NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, i am british but i have heard of moves by american schools to teach creationism along side evolution in schools as a credible alternative.

Now i dont want this to be yet another creation vs evolution debate but i would like to know your opinion and where you are from on this issue.

My argument is that evolution is called a theory... The scientific meaning of theory is just short of scientific law and thus experimental proof/evidence must be obtained to back it up, to call it theory. Creationism has NO factual proof therefore in the strictest sense of the word is NOT a theory. The bible cannot be proof as it relies on Faith, and faith is the acceptance of a particular peice of knowledge without evidence...therefore i would argue that although is a topic that should be discussed, it shouldnt be discussed within the confines of a lesson that should dedicate its time to the persuit of scientific fact. By all means teach it in Religous education but not our science lessons.

What is your opinion?

To add to this i have several freinds who went around america selling science revision books to parents and they had two versions...the religous censored version and the science fact (as we know it version). Should books that allow the deliberate misleading of thousands of children be allowed to be sold for proper teaching or not? Apparently alot of middle american religous families prefer to home school their children so they can teach them a skewed version of the turth...should this be allowed or should a compuslsory curriculum be set up with examinations making sure those who are home schooled are taught properly?

Creationism has NO factual proof therefore in the strictest sense of the word is NOT a theory.

More to the point, Creationism contains an appeal to the divine, which is fundamentally unscientific since it's impossible to predict the operation of an inscrutable divine entity; 'God did it' is really 'God did it and I don't know how God did it' which isn't an answer at all.

Actually, the difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory is not how much each one is supported. Both are supported by evidence equally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law#Description

Exactly. So should it be taught as a credible alternative to Big bang and evolution within the confines of a science class?

No, ID and Creation myth should not be taught as viable science.

Actually, the difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory is not how much each one is supported. Both are supported by evidence equally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law#Description

Fair enough, but my argument still stands.

(Thanks by the way)

Exactly. So should it be taught as a credible alternative to Big bang and evolution within the confines of a science class?

No, nothing that appeals to the divine should ever be taught as science because appeals to the divine are fundamentally unscientific. Also, the usual Creationist arrogance seeps into their demand that 'alternatives' be taught since really they mean 'one alternative, that being Bible-based creationism.' Since there's no more scientific validity to Biblical creationism than there is to say, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism or Last Thursdayism [the belief that the world was created last thursday and all evidence to the contrary is designed to deliberately mislead us], why should these not be taught too?

So, if we're teaching scientifically invalid theories we should teach all of the thousands of origin theories that humans have come up with [and any the students might make up during the class, for that matter], rather than emphasise one above all the others. Can't see your average creationist being wild about their child having to listen to how the Great Spaghetti Monster reached out with his noodly appendage and created all life.

Ok, i am british but i have heard of moves by american schools to teach creationism along side evolution in schools as a credible alternative.

Now i dont want this to be yet another creation vs evolution debate but i would like to know your opinion and where you are from on this issue.

My argument is that evolution is called a theory... The scientific meaning of theory is just short of scientific law and thus experimental proof/evidence must be obtained to back it up, to call it theory. Creationism has NO factual proof therefore in the strictest sense of the word is NOT a theory. The bible cannot be proof as it relies on Faith, and faith is the acceptance of a particular peice of knowledge without evidence...therefore i would argue that although is a topic that should be discussed, it shouldnt be discussed within the confines of a lesson that should dedicate its time to the persuit of scientific fact. By all means teach it in Religous education but not our science lessons.

What is your opinion?

To add to this i have several freinds who went around america selling science revision books to parents and they had two versions...the religous censored version and the science fact (as we know it version). Should books that allow the deliberate misleading of thousands of children be allowed to be sold for proper teaching or not? Apparently alot of middle american religous families prefer to home school their children so they can teach them a skewed version of the turth...should this be allowed or should a compuslsory curriculum be set up with examinations making sure those who are home schooled are taught properly?
As an American up on current events I must say that your information is mistaken. I've heard nothing of doing that, it could never happen in public schools; the school would be sued by irate atheists.

HAHA! you have captured my point exaclty!! hats off to you sir! However, why then, is it the case that parents are happy to allow their children to be taught...well essentially crap? Surely at some point someone must stand uo and say...hang on a minute guys let us teach science in one context (whether you choose to believe the evidence or not) and religion in another.

