creature similar, but still genetically far different from the result we wanted. And infact, we cannot do this because we do not have the technology nor the knowledge to know how to fully create a genetic alteration yet.

There's no option for "I've studied evolution and believe in it"...

There's no option for "I've studied evolution and believe in it"...
its the first option

This goes with the breeding back I was going to talk about anyway:



With all of that in mind, we can consider, does Evolution actually have hard evidence? Sure it has inheritable traits on its side, but no one has yet been able to breed a new species of anything yet. There are no known common denominators between different species.

A breed and species are two different things. If it was not already known, modern biology could prove that a Great Dane and Toy Poodle are of the same background because they can be bread, they are both dogs but different breeds. But a lynx and fox, for example, cannot say the same thing dispite them both being mammals, they won’t breed because they are different species.

Science can confirm that the Dane and Poodle started out as the same thing, through proving that they can be breed and breed backwards, but it has not yet been able to confirm that the fox and the lynx have the same ancestry, but Evolution proposes that they do (by saying all mammals came from one common ancestor).

See the difference? There is no great evidence for macro Evolution, none at all as a matter of fact. And just because a majority of today's biology teachers believe it to be true does not make it so.

(FYI: just because I know the flaws of Evolutionary Theory does not mean that I'm endorsing classic Creationism as has been defined in this thread. Neither system seems to be able to explain the world we see around us. Someone should spend some time coming up with a new theory, because both of these are broken and unfixable).

You do not understand the theory of evolution as is professed today. There, I said it.

First of all, you conveniently ignored this: "As I said before, biology is not the only science which lends credence to the theory of evolution. Geology and chemistry play a major role as well."

Second, though I had never heard of 'breeding back' until just now, it does not in any way prove or disprove evolution. I don't see how you can connect "scientists can't breed a species to change it to a different species" to "evolution must be fatally flawed."

The theory of evolutions states that naturally occuring MUTATIONS in genes over time have caused a species to adapt to its environment better than it had before. These genetic mutations, when taken over an extreme amount of time, lead to a differentiation in species. One mutation isn't going to change the species.

Breeding back assumes that genes build on each other. Evolution does not claim that is the case in the least. Usually, according to the theory of evolution, a gene will mutate. Sometimes one will be added, or subtracted, but that is not always the case.

How can you look at a horse's genetic makeup and know exactly what its genetic makeup was when it was a previous species? Not all species that come off one branch survive.



And of course nobody has been able to breed new species. THE TIME PERIODS ARE TOO GREAT! Humans can't survive long enough to see species changes in a single person's lifetime.

But, regardless, evolution does have hard evidence. Even if you discount ALL the biological evidence, you still have to discount geologic evidence as well.

And, as I see it, you have in no way discounted the biological evidence for evolution.


Though, if a better scientific theory (other than evolution) is brought forth, that supports more evidence, I'd be happy to accept this new theory.

You personally can never truly know what happened in the past. How do you know that WW2 existed? Perhaps it is a massive practical joke by our grandparents upon younger generations. Just because it is written does not make it true. You can believe it to be true, but you cannot truly be sure it is.

Evolution, unless observed, shall forever remain a theory. Simply put, unless something can be observed, it is NEVER a law/fact. We will never know for sure if Evolution is fact(Barring some significant scientific discover).

Also, by reading many of the posts in this thread, I have become dismayed. So many believe that they have "studied" evolution, when in fact they have not. Studying evolution does not mean paying attention in 9th grade biology class for the two days you go over it. No, studying means devoting PERSONAL time on the issue, finding information on ALL sides of the issue, combing through information, and formulating results for yourself. I personally have put many hundreds of hours into studying this issue. I have read volumes of scientific journals, some of which are larger than the bible, old and new testament combined. Do you have to do this work to be consider "studying evolution"? Of course not. But you need to put more than a few half-hearted hours into it.

Simply put, High School teachers are not adequately prepared to teach Evolution. What is taught is VERY basic Darwinism, which is regarded in contemporary times as far to basic to hold much value. Darwinism(Actually, not even the first theory of Evolution) just doesn't hold up very well as science advances.

Also, many religious fanatics wonder why Evolution is taught in school. Well, here's the thing: what is taught in school is fact. A horrible travesty as Evolution is not fact. I believe in Evolution, but it is important to seperate it from Fact and Theory. Evolution is not Law. It has never been. Unfortunately, it is taught as such. Evolution is far to advanced to be taught in high school. First, teachers generally are not prepared to teach it, and second people are not prepared to learn. Perhaps then Evolution should be taught later in education. I agree on some cases with some religious groups who think evolution should not be taught, but for VASTLY different reasons. Should it be completely dismissed? No. Not even Creationism should be dismissed in school(It does have some importance), but it should not be indepth as High School teachers are not prepared to go in-depth in either.

The problem is, though, is that Evolution is also a gateway topic, so to speak. Evolution is comprised of many important subjects, from Micro-Biology, to genetics, to chemistry, and even physics. By learning Evolution, you can better understand many other important ideas and subjects.

Basically, Evolution taught is not Evolution studied.


It's obvious from your huge rant on law/theory that you might have studied evolution but not scientific theory in general. Theories do not become laws (there was a time when they did, but that was a one-shot deal when the idea of scientific law was first invented) and laws are not some immutable quantity that is irrevocably true. In fact, laws have been proven wrong, shown to be inadequete, and various other things over the years.

Theories are constructs that attempt to explain the behavior of a system, make useful predictions that have been observed to be true, and are backed by evidence.

Laws are simple mathematical equations that define the behavior of a system.

ie.

In classical physics, the Law of Universal Gravitation is simply that you can find the graviational force on an object by multiplying its mass and the mass of the object in question together, dividing by the distance between them squared, and multiplying the entire quantity by the gravitational constant.

The Theory of General Relativity, however, states that gravity is a result of curvature in space-time. While it does make statements defining the behavior of gravity, they are shuffled together with the explanation simply because we do not name new laws anymore. The laws of science are the result of over-confident 19th century scientists who thought they already knew everything telling everyone else they did.

With all of that in mind, we can consider, does Evolution actually have hard evidence? Sure it has inheritable traits on its side, but no one has yet been able to breed a new species of anything yet. There are no known common denominators between different species.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

I used to have a better page, but I lost it when I switched browsers.

its the first option

@_@ Ignore me, then. For some reason I thought that said "creationism".

@_@ Ignore me, then. For some reason I thought that said "creationism".
Lol its fine ... welcome to nationstates :fluffle:

:rolleyes: :confused: Have I not stated that all pespectives or none should be taught or,as an alternative, that parents be allowed to choose what their child is taught on a repeated basis?

Which has nothing to do with what I said. Way to avoid the point.

That which forms one's belief structure is the essence of religion, which is why I argue that science is religion, at least for many. I don't know that there is a real difference between the science and religion other than the methodology used in coming to a particular belief. The idea that scientific knowledge is somehow superior to other forms of knowledge is a value judgment that no one has the right to make or impose on others.

Then, as I said, if you wish to not be hypocritical, you should be lobbying to remove all science from public schools. I'm sure you'll get far with that...

That wording of the question and responses was obviously biased in favor of evolution. Also, the amount of people who have studied the theory of Intelligent Design are not reflected in that survey.

There is no such thing as the "theory" of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is a religious idea - just like Creationism.

I have studied both, but anyone who has put some time into the Intelligent Design theory will quickly see that they are on the right track.

...if and only if they have no knowledge whatsoever of how biology works.

Even if there was a fair poll, however, the results would not change how I believe. What's right isn't always popular, and what's popular isn't what's always right.

Who is claiming anything else?

If you believe in evolution, you believe in ultimate meaninglessness. God is not involved in evolution. The evolutionary process is by definition random and disorderly without regard to purpose to meaning, so why would God be involved with no purpose?

And here is someone who knows absolutely nothing about evolutionary theory. Congratulations.

I now propose Pascal's Paradox to you Darwinists: If you are right about evolution and there being no God,

(a) What is a Darwinist?

(b) There is nothing in evolution that precludes the existence of God - hence the fact that most scientists accept both. You are aware that there are no more atheists in science than in the general population?

(c) Pascal's wager is stupid. Do you really think that God is an idiot who can't tell the difference between true faith and faith out of convenience?

Then, as I said, if you wish to not be hypocritical, you should be lobbying to remove all science from public schools. I'm sure you'll get far with that...
Exactly … as much as I hate to let ignorance spread maybe something like a GED sans science degree should be offered

But imagine the employable rate of that group not to mention hope of getting into higher education

I don't want to dictate what anyone concludes. I just want the freedom to teach my children and have them taught the conclusions that I have come to. Science is the dept that is attempting to force its belief structure on others here... Not to say that creationists haven't done that in the past, but that doesn't excuse scientist forcing their beliefs on other any more than it would justify Hitler forcing his beliefs on the world not does it...

Incorrect. Scientists are trying to dictate what can be taught in a science class. This just makes sense. Would you want an English major dictating what should be taught in a math class, a mathmetician dictating what should be taught in a history class, a historian dictating what should be taught in a theology class, and a theologian dictating what should be taught in an English class?

Or would it make more sense to have the different groups of people studied in their field decide what is appropriate to teach in that particular area?

*snip*

All of that "study", and you never discovered that nothing in science is ever proven?

i only read the first opening page of posts, so forgive me if im repeating this for the millionth time.

for creationsists, where is the proof of god... and dont just say "look around you at everything", i want proof that there is a god, rather than your opinion.

evolution, unlike creation, has its scietific roots, and is proven, and has been proven such for a while now. Asking the question of whether you believe in evolution or not, is like asking if you believe in gravity or not.

evolution, unlike creationism is observed in the natural environment, and there are other supporting pieces of information. First of all, the mendelian genetics aspect. If you cross a pure black fly (drosophila melanogaster) with a pure white fly, and black is the dominant trait, you get an ideal yield of 4 heterozygous black flies. However, in reality, this does not always happen. There are mutations, these mutations are a prime factor of evolution. Fish populations in Africa, as well as the galapagos finches also prove evolution. also if you take a look @ vestigial structures on for isntantce, humans and dogs... very similar bone structure and functions... also if you look @ comparative embryology (emberyos... humans, fish, pigs, whales...all animals look the same in embryo form, then develope separately). comparativce cytology (cell structure similarities, and genetic code similarites -for instance, the genetic code of a chimpanzee is 99.9% the same as the code for a human)... anyway, thats some of the proof of evolution, there are others but im in a rush to go now... so if you want mroe some other time, write me back.

evolution, unlike creation, has its scietific roots,

Correct.

and is proven, and has been proven such for a while now.

Incorrect. Science never proves anything.

Asking the question of whether you believe in evolution or not, is like asking if you believe in gravity or not.

Correct.

Asking the question of whether you believe in evolution or not, is like asking if you believe in gravity or not.

That may sound all nice and smart, but the problem is, you and I can agree that gravity exists and we can agree on what it does, however, we have no idea what it is.

The same is true for the evidence suggesting Evolution is true. There is a real world of ever changing creatures and plants on the third planet from the sun, but that truth does not in itself actually explain to us what it is. Nor does it tell us how it got started in the first place.