Quote: "No, nothing that appeals to the divine should ever be taught as science because appeals to the divine are fundamentally unscientific."


I agree that it shouldn't be taught as science. I am saying that as one who believes in the intelligent design/creation idea. The intelligent design/creation idea is NOT science. Schools SHOULD emphasize the fact that the evolution theory is just that, though. It's a theory. They should emphasize more that it is NOT fact.

As an American up on current events I must say that your information is mistaken. I've heard nothing of doing that, it could never happen in public schools; the school would be sued by irate atheists.
And you live in Texas? Do you watch the news?

As an American up on current events I must say that your information is mistaken. I've heard nothing of doing that, it could never happen in public schools; the school would be sued by irate atheists.
I did say at the start i have only heard it wasnt based on any factual evidence. The question was more about the issue. But i have an american friend sitting across the room from me who told me about it. They come from colerado (sp?) and this was the topic that came up about an hour ago.

I did say at the start i have only heard it wasnt based on any factual evidence. The question was more about the issue. But i have an american friend sitting across the room from me who told me about it. They come from colerado (sp?) and this was the topic that came up about an hour ago.
It's only a problem in the South. Us sane northerns couldn't give a damn.

Quote: "No, nothing that appeals to the divine should ever be taught as science because appeals to the divine are fundamentally unscientific."


I agree that it shouldn't be taught as science. I am saying that as one who believes in the intelligent design/creation idea. The intelligent design/creation idea is NOT science. Schools SHOULD emphasize the fact that the evolution theory is just that, though. It's a theory. They should emphasize more that it is NOT fact.


But my friend theory is not a word to be used lightly. Although if a better idea backed with evidence is discovered you will see the scientific community dropping evolution infavour of the new what would then be theory. However, i think it would be pretty difficult to disproove.

It's only a problem in the South. Us sane northerns couldn't give a damn.

LMAO she just laughed and said "Well she wished she was blessed with the sanity of the north but unfortunatley her parents had the ordascity to make her southern."

It's only a problem in the South. Us sane northerns couldn't give a damn.

We (or at least I) do give a damn. We demand that scientific theories such as evolution and gravity be taught and respected as the highly sophisticated and rigorously proved ideas they are.

LMAO she just laughed and said "Well she wished she was blessed with the sanity of the north but unfortunatley her parents had the ordascity to make her southern."

Audacity...

But my friend theory is not a word to be used lightly. Although if a better idea backed with evidence is discovered you will see the scientific community dropping evolution infavour of the new what would then be theory. However, i think it would be pretty difficult to disproove.

"the·o·ry (th-r, thr)
n.

A systematically organized body of knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena. "

(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory)

I admit I don't know much about it, but I was under the impression that they wanted creationism taught as fact, while evolution is still only offered as a plausible theory subject to change as new evidence comes up... isn't school mostly about teaching t'young'uns to think for themselves and question what they are told so that they can attain a deeper understanding of the world surrounding them?
I wish they'd leave the indoctrination in church instead of trying to make it part of the curriculum.

Cheers, Sorry my spelling has gone to pot.
Have to get uo in six hours for an immunology exam and im so tired but can sleep!

"the·o·ry (th-r, thr)
n.

A systematically organized body of knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena. "

(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory)

Etymology

French théorie < Latin theoria < Greek θεωρία.

Noun

Singular
theory

Plural
theories

1. (countable) An unproven conjecture.
I have a theory about who broke into the school last night, but it’s just a theory.

2. (uncountable) An expectation of what should happen, barring unforeseen circumstances.
So we’ll be there in three hours? — That’s the theory.

3. (countable) Sciences: A coherent statement or set of statements that attempts to explain observed phenomena.
There is now a well-developed theory of electrical charge.

4. (countable) Sciences: A logical structure that enables one to deduce the possible results of every experiment that falls within its purview
The theory of relativity was proposed by Einstein

5. (uncountable) (mathematics) A field of study attempting to exhaustively describe a particular class of constructs.
Knot theory classifies the mappings of a circle into 3-space.

6. (countable) (logic) A set of axioms, together with all statements derivable from them.
A theory is consistent if it has a model.

:p

It's only a problem in the South. Us sane northerns couldn't give a damn.
Unless you happen to be in Penn.

And I have found out that my home state of Nevada is starting to look at it as well.

*sighs* I'm going to have to yell at people when I go home during the summer.

Schools SHOULD emphasize the fact that the evolution theory is just that, though. It's a theory. They should emphasize more that it is NOT fact.
Click me! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10998024&postcount=20)

(I'm just happy I get to show that quote again...) :)

I agree that it shouldn't be taught as science. I am saying that as one who believes in the intelligent design/creation idea. The intelligent design/creation idea is NOT science. Schools SHOULD emphasize the fact that the evolution theory is just that, though. It's a theory. They should emphasize more that it is NOT fact.

Um...Is this the tedious old 'it's just a theory' argument again? Evolution is a fact and a theory. The fact of evolution has been observed and even used by humans [in such applications as selective animal breeding], the theory is a series of testable hypotheses designed to explain the fact.

Would you also have gravity and the boiling point of water described as 'just theories' in textbooks?

"the·o·ry (th-r, thr)
n.

A systematically organized body of knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena. "

(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory)

I think you should only talk once you can fully understand a theory, let alone come up with one.

I think you should only talk once you can fully understand a theory, let alone come up with one. More specifically, none of us should even be talking about this if we don't fully understand the workings of evolution, since we can't even begin to appreciate or comprehend it.

Actually...It's not all that hard, if you aren't looking to misrepresent it.

"the·o·ry (th-r, thr)
n.

A systematically organized body of knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena. "

(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory)


uh what did this hope to proove? Oh and it is wrong:
this is from the Oxford english dictionary
A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed


http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50250688?query_type=word&queryword=Theory&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=1&search_id=f2lo-buWe9F-7026&hilite=50250688

uh what did this hope to proove? Oh and it is wrong:
this is from the Oxford english dictionary
A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed


http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50250688?query_type=word&queryword=Theory&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=1&search_id=f2lo-buWe9F-7026&hilite=50250688

*cough* (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11001731&postcount=21)

:p

*cough* (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11001731&postcount=21)

:p

Hehe sorry, didnt see this as i was looking at the oed lol

uh what did this hope to proove? Oh and it is wrong:
this is from the Oxford english dictionary
A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed


http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50250688?query_type=word&queryword=Theory&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=1&search_id=f2lo-buWe9F-7026&hilite=50250688


Do NOT tell me this is wrong. Tell the website. In case you didn't notice, there is a website at the bottom. This is the exact reason I do my best to have an exact resource. If it's "wrong", as some people vaguely say, then they can go talk to the source. I don't have the time to deal with the garbage of "by the way you're wrong".

Would you also have gravity and the boiling point of water described as 'just theories' in textbooks?
I'd like that... Then I could explain why I haven't finished making tea as I was supposed to.
"Sorry darling, but the bloody water wouldn't boil again. I've told you that it's just a theory, and not a fact! So let's drink some Vodka instead."
:p

the Great Spaghetti Monster reached out with his noodly appendage and created all life.


I am a firm believer that the Great Spaghetti Monster created all life. We should all bow down to him and pray for our sins...

I'd like that... Then I could explain why I haven't finished making tea as I was supposed to.
"Sorry darling, but the bloody water wouldn't boil again. I've told you that it's just a theory, and not a fact! So let's drink some Vodka instead."
:p

I like the way you think!

Do NOT tell me this is wrong. Tell the website. In case you didn't notice, there is a website at the bottom. This is the exact reason I do my best to have an exact resource. If it's "wrong", as some people vaguely say, then they can go talk to the source. I don't have the time to deal with the garbage of "by the way you're wrong".

Fallacy of Appeal to Authority. You presented the argument, not that website; therefore, unless you are capable of defending the argument you made, concede. We are not debating a random website, we are debating you.

Click me! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10998024&postcount=20)

(I'm just happy I get to show that quote again...) :)

Unfortunatley although right in essence you are wrong in areas. evolution is much more than a hypothsis and can be prooven and tracked in the lab. mutations for example within drosophilla are shown on a regualr basis in my lab session at university. we can track mutation and genetic diseases and virus evolution...another set of evidence is the mutation of Staph aureus to resist penicillin and methicillin anong other antibiotics.

Um...Is this the tedious old 'it's just a theory' argument again? Evolution is a fact and a theory. The fact of evolution has been observed and even used by humans [in such applications as selective animal breeding], the theory is a series of testable hypotheses designed to explain the fact.

Would you also have gravity and the boiling point of water described as 'just theories' in textbooks?