How is it possible in a theory of continually mutating genes that creates new species from isolation and seperation ~ allowing some species to be changed within just four or five generations (like dogs and cattle), and others creatures that can't or haven't been changed in hundreds of millions of years (like sharks, turtles and alligators etc.,) throughout Ice Ages and changing climates of seemingly insurmountable differences and through periods of mass extinctions, cell mutations do not occur? How can it be both? It cannot.

Just because I believe in gravity does not mean that we can explain it. Just because creatures can breed for result does not mean that evolution explains it.

Asking the question of whether you believe in evolution or not, is like asking if you believe in gravity or not.

That may sound all nice and smart, but the problem is, you and I can agree that gravity exists and we can agree on what it does, however, we have no idea what it is.

The same is true for the evidence suggesting Evolution is true. There is a real world of ever changing creatures and plants on the third planet from the sun, but that truth does not in itself actually explain to us what it is. Nor does it tell us how it got started in the first place.

How is it possible in a theory of continually mutating genes that creates new species from isolation and seperation ~ allowing some species to be changed within just four or five generations (like dogs and cattle), and others creatures that can't or haven't been changed in hundreds of millions of years (like sharks, turtles and alligators etc.,) throughout Ice Ages and changing climates of seemingly insurmountable differences and through periods of mass extinctions, cell mutations do not occur? How can it be both? It cannot.

Just because I believe in gravity does not mean that we can explain it. Just because creatures can breed for result does not mean that evolution explains it.

We cant explain gravity?

No, we do not know what gravity is. It may be curved space in the fabric of the universe, it may be an as yet undiscovered graviton element that attracts itself. We do not know. But we know what it does.

No, we do not know what gravity is. It may be curved space in the fabric of the universe, it may be an as yet undiscovered graviton element that attracts itself. We do not know. But we know what it does.
That is because lack of full knoledge of the subject not an inability to explain

Meaning just because we dont have enough info on gravity does not mean there is an inability to explain what evoluion is

No, we do not know what gravity is. It may be curved space in the fabric of the universe, it may be an as yet undiscovered graviton element that attracts itself. We do not know. But we know what it does.

Both theories can exist side by side without conflicting each other.

Both theories can exist without conflicting with each other, true. But both theories can't both be right without conflicting with each other. The simple fact is, one is right and one is wrong, or both are wrong, but it's impossible for both to be right.

Evolution is much the same. The evidence is evidence of whatever it is, calling it one thing does not make it so.

Both theories can exist without conflicting with each other, true. But both theories can't both be right without conflicting with each other. The simple fact is, one is right and one is wrong, or both are wrong, but it's impossible for both to be right.

Evolution is much the same. The evidence is evidence of whatever it is, calling it one thing does not make it so.
No but the act of labling it also does not make it wrong

Both theories can exist without conflicting with each other, true. But both theories can't both be right without conflicting with each other. The simple fact is, one is right and one is wrong, or both are wrong, but it's impossible for both to be right.

Evolution is much the same. The evidence is evidence of whatever it is, calling it one thing does not make it so.

The difference being that, at least according to modern theoretical physics, they might just be two aspects of one theory.

Evolution, however, has no counter-part theory with which this comparison can be made.

Nor does it tell us how it got started in the first place.

Nor is that within the scope of the theory.

How is it possible in a theory of continually mutating genes that creates new species from isolation and seperation ~ allowing some species to be changed within just four or five generations (like dogs and cattle), and others creatures that can't or haven't been changed in hundreds of millions of years (like sharks, turtles and alligators etc.,) throughout Ice Ages and changing climates of seemingly insurmountable differences and through periods of mass extinctions, cell mutations do not occur? How can it be both? It cannot.

It can if you actually understand the theory and its reliance on environmental pressures. Random mutations can and do occur all the time. However, without an evolutionary pressure to select for them, there are no separations in populations. Sharks have not become separated (except the one species of freshwater shark). They have not had evolutionary pressures that forced them to change much. Thus, they have not changed much.

Please refrain from strawman arguments. If you don't understand the theory, then kindly refrain from arguing about it.

Nor is that within the scope of the theory.



It can if you actually understand the theory and its reliance on environmental pressures. Random mutations can and do occur all the time. However, without an evolutionary pressure to select for them, there are no separations in populations. Sharks have not become separated (except the one species of freshwater shark). They have not had evolutionary pressures that forced them to change much. Thus, they have not changed much.

Please refrain from strawman arguments. If you don't understand the theory, then kindly refrain from arguing about it.
Thank you … you are better at explaining that then me 

The difference being that, at least according to modern theoretical physics, they might just be two aspects of one theory.

Evolution, however, has no counter-part theory with which this comparison can be made.
Unlike the two useable theories of gravity, in which they both match well enough to be right (but gravity cannot be both curved space and a graviton element, one is something and the other is the absence of anything)...

Evolution doesn't need a counterpoint argument, to use against it, we can see that it fails the test all on it's own ~ when you look at the evidence subjectively.

New species of animals (for example) come in batches and quickly/suddenly, and then don't change for hundreds of thousands, and even millions, of years, throughout all kinds of environmental changes that should have changed them if the theory was correct.

But reptiles are not birds, amphibians are not mammals, no matter what Evolutional Theory suggests, we can find no evidence that they can even be mutated enough to be confused with each other.

Gravity IS something. The Changing world we see around us IS something, but we as yet can't explain either one. Knowing our ignorance is better than pretending to believe in something that is obviously wrong, like evolution as it is taught today.

Unlike the two useable theories of gravity, they both match well enough to be right (but they cannot be both curved space and a graviton element ~ it's like like light being a particle and a wave, one is something and the other is the absence of anything)...

Evolution doesn't need a counterpoint argument, we can see that it fails the test all on it's own when you look at the evidence subjectively. New species of animals (for example) come in batches and quickly, and then don't change for hundreds of thousands, and even millions, of years, throughout all kinds of environmental changes that should have changed them.

Reptiles are not birds, amphebians are not mammals, not matter what Evolutional Theory suggests, we can find no evidence that they can even mutate enough to be confused with each other.

Gravity IS something. The Changing world we see around us IS something, but we as yet can't explain either one. Knowing our ignorance is better than prettending to believe in something that is obviously wrong, like evolution.

You seem to have never actually studied evolution. It is likely, from my point of view, that you have only read criticism about it. Criticism abounds, because there are many people who do not want to believe evolution as a theory, but the critics arguments are always flawed.

That said, give me hard evidence that creatures can not evolve from amphibians to reptiles. Just because you haven't seen evidence to support evolution doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

There is a heap of evidence to support it, and contrary to what many believe, the arguments for it are only getting stronger, while the arguments against it are many and flawed.

You can see that evolution is backed up tremendously when you look at the evidence subjectively. But then, it appears you have been looking at a fraction of the "evidence" and dismissing the theory based on your own ignorance.

New species come in batches precisely because of sudden environmental changes. If the rapid growth of new species just after the dinosaurs went extinct, or just after the KT event, doesn't tell you that, then you are not looking at the evidence at all. You are blindly following the idea that because for some reason you don't want to believe evolution as a theory, you simply choose not to. It does not make you right.

<snip>

New species come in batches precisely because of sudden environmental changes. If the rapid growth of new species just after the dinosaurs went extinct, or just after the KT event, doesn't tell you that, then you are not looking at the evidence at all. You are blindly following the idea that because for some reason you don't want to believe evolution as a theory, you simply choose not to. It does not make you right.

You seem to like to assume that people who disagree with you aren't as educated as you. You shouldn't assume quite so much. Again, obviously, you haven't attended very many (if any) scientific conventions of any kind have you. There is almost never any kind of group 'agreement' whenever you get any two 'experts' together. But I'll try to ignore your implied insults, or at least not respond to them in kind.

What you said above is in fact not true. The theory you are espousing suggests that it 'should' be true. But the evidence does not support your simple claim. There are batches of new species after big events, there are other big events without changes in species. There are other changing of the guard (so to speak) species changes don't don't seem to have a cause and effect at all.

We (you and I) agree that we live in a changing world of animals and plants, the world we can see around us. You assume that mutation of genes is the cause of it. I do not. I see change when there is cause, and I see change when there is no cause. I do not see change when there should be change according the the Evolutionary model. Random micro mutation in each breed's genetics does not answer the macro change of species we see throughout the timeline of the planet.

You seem to like to assume that people who disagree with you aren't as educated as you. You shouldn't assume quite so much. Again, obviously, you haven't attended very many (if any) scientific conventions of any kind have you. There is almost never any kind of group 'agreement' whenever you get any two 'experts' together. But I'll try to ignore your implied insults, or at least not respond to them in kind.

What you said above is in fact not true. The theory you are espousing suggests that it 'should' be true. But the evidence does not support your simple claim. There are batches of new species after big events, there are other big events without changes in species. There are other changing of the guard (so to speak) species changes don't don't seem to have a cause and effect at all.

We (you and I) agree that we live in a changing world of animals and plants, the world we can see around us. You assume that mutation of genes is the cause of it. I do not. I see change when there is cause, and I see change when there is no cause. I do not see change when there should be change according the the Evolutionary model. Random micro mutation in each breed's genetics does not answer the macro change of species we see throughout the timeline of the planet.
You've never studied evolution or genetics, have you?


'microevolution' is 'macroevolution'. They are the same thing. The distinction you are making simply does not exist.

New species of animals (for example) come in batches and quickly/suddenly, and then don't change for hundreds of thousands, and even millions, of years, throughout all kinds of environmental changes that should have changed them if the theory was correct.

But reptiles are not birds, amphibians are not mammals, no matter what Evolutional Theory suggests, we can find no evidence that they can even be mutated enough to be confused with each other.


Question: do you mind taking an actual look at the fossil record? You say that species have not changed over millions of years. I'm afraid they did!

Also, no biologist or palaeontologist ever stated that reptiles are birds or that amphibians are mammals. Where did you pick that up?

PS: please take a look at this link (http://www.palaeos.com/). :)

Sharks have not become separated (except the one species of freshwater shark). They have not had evolutionary pressures that forced them to change much. Thus, they have not changed much.

Freshwater sharks? I am curious now. Are you refering to Xenacanthus from the Permian? :confused:

It is actually possible to disprove evolution, that's a big difference from creationism. You need some fact though, a few articles in scientific journals and so on, soon you'd have creationism being taught in biology class. That's what scientists did to get evolution taught in biology class.

Actually, scientists just don't accept what I believe to be factual evidences of creation. The problem is perspective. Science interprets data, by design, from a perspective that doesn't include God. Religion interprets data in a manner that includes God. The problem is that both sides seem to think they have the right to dictate that their perspective be taught as fact and that everyone be taught their perspective. What I am dumbfounded about is that neither side seems particularly willing to compromise and allow competing ideas to be taught side by side.

That reality is what has led me to the point of considering science as more of a religion than even a search for truth that just doesn't include religious dogma. The vehemency with which so many "scientists" fight the idea of having both perspectives taught side by side is more like the religious ferver of Dark Ages Catholocism than an unbiased search for truth. If evolution is so irrefutable, what harm can there be in presenting another theory along side it?