When I say evolution, because of the conversation, as you SHOULD notice, it is used to saythe theory of evolution where humans evolved from mokeys/apes/whatever you want to call them. No one has been able to prove the theory of HUMAN evolution (there, does the emphasis make you happy Usted Technical?). It is still a theory. Ask a scientist. Consult a book. Do whatever as long as it's a credible non-fiction source.

When I say evolution, because of the conversation, as you SHOULD notice, it is used to saythe theory of evolution where humans evolved from mokeys/apes/whatever you want to call them. No one has been able to prove the theory of HUMAN evolution (there, does the emphasis make you happy Usted Technical?). It is still a theory. Ask a scientist. Consult a book. Do whatever as long as it's a credible non-fiction source.

At what point does human evolution differ to other organisms?

When I say evolution, because of the conversation, as you SHOULD notice, it is used to saythe theory of evolution where humans evolved from mokeys/apes/whatever you want to call them. No one has been able to prove the theory of HUMAN evolution (there, does the emphasis make you happy Usted Technical?). It is still a theory. Ask a scientist. Consult a book. Do whatever as long as it's a credible non-fiction source.

Ah, the old I-object-to-being-descended-from-an-ape-due-to-my-egotism-and-religious-dogma issue. I love it.

Fallacy of Appeal to Authority. You presented the argument, not that website; therefore, unless you are capable of defending the argument you made, concede. We are not debating a random website, we are debating you.


No, we're not. We weren't even debating. The person who started this was wanting opinions. Go back and get your facts straight. You could do us all a favor there. And no, I did not present the definition as an argument. Gosh, how inattentive can people get these days? I simply quote a definition of a related word and I get some military personage getting all over me. What has the world come to? It wasn't an argument!

Ah, the old I-object-to-being-descended-from-an-ape-due-to-my-egotism-and-religious-dogma issue. I love it.

Well they gotta object to something, and as long as they cant grasp the facts and study the literature it might as well be an egotistical objection ;-)

No, we're not. We weren't even debating. The person who started this was wanting opinions. Go back and get your facts straight. You could do us all a favor there. And no, I did not present the definition as an argument. Gosh, how inattentive can people get these days? I simply quote a definition of a related word and I get some military personage getting all over me. What has the world come to? It wasn't an argument!

I see you point and ues...your opinion is valid and fair enough you were suing a source to back it up. however i would argue that the source you used was factually incorrect...but then again on the same basis you could argue my source is factually incorrect

When I say evolution, because of the conversation, as you SHOULD notice, it is used to saythe theory of evolution where humans evolved from mokeys/apes/whatever you want to call them. No one has been able to prove the theory of HUMAN evolution (there, does the emphasis make you happy Usted Technical?). It is still a theory. Ask a scientist. Consult a book. Do whatever as long as it's a credible non-fiction source.

Primates... and it's fairly obvious that we're related to them, yes we're shaped slightly differently, we stand on only two feet and are usually less hairy, we're still obviously related to them, just as wolves and domesticated dogs are obviously related, just as house cats and lions are obviously related. Even if you ignore laboratory evidence, just LOOK at what we're supposed to have evolved from... I find it harder to believe that we didn't evolve from them than to believe that my eyes are pink (for reference to the point, they're green/blue)

No, we're not. We weren't even debating. The person who started this was wanting opinions. Go back and get your facts straight. You could do us all a favor there. And no, I did not present the definition as an argument. Gosh, how inattentive can people get these days? I simply quote a definition of a related word and I get some military personage getting all over me. What has the world come to? It wasn't an argument!

Really are new then. Welcome to NationStates General, where everything is an arguement.

When I say evolution, because of the conversation, as you SHOULD notice, it is used to saythe theory of evolution where humans evolved from mokeys/apes/whatever you want to call them. No one has been able to prove the theory of HUMAN evolution (there, does the emphasis make you happy Usted Technical?). It is still a theory. Ask a scientist. Consult a book. Do whatever as long as it's a credible non-fiction source.

It's a theory and a fact. There's also plenty of evidence that humans and apes share a common ancestor, including a sizable number of fossils of transitional forms. And there is no 'theory of human evolution,' just the general theory of evolution.

And no, I did not present the definition as an argument.

Yes, you did. You presented the argument that schools should only teach evolution as a 'theory' rather than a fact and presented the definition to support that argument. You then got angry when it was pointed out your definition was flawed, and appealed to the website's authority.

Quote: "No, nothing that appeals to the divine should ever be taught as science because appeals to the divine are fundamentally unscientific."


I agree that it shouldn't be taught as science. I am saying that as one who believes in the intelligent design/creation idea. The intelligent design/creation idea is NOT science. Schools SHOULD emphasize the fact that the evolution theory is just that, though. It's a theory. They should emphasize more that it is NOT fact.

But that is where the confusion arises. The theory of evolution explains evolution, just as the theory of flight explains how things fly. We dont know how bumble bees fly, because within the confines of the theory they cant, just as we dont know how humans evolved from whatever preceded us, or why pandas are so lame. That doesnt mean that flight and evolution arent true, it just means our theories explaining them are not yet complete.

That things evolve is not a theory.

Unfortunatley although right in essence you are wrong in areas. evolution is much more than a hypothsis and can be prooven and tracked in the lab. mutations for example within drosophilla are shown on a regualr basis in my lab session at university. we can track mutation and genetic diseases and virus evolution...another set of evidence is the mutation of Staph aureus to resist penicillin and methicillin anong other antibiotics.
That's... kind of what the quote is supposed to support. If anything can be a fact, evolution is.

(And it's not my quote, it's from Jack Cohen, a reproductive biologist at the University of Warwick, and Ian Stewart, a professor of mathematics at the same university)

And you live in Texas? Do you watch the news?
Way to address the issues bitch ass, actually Austin is a political and cultural hub. Don't be a regionalist bastard. I hate ignorance.

I did say at the start i have only heard it wasnt based on any factual evidence. The question was more about the issue. But i have an american friend sitting across the room from me who told me about it. They come from colerado (sp?) and this was the topic that came up about an hour ago.
If it has been talked about there then I doubt it will be implemented, and certainly will not last or got national.

Quote: "No, nothing that appeals to the divine should ever be taught as science because appeals to the divine are fundamentally unscientific."


I agree that it shouldn't be taught as science. I am saying that as one who believes in the intelligent design/creation idea. The intelligent design/creation idea is NOT science. Schools SHOULD emphasize the fact that the evolution theory is just that, though. It's a theory. They should emphasize more that it is NOT fact.

sure, emphasize that it is the most correct, scientifically validated, complete, accurate theory we have to date for why there are so many things living on this planet. Use evolution as a means to teach what "Theory" means in science. That while also a theory, that Gravitation is born out by the pattern of behavior of the objects in our solar system, and general relativity and yada yada. You know, things like computers and lasers work because we design things based on our theoretical understanding of the universe. Evolution is a theory, but ID, by scientific standards, does not rise to that level.

But that is where the confusion arises. The theory of evolution explains evolution, just as the theory of flight explains how things fly. We dont know how bumble bees fly, because within the confines of the theory they cant, just as we dont know how humans evolved from whatever preceded us, or why pandas are so lame. That doesnt mean that flight and evolution arent true, it just means our theories explaining them are not yet complete.

That things evolve is not a theory.

eh, we understand how Bees fly now.

http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060110_bee_fight.html

sure, emphasize that it is the most correct, scientifically validated, complete, accurate theory we have to date for why there are so many things living on this planet. Use evolution as a means to teach what "Theory" means in science. That while also a theory, that Gravitation is born out by the pattern of behavior of the objects in our solar system, and general relativity and yada yada. You know, things like computers and lasers work because we design things based on our theoretical understanding of the universe. Evolution is a theory, but ID, by scientific standards, does not rise to that level.
Complete? No. Why do you think scientists are trying so hard to find missing links? But the validity of evolution is not the issue here. I think that evolution should be stressed as a theory, but something I would like to see are schools offering a religion course, giving time to the major religions of the world. And maybe the common high school student will be less ignorant to their neighbors.

Complete? No. Why do you think scientists are trying so hard to find missing links? But the validity of evolution is not the issue here. I think that evolution should be stressed as a theory

Why? It's no more a 'theory' than gravity, electromagnetics or the boiling point of water in practical terms, why should it be singled out for 'it's just a theory'-ing?

... I would like to see are schools offering a religion course, giving time to the major religions of the world. And maybe the common high school student will be less ignorant to their neighbors.