What you said above is in fact not true. The theory you are espousing suggests that it 'should' be true. But the evidence does not support your simple claim. There are batches of new species after big events, there are other big events without changes in species. There are other changing of the guard (so to speak) species changes don't don't seem to have a cause and effect at all.

Believe me, I am not trying to be insulting. That's the last thing I want. I just want you to state your sources. This information is new to me, and I'd like to see the information myself.

But, what 'events' do you speak of that didn't have rapid evolutionary changes? And what rapid evolutionary changes do you speak of that didn't go along with a big 'event'? Keeping in mind that 'event' must mean drastic change to that animal's ecosystem.

And regardless of the answer to those questions, how can we know that just because we don't see evidence of such an 'event', one didn't occur? Maybe we just haven't found the evidence yet. And how can we know that just because we don't see any evidence of rapid evolution after such an 'event' that this didn't occur? Once again, we may just have yet to find the evidence.


Just because a theory does not yet have a full set of evidence to support every aspect of it does not make it invalid. In fact, because the evidence that comes in is consistently consistent ( :p ) with the postulations of evolution, it only serves to strenghten the theory.

You seem to like to assume that people who disagree with you aren't as educated as you. You shouldn't assume quite so much.

You seem to have quite a martyr complex. The fact that you misstate parts of the theory is ample evidence that you do not understand it.

Again, obviously, you haven't attended very many (if any) scientific conventions of any kind have you. There is almost never any kind of group 'agreement' whenever you get any two 'experts' together.

I have, although from this statement, I would certainly assume that you do not. There are rarely complete agreements on every detail. However, a basic framework and background is almost always agreed upon. Otherwise, we wouldn't get much done at conferences.

We (you and I) agree that we live in a changing world of animals and plants, the world we can see around us. You assume that mutation of genes is the cause of it. I do not.

And yet you have not provided a better explanation which equally or better fits the data at hand.

I see change when there is cause, and I see change when there is no cause. I do not see change when there should be change according the the Evolutionary model.

The fact that you make the latter statement is simply more evidence that you do not understand the theory. There is no "should be change". Certainly you understand the word random? And you understand that, if a species is already well-suited, there is no reason to see change?

There is nothing at all in evolutionary theory to state "Every time there is a big environmental change, each species will also show a big change."

Random micro mutation in each breed's genetics does not answer the macro change of species we see throughout the timeline of the planet.

Why not?

Is it really that hard to imagine that small changes building on small changes over time make big changes?

In polymer physics, a single change in a single bond angle can have a huge effect on the ultimate conformation of the molecule. In large systems, small changes eventually lead to huge ones. This is a principle that is evident across disciplines.

You've never studied evolution or genetics, have you?


'microevolution' is 'macroevolution'. They are the same thing. The distinction you are making simply does not exist.

Straight from the dictionary:

Main Entry: mac•ro•evo•lu•tion
Pronunciation: 'ma-krO-"e-v&-'lü-sh&n also -"E-v&-
Function: noun
: evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)

Main Entry: mi•cro•evo•lu•tion
Pronunciation: -"e-v&-'lü-sh&n also -"E-v&-
Function: noun
: comparatively minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation of variations in populations usually below the species level
- mi•cro•evo•lu•tion•ary /-sh&-"ner-E/ adjective

Unbelievable that I have to defend against an accusation like that.

Freshwater sharks? I am curious now. Are you refering to Xenacanthus from the Permian? :confused:

There is, or at least was, a single species of freshwater shark somewhere in South America, I believe. It exists in a rather large lake. The idea is that the lake was once connected to the oceans but got closed off and became fresh water over time. I'll see if I can find it, but this is from a class a long, long time ago.

Straight from the dictionary:

Main Entry: mac•ro•evo•lu•tion
Pronunciation: 'ma-krO-"e-v&-'lü-sh&n also -"E-v&-
Function: noun
: evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)

Main Entry: mi•cro•evo•lu•tion
Pronunciation: -"e-v&-'lü-sh&n also -"E-v&-
Function: noun
: comparatively minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation of variations in populations usually below the species level
- mi•cro•evo•lu•tion•ary /-sh&-"ner-E/ adjective

Unbelievable that I have to defend against an accusation like that.
Oh dear, this is precious.


Study evolution and genetics a bit. The difference between macro and micro evolution is scale. The process is the same, only longer.

Straight from the dictionary:

Main Entry: mac•ro•evo•lu•tion
Pronunciation: 'ma-krO-"e-v&-'lü-sh&n also -"E-v&-
Function: noun
: evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)

Main Entry: mi•cro•evo•lu•tion
Pronunciation: -"e-v&-'lü-sh&n also -"E-v&-
Function: noun
: comparatively minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation of variations in populations usually below the species level
- mi•cro•evo•lu•tion•ary /-sh&-"ner-E/ adjective

Unbelievable that I have to defend against an accusation like that.

Never attempt to use a laymen's dictionary in a scientific discussion.

Straight from the dictionary:

Main Entry: mac•ro•evo•lu•tion
Pronunciation: 'ma-krO-"e-v&-'lü-sh&n also -"E-v&-
Function: noun
: evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)

Main Entry: mi•cro•evo•lu•tion
Pronunciation: -"e-v&-'lü-sh&n also -"E-v&-
Function: noun
: comparatively minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation of variations in populations usually below the species level
- mi•cro•evo•lu•tion•ary /-sh&-"ner-E/ adjective

Unbelievable that I have to defend against an accusation like that.

And can you name a physical process required for macroevolution that does not occur in microevolution?

The "macro" and "micro" only differentiate between the magnitude of comparative accumulated effect. Rather like calling walking across your front yard "microwalking" and calling walking all the way down the street "macrowalking".

But they're both still just walking.

hey i believe that god created all creatures, but they can kind of evolve, no drastic changes, like fish to bat or mammal even over long term, no new organs or such can sucessfully be evolved by a completely random element, but i think that you can change into a subspecie, eg getting bigger/smaller, changing colours, getting sharper nails or something... but you would still be basically the same creature.

which would explain why there are so many breeds of dogs, they are all still basically dogs built off the same basic template though arent they?

does anyone know if this belief has some name?

I have studied evolution enough to know that it is a bunch of bull-crap. I vote for creationism

Actually, scientists just don't accept what I believe to be factual evidences of creation. The problem is perspective. Science interprets data, by design, from a perspective that doesn't include God. Religion interprets data in a manner that includes God. The problem is that both sides seem to think they have the right to dictate that their perspective be taught as fact and that everyone be taught their perspective. What I am dumbfounded about is that neither side seems particularly willing to compromise and allow competing ideas to be taught side by side.
Why should we teach them side by side? Science and religion are two totally different things...

That reality is what has led me to the point of considering science as more of a religion than even a search for truth that just doesn't include religious dogma.
And i told you a couple times that science is NOT a religion...

The vehemency with which so many "scientists" fight the idea of having both perspectives taught side by side is more like the religious ferver of Dark Ages Catholocism than an unbiased search for truth.

If evolution is so irrefutable, what harm can there be in presenting another theory along side it?
I wonder how many times i (or anybody else, for that matter) has to repeat this: Creationism is NOT a theory.

:(

hey i believe that god created all creatures, but they can kind of evolve, no drastic changes, like fish to bat or mammal even over long term, no new organs or such can sucessfully be evolved by a completely random element, but i think that you can change into a subspecie, eg getting bigger/smaller, changing colours, getting sharper nails or something... but you would still be basically the same creature.

which would explain why there are so many breeds of dogs, they are all still basically dogs built off the same basic template though arent they?

does anyone know if this belief has some name?
Not paying attention in class when they went over this.

Not paying attention in class when they went over this.


o.0

edit: they dont seem to teach evolution at school here anyways.. they did talk a bit about the big bang theory once, but very cautiously...in australia

I have studied evolution enough to know that it is a bunch of bull-crap. I vote for creationism

Sounds like you haven't really studied it, or you maybe haven't understood it. And it's not bull-crap, and you would know that if you had understood it.

o.0

edit: they dont seem to teach evolution at school here anyways.. they did talk a bit about the big bang theory once, but very cautiously...in australia
What?


Biology is based upon evolution. You can't teach biology (especially population dynamics and such) without evolution.

I ticked the first option, but to be honest, they're all misleading.

Simply put, I don't believe in evolution. Evolution is a FACT. You do not believe in facts.

It's not a philosophy. It's not a personal credo. It's a scientifically proven theory and the best working model we have of how life developed. It may one day be proven wrong, and a better model arrived at, but so far, no one has done so.

As for creationism? Please. Are you that insecure in your religion that you have to interpret every word in your holy book literally? Whatever happened to metaphor?

Actually, scientists just don't accept what I believe to be factual evidences of creation.

Incorrect.

Scientists do not accept the method used by Creationists as science. This is, quite simply, because it does not follow the scientific method.

This does not, of course, state that it is untrue. It simply states that it is not scientific.

Science interprets data, by design, from a perspective that doesn't include God.

But not one that excludes God.

Religion interprets data in a manner that includes God.

Correct.

Of course, Creationists go even further. They "interpret" (using the word rather lightly here) the data in such a way that they already have a foregone conclusion that restricts God. I'm not sure how you can justify restricting an all-powerful being, but there you go.

The problem is that both sides seem to think they have the right to dictate that their perspective be taught as fact and that everyone be taught their perspective.

Incorrect again. Science has never asked that evolution be taught as fact. We simply expect that it is taught as what it is, the current best theory.

What I am dumbfounded about is that neither side seems particularly willing to compromise and allow competing ideas to be taught side by side.

I'm perfectly willing to compromise. You have two choices. 1 - Don't have a science class. Simply teach whatever you want without ever placing a label on it.
2 - Teach both in a science class, teaching Creationism as an example of pseudoscience that does not follow the scientific method.

That reality is what has led me to the point of considering science as more of a religion than even a search for truth that just doesn't include religious dogma.

Ignoring, of course, the fact that scientists are no less religious than the general population. We simply see the two methods as separate ways of searching for truth, with uses in separate areas.

The vehemency with which so many "scientists" fight the idea of having both perspectives taught side by side is more like the religious ferver of Dark Ages Catholocism than an unbiased search for truth.

As soon as you start asking that 8*92=1 in math class, I'll accept this perspective.

As it is, all I am fighting against is non-science being taught in a science class.

If evolution is so irrefutable, what harm can there be in presenting another theory along side it?

After all of these debates, you still say things that are absolutely outrageous. You are the one claiming an idea that is "irrefutable". Science has not, nor will we ever, make that claim.

There is, or at least was, a single species of freshwater shark somewhere in South America, I believe. It exists in a rather large lake. The idea is that the lake was once connected to the oceans but got closed off and became fresh water over time. I'll see if I can find it, but this is from a class a long, long time ago.

Now that's quite interesting. Well, i was refering to a group (i think they were a group) of Sharks from the permian which are known from river sediments and which were (obviously - since they are from river sediments), freshwater sharks, too. And some of them had amazing size.

(just a random fact :) )

What?


Biology is based upon evolution. You can't teach biology (especially population dynamics and such) without evolution.

and why not? cant you teach people how creatures bodies work without evolution?