Wouldn't a lot of people? Particularlly those in the religious majority. Comparative religion and mythology courses are offered in colleges. Religious courses are fine as long as you don't advocate any of them as being right, and you don't enphasize any of them particularlly. In such a "aiding in the understanding of other cultures" sort of a roll, though, shouldn't Christianity at best just be glazed over, since it [I]is[I] the religion of the majority, right?

Why? It's no more a 'theory' than gravity, electromagnetics or the boiling point of water in practical terms, why should it be singled out for 'it's just a theory'-ing?
Because everyone knows that it was SATAN who put fossils in the Earth. It's all false evidence I tell yer!

Why? It's no more a 'theory' than gravity, electromagnetics or the boiling point of water in practical terms, why should it be singled out for 'it's just a theory'-ing?
can you point out to me any holes in the theory of gravity, like where you suddenly decide not to fall?

Because everyone knows that it was SATAN who put fossils in the Earth. It's all false evidence I tell yer!

But think of all the jobs he created for paleontologists.

Wouldn't a lot of people? Particularlly those in the religious majority. Comparative religion and mythology courses are offered in colleges. Religious courses are fine as long as you don't advocate any of them as being right, and you don't enphasize any of them particularlly. In such a "aiding in the understanding of other cultures" sort of a roll, though, shouldn't Christianity at best just be glazed over, since it [I]is[I] the religion of the majority, right?
I know they have them in colleges and I do want them to use them to show the culture and history of foreign lands, as for Christianity being glazed over, don’t' think that everyone knows about Christianity, the other day someone started a thread putting forward that Jesus walked on ice, because the dead sea froze, that not only doesn’t pass the logic test it also shows little actual knowledge of Christianity. EDIT: Also displayed by the acceptance of the DeVinchie Code.

Way to address the issues bitch ass, actually Austin is a political and cultural hub. Don't be a regionalist bastard. I hate ignorance.

I guess you ran out of valid thoughts and have to resort to nasty name calling.
I hate nasty name calling. It's nasty, and name calling.

can you point out to me any holes in the theory of gravity, like where you suddenly decide not to fall?

The fact that general relativity doesn't work at all at the subatomic level and is currently incompatible with any quantum gravity theory? There's no more 'holes' in evolution than there are in the theory of gravity.

The fact that general relativity doesn't work at all at the subatomic level and is currently incompatible with any quantum gravity theory? There's no more 'holes' in evolution than there are in the theory of gravity.
true we are perplexed by subatomic gravity but every time I study physics we are told 'we don't know why or how'.

........God farted...creation sprouted the first initial beings than evolution took its course...that is why there are so many various creatures that exists and existed..........creationism and evolutionism don't have to be mortal enemies they can follow one another through some twisted theory... HAHA

The bible cannot be proof as it relies on Faith, <---did you know that many facts on it are true? Like that hebrews were once on egypt then managed to go away or Babilony invading Jerusalem and that kind of stuff...Just pointing that out...And my opinion is that only Christian schools (Such as salesian ones) can be allowed to it...But public education is laic.

true we are perplexed by subatomic gravity but every time I study physics we are told 'we don't know why or how'.

But are you told every time you study General Relativity that GR is 'just a theory?' Bear in mind, evolution is as well supported as General Relativity and at least as important; it's the central unifying theory of biology, and were it to turn out to be incorrect, almost everything we think we know about biology would also be wrong. To trivialise it as 'just a theory' would be like calling George Washington 'just a politician.'

As an American up on current events I must say that your information is mistaken. I've heard nothing of doing that, it could never happen in public schools; the school would be sued by irate atheists.

You quite obviously are not "up on current events." Kansas has redefined science so that it can insert "Intelligent Design" into the science curriculum. An entire US state has redefined science, and someone who is "up on current events" isn't aware of it? Meanwhile, the result hasn't been so much lawsuits, as brain-drain in Kansas. Kansas can no longer pull high-tech companies to their state and their own students are being looked at with much more scrutiny at the college level.


I agree that it shouldn't be taught as science. I am saying that as one who believes in the intelligent design/creation idea. The intelligent design/creation idea is NOT science. Schools SHOULD emphasize the fact that the evolution theory is just that, though. It's a theory. They should emphasize more that it is NOT fact.

I have never seen a science curriculum in any public school that didn't include the scientific method and the definitions of hypothesis and theory. People seem to have this idea that it is being left out, but it seems to me more like the students simply aren't paying attention.

true we are perplexed by subatomic gravity but every time I study physics we are told 'we don't know why or how'.