Heh, thanks. And also thanks for taking your time and reading. :)

Regarding the assumptions about biblical flood, i thought that these were general assumptions by Yecs, and i simply 'jumped on the train' in that respect. Besides, i'm having trouble imagining different interpretations if you take things literal (oh, and isn't my last statement contradictionary in itself?) :confused:

You're welcome. I try to be as willing to look at and consider the ideas of others, even when I disagree, as I can.

Actually, I am a YEC and I do believe in the biblical account of the flood, but there are many details that aren't presented there that we just don't know about one way or the other. If you consider that the Bible talks about preflood man living nearly 1000 years and that changing dramatically after the flood, that the waters were devided in a way that we don't currently think of as possible, that it didn't rain for the first 1000 or so years of earth's history and still everything was green and lush and a few other things, the flood could well have had very different characteristics than anything we have created a working model for.

I'll admit right now I can't prove those things were true. I have theories about how they could possibly have been true, but I don't have the resources, or the motivation to do the kind of research necessary to establish my theories in a manner that current science would consider credible. There are things that I find more important in life and I didn't go into the right field to do that kind of research anyway.

However, one of the things I learned in behavioral statistics and research psychology classes was that working backwards from data allows one to create any number of models to explain a data set. In the case of evolutionary thoery, we are looking at a very, nearly infinite data set and just because that theory is one possible model that explains the details, there are other ways to explain that data. The problem is, most of them don't get the supporting research that Darwin's theory has.

and why not? cant you teach people how creatures bodies work without evolution?
Ever hear of ecology? Hardy-Weinburg equation? How these things came into being? How all beings came into being? How everything fits nicely, design fits function)

<snip>
And yet you have not provided a better explanation which equally or better fits the data at hand.
I do not need a better explanation to know that a bolt does not fit, nor see that the bulb is burned out.


The fact that you make the latter statement is simply more evidence that you do not understand the theory. There is no "should be change". Certainly you understand the word random? And you understand that, if a species is already well-suited, there is no reason to see change?

There is nothing at all in evolutionary theory to state "Every time there is a big environmental change, each species will also show a big change."


Actually yes there is. Go read your theory again. Random mutations means it is happening all the time, when it is advantageous and when it is not. Simple isolation from the rest of the species should be enough of a change in the environment to cause a seperation in breed, and theoretically in species.

Separation in breeds is easy to see, the cause of the theory itself as a mater of fact. However, the extension of that theory to species has not only not been proven, it's been impossible to substantiate at all. Even on the insect level.

A wasp in the Paleolithic is still a wasp today, they do not become bees no matter what. And yet, there are dozens of different types of bees that are different breeds, they never turn into anything other than bees either, no matter how much you breed them to look like wasps.


Why not?

Is it really that hard to imagine that small changes building on small changes over time make big changes?

In polymer physics, a single change in a single bond angle can have a huge effect on the ultimate conformation of the molecule. In large systems, small changes eventually lead to huge ones. This is a principle that is evident across disciplines.
As a matter of fact it is hard to imagine. It's easy for you to pretend that there is evidence of species change, but when I start reminding us of amphibians, reptiles, birds and fishes, all of a sudden people start saying that nobody says they came from each other... When yes, Evolution does say that. But even a billion years isn't enough time for us to have gotten what we see around us if the theory was correct. Thus, it is not.

Now that's quite interesting. Well, i was refering to a group (i think they were a group) of Sharks from the permian which are known from river sediments and which were (obviously - since they are from river sediments), freshwater sharks, too. And some of them had amazing size.

(just a random fact :) )

Well, there are still some species which are much like salmon, going upriver to breed. I believe the one I was referring to eventually got blocked in, as it were.

This page talks about some of them:

http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/topics/p_fw_rays.htm

Ever hear of ecology?
honestly... no.

but serious they have yet to mention evolution in science and ive almost finished highschool...

i dont think it should be taught in school anyways... i dont think religion should be taught in school either though. because teaching evolution would be teaching the children not to believe in religion, which IMO is wrong... fact or not evolution shouldnt be taught in school. and it isnt here.

I suppose in higher education that highschool it would be allright, since they are less impressionable...

Again, i have to say science does not have a 'belief structure' as you claim. I'm asking you, what do... let's say chemistry, mathematics, medicine and physics have to do with belief? Nothing!

Are you kidding? Chemistry+Biology has led us to believe that if we mix the right chemicals together we can cure most anything and we just have to find the right combination. Physics has led us to believe there may be more dimensions than we currently have the capacity to observe.... and so on. Science has shaped much of what we believe to be true about the world... which is all a part of our belief structure. If you don't recognize that the theory of evolution has dramatically effected what a good number of humans believe about the universe, about themselves, about God or the lack there of, about each other you need to retake Psych. 101.

honestly... no.

but serious they have yet to mention evolution in science and ive almost finished highschool...

i dont think it should be taught in school anyways... i dont think religion should be taught in school either though. because teaching evolution would be teaching the children not to believe in religion, which IMO is wrong... fact or not evolution shouldnt be taught in school. and it isnt here.

I suppose in higher education that highschool it would be allright, since they are less impressionable...
Wow. Education is in a shabby state over there.


People complain about the USA...

As a matter of fact it is hard to imagine. It's easy for you to pretend that there is evidence of species change, but when I start reminding us of amphibians, reptiles, birds and fishes, all of a sudden people start saying that nobody says they came from each other... When yes, Evolution does say that. But even a billion years isn't enough time for us to have gotten what we see around us if the theory was correct. Thus, it is not.

As of yet, you have not given one solid piece of evidence that refutes anything in evolutionary theory. All you have done is tell us that it exists.

Point me to an article. A peer-reviewed scientific article that says that "a billion years isn't enough time" for the evolution between simple oceanic organisms and what we see today.

Point me to an article. A peer-reviewed scientific article that says that "a group of one species was isolated for tens of thousands of years, and is still the same species as it was when it entered."

You are making claims, but I have never heard any of this evidence. So, give it to me!

I do not need a better explanation to know that a bolt does not fit, nor see that the bulb is burned out.

You have yet to show that the actual theory, rather than your strawman construction of it, truly does not fit.

Actually yes there is. Go read your theory again.

Wait, so because you have concocted a fake evolutionary theory in your head, I have to go read the actual theory again?

Random mutations means it is happening all the time, when it is advantageous and when it is not. Simple isolation from the rest of the species should be enough of a change in the environment to cause a seperation in breed, and theoretically in species.

Incorrect. It can be enough to cause this if and only if the random mutations occur that way. If both populations, whether separated or not, are already pretty well adapted to their separate environments, and no random mutations allow them to fill a new niche, there is no reason in the theory to expect change. It may or may not happen, depending on the given mutations that occur randomly.

You are assuming that evolution is directed, which is a completely incorrect assumption to make if you are working within evolutionary theory.

However, the extension of that theory to species has not only not been proven,

Nor will it ever, as science can never prove anything. What is your point?

it's been impossible to substantiate at all. Even on the insect level.

Interesting. Wrong, but interesting.

What you meant to say was that you do not accept the evidence used to substantiate it.

A wasp in the Paleolithic is still a wasp today, they do not become bees no matter what.

That's a cute statement, but you do not know that modern bees were not descended from wasps.

As a matter of fact it is hard to imagine.

Good to know that scientific theories hinge on your personal imagination.

It's easy for you to pretend that there is evidence of species change, but when I start reminding us of amphibians, reptiles, birds and fishes, all of a sudden people start saying that nobody says they came from each other... When yes, Evolution does say that.

Correct and incorrect. Evolution does not state that modern reptiles came from modern amphibians. It states that they both came from a common ancestor which was amphibious.

But even a billion years isn't enough time for us to have gotten what we see around us if the theory was correct. Thus, it is not.

If you believe that, you need something to back it up. You will, in fact, have to disprove the mathematical calculations already out there to the contrary.

Oh dear, this is precious.


Study evolution and genetics a bit. The difference between macro and micro evolution is scale. The process is the same, only longer.
Actually my dear, the difference in inter-species or in-species. One has been observed, one has not.

but serious they have yet to mention evolution in science and ive almost finished highschool...

Have you taken a biology class?

i dont think it should be taught in school anyways... i dont think religion should be taught in school either though. because teaching evolution would be teaching the children not to believe in religion, which IMO is wrong... fact or not evolution shouldnt be taught in school. and it isnt here.

Incorrect. Evolution in no way teaches children not to believe in religion. Care to try again?

Are you kidding? Chemistry+Biology has led us to believe that if we mix the right chemicals together we can cure most anything and we just have to find the right combination. Physics has led us to believe there may be more dimensions than we currently have the capacity to observe.... and so on. Science has shaped much of what we believe to be true about the world... which is all a part of our belief structure. If you don't recognize that the theory of evolution has dramatically effected what a good number of humans believe about the universe, about themselves, about God or the lack there of, about each other you need to retake Psych. 101.

Your claim has been that acceptance of evolution as a scientific theory leads to atheism and a lack of morals.

Give us the evidence to back that up, considering that there are no more atheists in science than anywhere else, nor are scientists any less moral than the general population.

honestly... no.

but serious they have yet to mention evolution in science and ive almost finished highschool...

i dont think it should be taught in school anyways... i dont think religion should be taught in school either though. because teaching evolution would be teaching the children not to believe in religion, which IMO is wrong... fact or not evolution shouldnt be taught in school. and it isnt here.

I suppose in higher education that highschool it would be allright, since they are less impressionable...

So, a science shouldn't be taught in school because it's "against a religion" (which it isn't, by the way). So, apparently then, a heliocentric model of the solar system shouldn't be taught either, because 'religion says the Earth is the center' of the universe.

What kind of logic is that?

Actually my dear, the difference in inter-species or in-species. One has been observed, one has not.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Have fun.

Which has nothing to do with what I said. Way to avoid the point.


Please forgive my denseness. I am a creationist afterall. :p ;) I'm not sure why you don't see that as an appropriate response. You call me a hypocrite because I don't want to remove all science from the class room. My response is that rather than remove all science I would prefer to teach competing theories or give parents a choice about what their children are taught. I'm not exactly sure how this is avioding the subject. I suspect you will enlighten quickly.

You're welcome. I try to be as willing to look at and consider the ideas of others, even when I disagree, as I can.

Actually, I am a YEC and I do believe in the biblical account of the flood, but there are many details that aren't presented there that we just don't know about one way or the other. If you consider that the Bible talks about preflood man living nearly 1000 years and that changing dramatically after the flood, that the waters were devided in a way that we don't currently think of as possible, that it didn't rain for the first 1000 or so years of earth's history and still everything was green and lush and a few other things, the flood could well have had very different characteristics than anything we have created a working model for.

Umm... question. Where does the bible state that it didn't rain for 1000 years before the deluge? Point?

I'll admit right now I can't prove those things were true. I have theories about how they could possibly have been true, but I don't have the resources, or the motivation to do the kind of research necessary to establish my theories in a manner that current science would consider credible. There are things that I find more important in life and I didn't go into the right field to do that kind of research anyway.

Hypothesis, PR, hypothesis... ;)

But think about it, you are pondering about "how it possibly could have been true". You don't go ahead and look at the evidence and take your conclusion from it, instead you do it kinda vice versa...

However, one of the things I learned in behavioral statistics and research psychology classes was that working backwards from data allows one to create any number of models to explain a data set. In the case of evolutionary thoery, we are looking at a very, nearly infinite data set and just because that theory is one possible model that explains the details, there are other ways to explain that data. The problem is, most of them don't get the supporting research that Darwin's theory has.

Well, i can't force you what to think and what not, but from the evidence i have seen so far (personally seen, i should add), i'm quite convinced that Earth is very old, and that evolution took place.

Forgive me for not reading through all 28 pages here, but who's to say evolution and Creationism are mutually exclusive? Perhaps our universe is a self-limiting planar structure (think something like a highly complex computer program, if it's easier to picture that way) created by a being within a universe that resulted from raw evolution?

In my own personal belief "God" (really not trying to preach) created the first thing that set off whatever created life whether it be the Big Bang (etc). I Really don't think we can truly exist without some intervention from a higher being. For instance what made the gasses that started the Big Bang? If you have an answer, then what created that? (If I am incorrect about Big Bang being about gasses then forgive me).

So in short I think as God as a clockmaker (thats the term most used as I remember). He made it so it can run on its own and only interveins when the clock is broken.

-Mehmet

Actually my dear, the difference in inter-species or in-species. One has been observed, one has not.

Ha! You are SOOO wrong!

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html

Just as I suspected, your reason is based on false assumptions. (See point three, speciation HAS been observed)

Please forgive my denseness. I am a creationist afterall. :p ;) I'm not sure why you don't see that as an appropriate response. You call me a hypocrite because I don't want to remove all science from the class room. My response is that rather than remove all science I would prefer to teach competing theories or give parents a choice about what their children are taught. I'm not exactly sure how this is avioding the subject. I suspect you will enlighten quickly.

We can only teach science within the scientific method (after all, anything outside of the scientific method is not science).

How does advocating that we inject ideas that are not scientific theories and do not follow the scientific method into science do anything other than undermine students learning the method in the first place? It is exactly like suggesting that teach students that 4+8=66 in a math class. In other words, you are advocating that we teach non-science as science.

The only way that it would make sense to teach Creationism in a science class is as bad science which does not follow the scientific method. In other words, it would be taught as an example of what not to do. I'm sure you wouldn't like to see that?

In my own personal belief "God" (really not trying to preach) created the first thing that set off whatever created life whether it be the Big Bang (etc). I Really don't think we can truly exist without some intervention from a higher being. For instance what made the gasses that started the Big Bang? If you have an answer, then what created that? (If I am incorrect about Big Bang being about gasses then forgive me).

So in short I think as God as a clockmaker (thats the term most used as I remember). He made it so it can run on its own and only interveins when the clock is broken.

-Mehmet

The only qualm I have with this is, to use the logic 'well, what created the thing before that?' over and over is folly. Because I could just as easily reply to you, 'well, what created God?'

Your claim has been that acceptance of evolution as a scientific theory leads to atheism and a lack of morals.

Give us the evidence to back that up, considering that there are no more atheists in science than anywhere else, nor are scientists any less moral than the general population.

I'm not saying that all scientists or atheists are immoral. My actually argument is that they lose the rational for any form of morality and that every form of morality or lack there of is value equal in the absense of an omniscient, and there by objective, definer of morality. As for the comparison of the general population to scientists for morality, wouldn't even bare out my premise. You would have do a comparitive study of morality in the pre-evolutionary theory world to the post evolutionary theory world, which is pretty much impossible as there is little credible (reliable or valid) data about the morality of the pre evolutionary theory world.

It might be possible to compare the morality of those who believe in evolution to those who do not, but even that research would have corrupting variables.

But, shouldn't our morality be based on reason?

Actually my dear, the difference in inter-species or in-species. One has been observed, one has not.

Wrong.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

But, shouldn't our morality be based on reason?

Or human empathy? What's wrong with treating other people with care and respect simply because we identify with their needs and emotions?

My actually argument is that they lose the rational for any form of morality and that every form of morality or lack there of is value equal in the absense of an omniscient, and there by objective, definer of morality.

You have already said something that is completely devoid of any basis. You have started talking about the "absence of an omniscient, and thereby objective, definer of morality.' Evolutionary theory says nothing at all which precludes said definer. As such, your idea is completely devoid of truth.

Forgive me for not reading through all 28 pages here,

Well, no problem. I can understand you very well in that regard. :)

but who's to say evolution and Creationism are mutually exclusive?

Well, Yecs essentially say that... :rolleyes:

Edit: And i (in accordance with mainstream science) say that YEC is inconsistent with our world.

Umm... question. Where does the bible state that it didn't rain for 1000 years before the deluge? Point?



Hypothesis, PR, hypothesis... ;)

But think about it, you are pondering about "how it possibly could have been true". You don't go ahead and look at the evidence and take your conclusion from it, instead you do it kinda vice versa...



Well, i can't force you what to think and what not, but from the evidence i have seen so far (personally seen, i should add), i'm quite convinced that Earth is very old, and that evolution took place.

Creation is a theory that has been around longer and accepted by more of humanity than evolution, so I'd say it deserves the title of "theory" as much as evolution does. Granted it couldn't and shouldn't be called a "scientific theory", but it does qualify as a theory.

As for the pondering how it possibly could have been true verses looking at the data and coming to a conclusion... If you, as most evolutionists believe, believe that Religion/Creationism are the result of mankind looking at a world it couldn't explain any other way and therefore made up a being greater than humanity to have done it, sounds very much to me like "scientists" looking at the world and thinking current theology didn't explain the world well enough and making up a different story of origins.

Wrong.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

To the three or four postings of this thread.

The first part of this is discribing the word species. Given the fact that we have to admit that we do not know that all the blue gills in all the lakes of wisconsin are or are not sexually compatible, we assume for the sake of realistic ability to test, that they are sexually compatible and thus, are the same species.

I, for the sake of this argument, suggest that the blue gills are all blue gills, regardless of sexual compatibility. And the same stands true for the flys, the worms, the snails etc. Sexually incombatibility in these cases does not constitute the generation of a new species. A snail is still a snail, even if you make two snail breeds.

To the guy that said how do I know that bees didn't come from wasps? Because we have wasps now and we have wasps then.

We can only teach science within the scientific method (after all, anything outside of the scientific method is not science).

How does advocating that we inject ideas that are not scientific theories and do not follow the scientific method into science do anything other than undermine students learning the method in the first place? It is exactly like suggesting that teach students that 4+8=66 in a math class. In other words, you are advocating that we teach non-science as science.

The only way that it would make sense to teach Creationism in a science class is as bad science which does not follow the scientific method. In other words, it would be taught as an example of what not to do. I'm sure you wouldn't like to see that?

I'm not advocating that Creationism be taught as "science" just that it be taught as a theory competing with the scientific theory of evolution and that both be given equal time in the teaching of elementary and intermediate education or that both of those theories be made "optional learning".

Creation is a theory that has been around longer and accepted by more of humanity than evolution
The fact that belief into Creation has been around much longer than the theory of evolution doesn't make it a valid theory. In the same manner you could argue about flat Earth, which is definitly not the case.

As for the pondering how it possibly could have been true verses looking at the data and coming to a conclusion... If you, as most evolutionists believe, believe that Religion/Creationism are the result of mankind looking at a world it couldn't explain any other way and therefore made up a being greater than humanity to have done it, sounds very much to me like "scientists" looking at the world and thinking current theology didn't explain the world well enough and making up a different story of origins.

Well let me make a simple suggestion: go out and start looking thoroughly at the sediments, and then make your conclusion from it. Maybe you will get the same enlightment as i did... :)

I'm not advocating that Creationism be taught as "science" just that it be taught as a theory competing with the scientific theory of evolution and that both be given equal time in the teaching of elementary and intermediate education or that both of those theories be made "optional learning".

Optional learning? I just can quote Dempublicents... should they also have the 'option' to be taught that 2+2=19 or something? That would be scary... :eek:

I'm not advocating that Creationism be taught as "science" just that it be taught as a theory competing with the scientific theory of evolution and that both be given equal time in the teaching of elementary and intermediate education or that both of those theories be made "optional learning".

And thus I once again pose the question:

Should heliocentricity and geocentricity be given equal time? Or made "optional learning"?

I, for the sake of this argument, suggest that the blue gills are all blue gills, regardless of sexual compatibility. And the same stands true for the flys, the worms, the snails etc. Sexually incombatibility in these cases does not constitute the generation of a new species. A snail is still a snail, even if you make two snail breeds.

Ok, so if you make up your own definitions, rather than adhering to the actual definitions, your idea makes sense?

Ok, sure.

To the guy that said how do I know that bees didn't come from wasps? Because we have wasps now and we have wasps then.

Illogical. The fact that we still have wasps does not mean that a subspecies of wasp did not eventually become bees.


I'm not advocating that Creationism be taught as "science" just that it be taught as a theory competing with the scientific theory of evolution and that both be given equal time in the teaching of elementary and intermediate education or that both of those theories be made "optional learning".

if that were true, you wouldn't balk at the teaching of all religious creation stories in their proper place, a religion class.

And yet, you do.

As for the pondering how it possibly could have been true verses looking at the data and coming to a conclusion... If you, as most evolutionists believe, believe that Religion/Creationism

The words religion and creationism are not interchangeable.

Also, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist". That is a made-up word.

are the result of mankind looking at a world it couldn't explain any other way and therefore made up a being greater than humanity to have done it, sounds very much to me like "scientists" looking at the world and thinking current theology didn't explain the world well enough and making up a different story of origins.

And this is exactly the strength of science. When an old idea doesn't seem to fit with the data anymore, it gets changed. Creationism is, by its very nature, opposed to that.

To the three or four postings of this thread.

The first part of this is discribing the word species. Given the fact that we have to admit that we do not know that all the blue gills in all the lakes of wisconsin are or are not sexually compatible, we assume for the sake of realistic ability to test, that they are sexually compatible and thus, are the same species.

I, for the sake of this argument, suggest that the blue gills are all blue gills, regardless of sexual compatibility. And the same stands true for the flys, the worms, the snails etc. Sexually incombatibility in these cases does not constitute the generation of a new species. A snail is still a snail, even if you make two snail breeds.

To the guy that said how do I know that bees didn't come from wasps? Because we have wasps now and we have wasps then.

So, get to the point. All I have seen from you is evidence that nobody has even heard of. Please, if you are going to argue against evolution saying that the scientific evidence doesn't support it, give us examples!

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html

Your argument is falling in the same line as Creationists, where you are making the definition of macroevolution conveniently "evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet."

The fact that belief into Creation has been around much longer than the theory of evolution doesn't make it a valid theory. In the same manner you could argue about flat Earth, which is definitly not the case.



Well let me make a simple suggestion: go out and start looking thoroughly at the sediments, and then make your conclusion from it. Maybe you will get the same enlightment as i did... :)

What you should have said, in which case I would have agreed with you, is: "The fact that belief in Creation has been around much longer than the theory of evolution doesn't make it a valid scientific theory." But alas you had to say it wasn't a theory, as though only scientific theories are theories, or valid or worthy of being taught. Sounds like prostletizing again... ;) :p

As for sediments and the geologic column, I have looked, both in person and in text books. I still find creationism to me much more plausable.

What you should have said, in which case I would have agreed with you, is: "The fact that belief in Creation has been around much longer than the theory of evolution doesn't make it a valid scientific theory." But alas you had to say it wasn't a theory, as though only scientific theories are theories, or valid or worthy of being taught. Sounds like prostletizing again... ;) :p

As for sediments and the geologic column, I have looked, both in person and in text books. I still find creationism to me much more plausable.

And thus I once again pose the question:

Should heliocentricity and geocentricity be given equal time? Or made "optional learning"?

(Geez, I don't know how many times I have to pose this question before I finally get a response.)

come on people, just to say at first dont call me a fanatic i hate religion, but, still i dont belive in evolution, come on humens have developed art, humen feelings like love and shit cant just be after evolution, i think we were created by some god like dude/women

if that were true, you wouldn't balk at the teaching of all religious creation stories in their proper place, a religion class.

And yet, you do.

I'm not opposed to other theories of the origin's of the earth and species being taught. I'd say it would be more logical to teach all the theories on origins in a single class though so they can be compared and contrasted rather than singling out one theory as more valid than the others. Or, as previously stated, simply giving parents the freedom to chose what their charges are taught.

come on people, just to say at first dont call me a fanatic i hate religion, but, still i dont belive in evolution, come on humens have developed art, humen feelings like love and shit cant just be after evolution, i think we were created by some god like dude/women

There is no reason that you cannot accept evolutionary theory and still believe that we were created by some "god like dude/women".

What you should have said, in which case I would have agreed with you, is: "The fact that belief in Creation has been around much longer than the theory of evolution doesn't make it a valid scientific theory." But alas you had to say it wasn't a theory, as though only scientific theories are theories, or valid or worthy of being taught. Sounds like prostletizing again... ;) :p

Please don't make jokes like that. I'm already trying my best to make this a fair discussion and no insulting. :(

As for sediments and the geologic column, I have looked, both in person and in text books. I still find creationism to me much more plausable.

Hello? I seriously wonder... what did you see? :eek:

I'm not opposed to other theories of the origin's of the earth and species being taught. I'd say it would be more logical to teach all the theories on origins in a single class though so they can be compared and contrasted rather than singling out one theory as more valid than the others. Or, as previously stated, simply giving parents the freedom to chose what their charges are taught.

Why do you make the assumption that a scientific theory is automatically more valid than the others? That is your assumption. All that is actually accomplished by teaching it in a science class is pointing out that it is the scientific theory.

The words religion and creationism are not interchangeable.

Also, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist". That is a made-up word.



And this is exactly the strength of science. When an old idea doesn't seem to fit with the data anymore, it gets changed. Creationism is, by its very nature, opposed to that.

Pulled this off of dictionar.com for you:


3 entries found for evolutionist.
ev·o·lu·tion·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (v-lsh-nzm, v-)
n.
A theory of biological evolution, especially that formulated by Charles Darwin.
Advocacy of or belief in biological evolution.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
evo·lution·ist n.

[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


Actually, there are creationists who are willing to examine and change theories on how things happened then. We just tend to be more skeptical of a Godless theory of origins, that's all...

And thus I once again pose the question:

Should heliocentricity and geocentricity be given equal time? Or made "optional learning"?

(Geez, I don't know how many times I have to pose this question before I finally get a response.)

Certainly ;) :p

Please don't make jokes like that. I'm already trying my best to make this a fair discussion and no insulting. :(



Hello? I seriously wonder... what did you see? :eek:

Fossils, stratified sediments (some that appeared in "order" some that were more chaotic).

I'm sorry you find the joke insulting. Imagine what it must be like being a Christian/Creationist on this site when people say things like that and aren't even joking or doing so in a good natured way.

Certainly ;) :p

Ay ay ay. I know it's a joke, but it was a serious question.

I appreciate the humour. Really, I do... I mean this is stressful on us all. But, I really do want to know, what justifies making teaching one science optional and another required when they both seemingly contradict the literal description of the Bible?

Fossils, stratified sediments (some that appeared in "order" some that were more chaotic).

I'm sorry you find the joke insulting. Imagine what it must be like being a Christian/Creationist on this site when people say things like that and aren't even joking or doing so in a good natured way.

But did you see the science which shows said fossils to be very old? Did you see the science that shows how the strata were deposited? Science has explanations for these, and they are not just made up. They are widely known and the message is quite obvious. From a scientific standpoint, there is absolutely no method that describes an Earth less than 100,000 years old. None.

Pulled this off of dictionar.com for you:

There was a definition for evolutionism there, but not for evolutionist.

Of course, being in a dictionary does not preclude it being a made-up word. You can find bling-bling in a dictionary too.

Actually, there are creationists who are willing to examine and change theories on how things happened then. We just tend to be more skeptical of a Godless theory of origins, that's all...

Incorrect. By its very definition, Creationism (at least in the sense that people want to teach it in the schools) assumes absolute literalism in the Old Testament. This is a conclusion that will not, under any circumstances, regardless of what evidence is found, change.

As I have pointed out many times before, if you begin with your conclusion, you can find evidence for anything.

Evolution, on the other hand, is and always has been a constantly changing theory. And if, at some point, we find evidence to completely refute it, it will be dropped completely. That is how science works.

And finally, once again, since you are apparently incapable of comprehending this:
THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF A CREATOR. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF A BEING WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF A CREATOR. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF A BEING WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF A CREATOR. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF A BEING WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF A CREATOR. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF A BEING WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF A CREATOR. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF A BEING WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT.

Got it?

Fossils, stratified sediments (some that appeared in "order" some that were more chaotic).

What fossils did you see? If you look at it closely you will find that there really is a chronological order. And what strata did you see, or where?

I'm sorry you find the joke insulting. Imagine what it must be like being a Christian/Creationist on this site when people say things like that and aren't even joking or doing so in a good natured way.

Well, it's okay. :)

And thus I once again pose the question:

Should heliocentricity and geocentricity be given equal time? Or made "optional learning"?

(Geez, I don't know how many times I have to pose this question before I finally get a response.)
Copernican! Heathen!

All right, seriously now. Look at human form. No, no, not just the nudie pictures. Make a good, thorough examination of the human structure, its form, its foibles, its flaws.

Now, what Supreme Being would be so fouled up to have a body like that, so subject to disease, injury, etc., and that's simply going on about the human body.

Humanity is simply one species among many that cannot be regarded as perfect as a product of creation. However, as a product of evolution humans are "good enough for government work." And like bureaucracy, humanity is still changing, possibly not noticeably to the naked eye, but certainly, gradually changing with the times.

Ay ay ay. I know it's a joke, but it was a serious question.

I appreciate the humour. Really, I do... I mean this is stressful on us all. But, I really do want to know, what justifies making teaching one science optional and another required when they both seemingly contradict the literal description of the Bible?

The principles of individual freedom, free exersize of religion (a gov. that neither promotes or negates religious views) and parental rights. Those are what justify it for me. I don't know that any should be required, particularly if they contridict a religious belief or if they are required, teach them along side the competing religious belief or beliefs giving no value judgment to any.

The principles of individual freedom, free exersize of religion (a gov. that neither promotes or negates religious views) and parental rights. Those are what justify it for me. I don't know that any should be required, particularly if they contridict a religious belief or if they are required, teach them along side the competing religious belief or beliefs giving no value judgment to any.

So you seriously are suggesting to make heliocentrism not required!?

:eek:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA040.html

I believe that the universe and life were created by a deity and were evolved with purpose to acheive an ultimate goal. anyone who has actually studied evolution knows that survival for the fittest happens too slow for us to come from that. It must have had a divine intervention.

Ay ay ay. I know it's a joke, but it was a serious question.

I appreciate the humour. Really, I do... I mean this is stressful on us all. But, I really do want to know, what justifies making teaching one science optional and another required when they both seemingly contradict the literal description of the Bible?
One (evolution) is science, the other (creationism) is a bastardisation of science. The second assumes the answer to everything is known, whilst those who study the first still prod, poke, and enquire to find out everything about everything.

One (evolution) is science, the other (creationism) is a bastardisation of science. The second assumes the answer to everything is known, whilst those who study the first still prod, poke, and enquire to find out everything about everything.

And I have pointed this out many a time.

I believe that the universe and life were created by a deity and were evolved with purpose to acheive an ultimate goal. anyone who has actually studied evolution knows that survival for the fittest happens too slow for us to come from that. It must have had a divine intervention.

Anybody who has actually studied evolution knows that you are wrong.

So, get to the point. All I have seen from you is evidence that nobody has even heard of. Please, if you are going to argue against evolution saying that the scientific evidence doesn't support it, give us examples!

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html

Your argument is falling in the same line as Creationists, where you are making the definition of macroevolution conveniently "evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet."

The point is, as stated pages and pages ago, "breeding back" should be able reproduce common ancestors, such as the silly claim that bees might have come from wasps. If so, DNA would show a relationship. It does not. And the same is true of other species.

Horse DNA is Horse DNA, even if you breed them to be no bigger than dogs or bigger than a Moose. But even after a thousand years of breeding horses to be the fastest they can be, by purebred husbandry in Arabia etc., farther back than we can record our own genealogy in many cases... The horse today is no faster than the horse was a hundred years ago, nor even five hundred years ago in records of horse races that far back can be believed. If Evolution were right, for example, this fact would not be true. We should be able to breed ever faster and ever better horses, but we cannot.

Argue it with the bugs and snails on that link all you want but the truth is a horse is still a horse. Fifty million years ago the horse might have been a creature no bigger than a fox, but it was still a horse then as it is now. There has been no evidence to collaborate the theory, no evidence to show that it’s actually anything other than theory, about how the horse might ever have come from anything that was not a horse, despite Evolution’s prediction that we should be able to find the missing links between species.

So you seriously are suggesting to make heliocentrism not required!?

:eek:

No teaching several principles of modern medicine either, particularily anything to do with why you may need a blood transfusion in certain situations or anything along similar lines. You might have a Jehovah's Witness in the class.

This is a brilliant approach.

There was a definition for evolutionism there, but not for evolutionist.

Of course, being in a dictionary does not preclude it being a made-up word. You can find bling-bling in a dictionary too.



Incorrect. By its very definition, Creationism (at least in the sense that people want to teach it in the schools) assumes absolute literalism in the Old Testament. This is a conclusion that will not, under any circumstances, regardless of what evidence is found, change.

As I have pointed out many times before, if you begin with your conclusion, you can find evidence for anything.

Evolution, on the other hand, is and always has been a constantly changing theory. And if, at some point, we find evidence to completely refute it, it will be dropped completely. That is how science works.

And finally, once again, since you are apparently incapable of comprehending this:
THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF A CREATOR. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF A BEING WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF A CREATOR. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF A BEING WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF A CREATOR. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF A BEING WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF A CREATOR. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF A BEING WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF A CREATOR. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF A BEING WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT.

Got it?
long enough post for ya

I hate orgenaized religion, i hate religios people, well most of them..
but stil i think humes have a soul and i dont think we just evolved from monkeys and shit

Horse DNA is Horse DNA, even if you breed them to be no bigger than dogs or bigger than a Moose. But even after a thousand years of breeding horses to be the fastest they can be, by purebred husbandry in Arabia etc., farther back than we can record our own genealogy in many cases... The horse today is no faster than the horse was a hundred years ago, nor even five hundred years ago in records of horse races that far back can be believed. If Evolution were right, for example, this fact would not be true. We should be able to breed ever faster and ever better horses, but we cannot.

Argue it with the bugs and snails on that link all you want but the truth is a horse is still a horse. Fifty million years ago the horse might have been a creature no bigger than a fox, but it was still a horse then as it is now. There has been no evidence to collaborate the theory, no evidence to show that it’s actually anything other than theory, about how the horse might ever have come from anything that was not a horse, despite Evolution’s prediction that we should be able to find the missing links between species.

Ummm.... hello? 50 million years ago horses were not the same as today. Have you ever seen the skeleton of... let's say Propaleotherium (or the numerous other species)? It's NOT the same as the recent Equus. There are significant morpological differences. Where have you been hiding?!? :eek:

What fossils you see? If you look at it closely you will find that there really is a chronological order. And what strata did you see, or where?



Well, it's okay. :)

Actually, I even have one that my dad cut out of a rock face in Pennsylvania of a fish I have yet to identify. I've looked at sites in the Grand Canyon. Several places in Colorado and Wyoming. I'm not an expert mind you, but in reading theory and looking at the sites, I was not convince that the theories propigated by science were any more valid than my understanding of the Biblical account of Creation and the Flood.

As for the joke, I don't mean to be offensive, but I do feel very much like the evolutionists (sorry dem, that may be a made up word, but it follows English linguistic form pretty closely), on this site in particular, pursue and fight against alternative ideas, creation in particular, as though they were Christians fighting a demonic scourge or something. I can't tell you the number of times I've been called an idiot or had my intelligence questioned simply because I believe differently than the majority here. It seems to me that evolutionists really do feel genuine animosity and hold in contempt anyone whose ideas are not the product of current scientific theory.

The point is, as stated pages and pages ago, "breeding back" should be able reproduce common ancestors, such as the silly claim that bees might have come from wasps. If so, DNA would show a relationship. It does not. And the same is true of other species.

Horse DNA is Horse DNA, even if you breed them to be no bigger than dogs or bigger than a Moose. But even after a thousand years of breeding horses to be the fastest they can be, by purebred husbandry in Arabia etc., farther back than we can record our own genealogy in many cases... The horse today is no faster than the horse was a hundred years ago, nor even five hundred years ago in records of horse races that far back can be believed. If Evolution were right, for example, this fact would not be true. We should be able to breed ever faster and ever better horses, but we cannot.

Argue it with the bugs and snails on that link all you want but the truth is a horse is still a horse. Fifty million years ago the horse might have been a creature no bigger than a fox, but it was still a horse then as it is now. There has been no evidence to collaborate the theory, no evidence to show that it’s actually anything other than theory, about how the horse might ever have come from anything that was not a horse, despite Evolution’s prediction that we should be able to find the missing links between species.

The point of evolution is that it very slowly changes DNA!

You are making such an utterly preposterous claim. I cannot and do not believe that you have even looked in to what you are saying.

There is no reason that 'breeding back' should even exist, at the species level. Why should it? Give me a link to ANY scientific source that says it should.

And are you seriously proposing that we have not made things that are genetically superior (as we see them)? What about almost every vegetable, flower, fruit!?

And you are saying there's no evidence to support evolution!?

And you are saying we haven't found any 'missing links'?

For the love of God and all that is holy, if you don't know what you are saying, don't say it!

But did you see the science which shows said fossils to be very old? Did you see the science that shows how the strata were deposited? Science has explanations for these, and they are not just made up. They are widely known and the message is quite obvious. From a scientific standpoint, there is absolutely no method that describes an Earth less than 100,000 years old. None.

I understand that this is science's current conclusion. I've read more about C14 and other dating techiniques than I can even remember. Problem is, I've seen and read sufficient evidence for me to believe that the Bible is more likely to be true, even if I can't scientifically prove every detail, than theories of human origin.

Actually, I even have one that my dad cut out of a rock face in Pennsylvania of a fish I have yet to identify. I've looked at sites in the Grand Canyon. Several places in Colorado and Wyoming. I'm not an expert mind you, but in reading theory and looking at the sites, I was not convince that the theories propigated by science were any more valid than my understanding of the Biblical account of Creation and the Flood.

As for the joke, I don't mean to be offensive, but I do feel very much like the evolutionists (sorry dem, that may be a made up word, but it follows English linguistic form pretty closely), on this site in particular, pursue and fight against alternative ideas, creation in particular, as though they were Christians fighting a demonic scourge or something. I can't tell you the number of times I've been called an idiot or had my intelligence questioned simply because I believe differently than the majority here. It seems to me that evolutionists really do feel genuine animosity and hold in contempt anyone whose ideas are not the product of current scientific theory.

Well, I sincerely hope I'm not one of those who led to these ideas of creationists on this site. I have tried to be as civil as possible, and if you ever feel I am trying to insult you let me know! :)

I hate orgenaized religion, i hate religios people, well most of them..
but stil i think humes have a soul and i dont think we just evolved from monkeys and shit

It's fine for you to think this, but evidence suggests otherwise. If you choose to ignore evidence, that's up to you.

I understand that this is science's current conclusion. I've read more about C14 and other dating techiniques than I can even remember. Problem is, I've seen and read sufficient evidence for me to believe that the Bible is more likely to be true, even if I can't scientifically prove every detail, than theories of human origin.
And what is this fantastic evidence?

I understand that this is science's current conclusion. I've read more about C14 and other dating techiniques than I can even remember. Problem is, I've seen and read sufficient evidence for me to believe that the Bible is more likely to be true, even if I can't scientifically prove every detail, than theories of human origin.

Well, I would surely like to see this same evidence that makes you believe that the Bible is more likely to be true. It might give me insight as to why Yecs believe the way they believe, because as of now I have no idea.

There was a definition for evolutionism there, but not for evolutionist.

Of course, being in a dictionary does not preclude it being a made-up word. You can find bling-bling in a dictionary too.



Incorrect. By its very definition, Creationism (at least in the sense that people want to teach it in the schools) assumes absolute literalism in the Old Testament. This is a conclusion that will not, under any circumstances, regardless of what evidence is found, change.

As I have pointed out many times before, if you begin with your conclusion, you can find evidence for anything.

Evolution, on the other hand, is and always has been a constantly changing theory. And if, at some point, we find evidence to completely refute it, it will be dropped completely. That is how science works.

And finally, once again, since you are apparently incapable of comprehending this:
THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF A CREATOR. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF A BEING WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF A CREATOR. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF A BEING WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF A CREATOR. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF A BEING WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF A CREATOR. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF A BEING WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF A CREATOR. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. THERE IS NOTHING IN EVOLUTION TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF A BEING WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT.

Got it?

Never said otherwise. Evolutionary theory does, though, claim that the Biblical creation account(six literal days 6-7 thousand years ago) is wrong.

The Bible is the inspired Word of God. Clouding its credibility undermines the faith of many thereby undermining the belief of many in God. Yes, that is primarily a problem with humanity rather than science itself, but many of the practitioners of science have willing and willfully participated in the destruction of faith in God amongst the general population.

Actually, I even have one that my dad cut out of a rock face in Pennsylvania of a fish I have yet to identify. I've looked at sites in the Grand Canyon. Several places in Colorado and Wyoming. I'm not an expert mind you, but in reading theory and looking at the sites, I was not convince that the theories propigated by science were any more valid than my understanding of the Biblical account of Creation and the Flood.

Ah Grand Canyon? I have to admit i haven't been there yet (in fact, i live on the wrong continent :D). Regarding the fish, you wouldn't mind posting an image in here, would you? (If you have the means to do that, that is). I'd love to take a look at it, if possible. Why were you not convinced? Try to imagine this: what would you expect to see according to Biblical deluge? And then think: is that consistent with what you see in reality?

As for the joke, I don't mean to be offensive, but I do feel very much like the evolutionists (sorry dem, that may be a made up word, but it follows English linguistic form pretty closely), on this site in particular, pursue and fight against alternative ideas, creation in particular, as though they were Christians fighting a demonic scourge or something. I can't tell you the number of times I've been called an idiot or had my intelligence questioned simply because I believe differently than the majority here. It seems to me that evolutionists really do feel genuine animosity and hold in contempt anyone whose ideas are not the product of current scientific theory.

Ah well... life is very hard at times, isn't it? :rolleyes:

I stongly belive in evolution

So you seriously are suggesting to make heliocentrism not required!?

:eek:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA040.html

LOL. You seem to think that the issue of how well accepted an idea is should determine whether or not it is taught. I believe the principles of personal and religious freedom are far more important.

I'll never understand why it's an eiter/or argument.

Personally, I believe that God set the universe into motion with all it's scientific laws. Who says God didn't use evolution as a mechanism for creation?

Right on....evolution demonstrates it's reality each and every day.

Well, I sincerely hope I'm not one of those who led to these ideas of creationists on this site. I have tried to be as civil as possible, and if you ever feel I am trying to insult you let me know! :)

At this point, I've been attacked so many times it is hard to remember by whom and when, though I don't ever recall your fitting into that catagory. I appreciate your candor and civility.

Never said otherwise. Evolutionary theory does, though, claim that the Biblical creation account(six literal days 6-7 thousand years ago) is wrong.

The Bible is the inspired Word of God. Clouding its credibility undermines the faith of many thereby undermining the belief of many in God. Yes, that is primarily a problem with humanity rather than science itself, but many of the practitioners of science have willing and willfully participated in the destruction of faith in God amongst the general population.

Regardless of the fact that this is one of many interpretations of the Bible... and besides, who ever determined that Christianity was the right religion?

But that's not what we're here to argue about. You say scientists are clouding the credibility. Well, if you taught you child well, that child will know that religion is most important, and science is just something that some people use to inaccurately explain the world.

So, do you mistrust your child's judgment? If your child learns evolution in school, can't they determine for themselves the accuracy of that?

LOL. You seem to think that the issue of how well accepted an idea is should determine whether or not it is taught. I believe the principles of personal and religious freedom are far more important.

Wait, I thought it was you who seems to think that the issue of how well accepted an idea is should determine whether or not it is taught. After all, you don't seriously think students should be taught geocentricity, right? But you do believe they should be taught creationism. Both of these theories stem from the Bible, but geocentricity is much more widely accepted as false.

GOD created all! So for those of you that have been brainwashed by the current immoral public school system, believe as you wish. That is why GOD gave us all free will. If the Big Bang ocuured..... prove it. Were you there? So evolution is an act of faith as well.

Most people reject GOD, because they don't want to lead moral and decent lives. They tend to choose the comfortable and sinful lifestyles that sooths their FLESH. They are however, unwilling to die for it.

On the other hand, true believers in GOD, tend to be humble and obediant servents that sooths their SOULS. Even to the point of being mocked, persucuted or even put to death for their faith.

Glory be to GOD allmighty!

Robert

And what is this fantastic evidence?

Evidence in my personal life/experience. Witnessing the power of God tranforming people's lives, the upbuilding of humanity, care for those in need, miraculous healing, my own life (I should have died or been paralyzied according to the "experts"), answers to prayer, archeological profs. of the historicity of the scriptural account of the Middle East. I am suspect none of that is sufficient evidence for someone who believes only in measurable data, and you/they are entitled to that position, but until you have experienced what I have experienced, please don't suggest that I have no evidence.

GOD created all! So for those of you that have been brainwashed by the current immoral public school system, believe as you wish. That is why GOD gave us all free will. If the Big Bang ocuured..... prove it. Were you there? So evolution is an act of faith as well.

<snip>

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA221.html

Evidence in my personal life/experience. Witnessing the power of God tranforming people's lives, the upbuilding of humanity, care for those in need, miraculous healing, my own life (I should have died or been paralyzied according to the "experts"), answers to prayer, archeological profs. of the historicity of the scriptural account of the Middle East. I am suspect none of that is sufficient evidence for someone who believes only in measurable data, and you/they are entitled to that position, but until you have experienced what I have experienced, please don't suggest that I have no evidence.

I, for one, did not suggest you didn't have evidence. But, your evidence is only personal and open to interpretation. And I can see that you realize that, so, this discussion (as with most discussions based on an infallible assumption) will lead nowhere.

Why do people say the Theory of Evolution has holes in it? It doesn't... that's why it's such a widely accepted concept.

And yes, it's a 'theory', but 'theories' are only one step short of known and indisputable fact. Unless something can be logically or mathematically proven, it's a theory. Which is normally good enough: Probability Theory is the basis for the highly lucrative insurance buisness. Number Theory is the basis of all the design works ever done. Atomic Theory gives us access to all manner of engineering and medical methods used routinely in your everyday lives.

It's not fully proven, but as with all these other theories, it's such a good and used model that it might as well be. And like all these other theories, evolution is a concept that has been used since way before it was proposed by Darwin in agriculture. Now it's used for loads of things, ranging from computer science to traffic control.

Ah Grand Canyon? I have to admit i haven't been there yet (in fact, i live on the wrong continent :D). Regarding the fish, you wouldn't mind posting an image in here, would you? (If you have the means to do that, that is). I'd love to take a look at it, if possible. Why were you not convinced? Try to imagine this: what would you expect to see according to Biblical deluge? And then think: is that consistent with what you see in reality?



Ah well... life is very hard at times, isn't it? :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, I don't have the means. Actually, I don't have the means, at least not in the immidiate future. Being a fisherman, my best guess is an ale wie from the looks of it, but I'm not sure that is accurate, given that it is a cross section.

I wasn't convinced because when considering the enormous change in the earth's crust being broken up as the "fountains of the deep" spewed out, the likely accompanying tremendously large shock waves, major atmospheric changes and the like that would go along with the Biblical account, it is clear I don't have the capacity to measure what exactly I should expect to see, and that doesn't even begin to address the possibility of supernatural intervention.

Yes, life can be difficult, but I'm actually relatively used to being picked on about my beliefs at this point. I more perturbed at people's lack of tolerance for each other than having my faith questioned.

What I especially like is that Ph33rdom, after proven wrong time and time again, finally gave up. :D

Just goes to show, if you haven't studied evolution you have no right to support or doubt it.

And regarding transitional creatures, which Ph33rdom said don't exist...

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

"Evolutionists", "Christians", etc. all need to study some classic philosophy. Science is based on a fundamental, unprovable belief in the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature (PUN). This states, informally, that things will not change arbitrarily. We say that gravity will not cease to exist tomorrow for no apparent reason and justify our belief by PUN. We believe the sun will keep shining in the next second because of PUN.

PUN is not provable, it is an axiom we take on faith. You might say, "But oh! In the past, PUN has proved correct, so why not in the future?" This is only an application of PUN, and can not be used to prove it.

Science is a religion insofar as it is based on unprovable, intuited ideas. And here's the ringer: just like other unprovable, intuited ideas it is not the obvious belief in all cultures. That's right, some cultures (usually Eastern) have rejected PUN.

So be careful when you say science has some sort of privileged philosophical status; it does not.

So, do you mistrust your child's judgment? If your child learns evolution in school, can't they determine for themselves the accuracy of that?

Would you willingly subject your child to Nazi propaganda on a day in day out basis? Yes, that's an extreme, but the reality is, children are impressionable. They hear a parent of classmate swear and they copy, they see someone bully and they join the "fun". I'd prefer, in so far as possible, to have control of what my child is taught and not be forced by the Gov. to pay for and have my child forced to be taught something I believe to be false. It's amazing to me that so many feel justified in taking that freedom from me.

"Evolutionists", "Christians", etc. all need to study some classic philosophy. Science is based on a fundamental, unprovable belief in the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature (PUN). This states, informally, that things will not change arbitrarily. We say that gravity will not cease to exist tomorrow for no apparent reason and justify our belief by PUN. We believe the sun will keep shining in the next second because of PUN.

PUN is not provable, it is an axiom we take on faith. You might say, "But oh! In the past, PUN has proved correct, so why not in the future?" This is only an application of PUN, and can not be used to prove it.

Science is a religion insofar as it is based on unprovable, intuited ideas. And here's the ringer: just like other unprovable, intuited ideas it is not the obvious belief in all cultures. That's right, some cultures (usually Eastern) have rejected PUN.

So be careful when you say science has some sort of privileged philosophical status; it does not.

Who said science was based on PUN? They were wrong.

Science is based only on evidence gathered. The theories that arise from the evidence are just that, theories. If, in your example, gravity ceased to exist (besides the fact that humans would not exist anymore either), we would have to find a scientific explanation.

The point of science is that it CAN be proven wrong, when evidence suggests something other than the traditionally believed theories.

Oh yes, science is just another religion. It requires an imaginative leap to get it on the footing on which it is all based. That base, and thus everything on it, might be wrong.

But, if I have to choose a religion, it would be science. Why? Because science has given me a tangible benefit. Whereas many religious folk claim they have gained from their respective religions, I have not. Science on the other hand has given me computers which entertain me. It has given me medicine that cures me. It has given me a life of securty and relative luxury that I enjoy. It has done so in a relatively short amount of time (600 or so years for the most of it?) as opposed to other faiths which have been around for, well, ages without much, in my view, to show for it.

Who said science was based on PUN? They were wrong.

No, he is right. The logical rules and mathematical base is an invention and cannot be further broken down. Gathered evidence? How can you draw conclusions if you cannot be sure of the rules by which we interpet that gathered evidence? Take maths for example: "1 + 1 = 2". Does it? How can we be sure? It turns out that this is an assumption made so we can work on more difficult problems, like how to build a bridge, and it seems to work. This, by the way, is "Number Theory", which is another theory like evolution.

Wait, I thought it was you who seems to think that the issue of how well accepted an idea is should determine whether or not it is taught. After all, you don't seriously think students should be taught geocentricity, right? But you do believe they should be taught creationism. Both of these theories stem from the Bible, but geocentricity is much more widely accepted as false.

I don't think that how widely accepted a theory is should determine whether or not it is taught. I used that comment about Creation having been more widely accepted theory as a tool to point out that, evolution should not be considered more teachable, simply because it is currently the most accepted theory.

As for what should be taught, I believe in parental choice, more than any one specific teaching in terms of how the system should function. I would chose the things I believe to be true to be taught to my child up to the age of probably 13-15 years old though, gradually giving them more freedom to chose to study that in which they were most interested.

Would you willingly subject your child to Nazi propaganda on a day in day out basis? Yes, that's an extreme, but the reality is, children are impressionable. They hear a parent of classmate swear and they copy, they see someone bully and they join the "fun". I'd prefer, in so far as possible, to have control of what my child is taught and not be forced by the Gov. to pay for and have my child forced to be taught something I believe to be false. It's amazing to me that so many feel justified in taking that freedom from me.

In our society, we pay for things that better the community, such as welfare. Not everybody participates in welfare, but we all still pay for it.

Now, in the context of school, you have the right to home school your child. You will still have to pay taxes that partially go to funding public school, but your child doesn't have to participate in it.


I'd still like an answer to my previous question though. A serious one.


Why can you seriously contend that it's okay for a science teacher to teach your kid that the Earth is a round planet revolving the sun, but when it comes to evolution it is not okay?

Oh yes, science is just another religion. It requires an imaginative leap to get it on the footing on which it is all based. That base, and thus everything on it, might be wrong.

But, if I have to choose a religion, it would be science. Why? Because science has given me a tangible benefit. Whereas many religious folk claim they have gained from their respective religions, I have not. Science on the other hand has given me computers which entertain me. It has given me medicine that cures me. It has given me a life of securty and relative luxury that I enjoy. It has done so in a relatively short amount of time (600 or so years for the most of it?) as opposed to other faiths which have been around for, well, ages without much, in my view, to show for it.

What 'imaginative leap' does science require we take? PUN is not required for science.

I, for one, did not suggest you didn't have evidence. But, your evidence is only personal and open to interpretation. And I can see that you realize that, so, this discussion (as with most discussions based on an infallible assumption) will lead nowhere.

Actually, I don't even believe that my understanding of the evidence I have experienced is infallible, and is clearly not grounds for someone else to deny their personal experience. I only say that it is sufficient for me to believe what I presently do as I grow in my knowledge of truth.

Actually, I don't even believe that my understanding of the evidence I have experienced is infallible, and is clearly not grounds for someone else to deny their personal experience. I only say that it is sufficient for me to believe what I presently do as I grow in my knowledge of truth.

The 'infallible assumption' I was referring to was the fact that God exists.

Sorry about the bad communication on my part.

What 'imaginative leap' does science require we take? PUN is not required for science.

This is more philosophy that anything else. The thing I'm thinking of is the basic logical laws: "if A is a B, and B is a C, then A must be a C" for one. This sort of thing we take for granted yet cannot be ascertained.

On a more practical level, take evidence gathering. Imagine you're in a strange lang. You see 10 people are carrying a bag. You see 1000 people holding bags. You see 10 000 000 all have bags and not one doesn't. By now, you might be starting to assume that everyone has a bag. But how can you be sure? You can't. This is where the PUN comes in. It allows you to assume, from previous observation, to predict the future. However, it does not rule out the possibility that someone doesn't carry a bag, that the Law you're thinking of ("Everyone has a bag") is wrong.

I'd still like an answer to my previous question though. A serious one.


Why can you seriously contend that it's okay for a science teacher to teach your kid that the Earth is a round planet revolving the sun, but when it comes to evolution it is not okay?

Where in the bible does it say, explicitly, that the earth does not revolve around the sun? I'd still say, that someone who believes that the earth is the center of the universe should be able to have their child taught that. It is a freedom I'd defend, just like your freedom of speech to say something I disagree with.

The 'infallible assumption' I was referring to was the fact that God exists.

Sorry about the bad communication on my part.

I don't even think my belief that God exists, is infallible, just that the universe has no point with Him and that life would be a meaningless waste of time without Him.

Well... It is time for me to head home. My wife should be there by now. I've enjoyed the discuss for the most part. Hope you all have a good (insert time of day where you are).

PR signing off...