....yet.

But that is where the confusion arises. The theory of evolution explains evolution, just as the theory of flight explains how things fly. We dont know how bumble bees fly, because within the confines of the theory they cant, just as we dont know how humans evolved from whatever preceded us, or why pandas are so lame. That doesnt mean that flight and evolution arent true, it just means our theories explaining them are not yet complete.

In science, we can never assume that a theory is complete. It is always open to question - the very strength of science. While dogma is generally "off-limits" to question, all things in science are open to it. For this reason, it is self-correcting.

And, by the way, physicists have succesfully modeled bumblebee flight.

That things evolve is not a theory.

No, but the the way in which they evolve, as described by the theory of evolution, *is* a theory, as well it should be.

Note: "Complete" here refers to - absolutley true and explaining everything there is to know about a given phenomenon. In another sense, "complete" can mean that the theory explains everything about the phenomenon that we have yet observed - and a theory can reach that status.

Complete? No. Why do you think scientists are trying so hard to find missing links?

The fact that you ask that question demonstrates that you don't understand what it means for a theory to be complete.

The theory of evolution explains diversity as we see it. Scientists find evidence continually that backs up this explanation by not disagreeing with it. Were evidence to be found that was actually contradictory, the theory would either be scrapped or altered so that it would also explain the new data. And so on.

However, as long as the theory is not contradicted by current data, it is a complete theory.

I think that evolution should be stressed as a theory, but something I would like to see are schools offering a religion course, giving time to the major religions of the world. And maybe the common high school student will be less ignorant to their neighbors.

As long as no particular religion was stressed above the others, it would probably be a good idea. Of course, I don't know about you, but I got quite an introduction to various religions in middle and high school history courses.

But are you told every time you study General Relativity that GR is 'just a theory?' Bear in mind, evolution is as well supported as General Relativity and at least as important; it's the central unifying theory of biology, and were it to turn out to be incorrect, almost everything we think we know about biology would also be wrong. To trivialise it as 'just a theory' would be like calling George Washington 'just a politician.'
But you can't prove it anymore than you can prove the existence of God, not only dose it fly in the face of physics (i.e. the universe tends toward entropy and all matter goes to disorder) and I have never been answered these basic questions that evolution relies on:
1. Why I (a basic protein) suddenly decide to become a complex sugar.
2. Why the other animals are so far behind in the evolutionary path
3. How the universe came into existence.

Scientists find evidence continually that backs up this explanation by not disagreeing with it. Were evidence to be found that was actually contradictory, the theory would either be scrapped or altered so that it would also explain the new data. And so on.

And where is the evidence backing creationism? Oh wait, there is none! Is there scientific evidence disproving it? You betcha! Well, that's faith for you!

But you can't prove it anymore than you can prove the existence of God, not only dose it fly in the face of physics (i.e. the universe tends toward entropy and all matter goes to disorder) and I have never been answered these basic questions that evolution relies on:

You fail at understanding evolution. Proteins becoming sugars has nothing to do with evolution, neither does how the universe came into existence. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies only to closed systems, and the Earth is not one.

See here (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_1.html) for your 'disorder' argument.

And as for:

2. Why the other animals are so far behind in the evolutionary path

So far behind on what path? You think the 'goal' of evolution is to produce humans? Everything that exists is very specialised towards what it does, humans are actually fairly unimpressive as organisms aside from our brains; we're weak, slow, and extremely easy to kill. Were it not for our opposable thumb granting us the ability to use tools, we'd likely be a footstool for the rest of the animal kingdom.

The bible cannot be proof as it relies on Faith, <---did you know that many facts on it are true? Like that hebrews were once on egypt then managed to go away or Babilony invading Jerusalem and that kind of stuff...Just pointing that out...And my opinion is that only Christian schools (Such as salesian ones) can be allowed to it...But public education is laic.

Actually they recently found evidence suggesting that the Hebrews were never slaves, rather, simple workers - many of which worked alongside the Egyptians themselves to build the pyramids.

Ok, i am british but i have heard of moves by american schools to teach creationism along side evolution in schools as a credible alternative.

Now i dont want this to be yet another creation vs evolution debate but i would like to know your opinion and where you are from on this issue.

My argument is that evolution is called a theory... The scientific meaning of theory is just short of scientific law and thus experimental proof/evidence must be obtained to back it up, to call it theory. Creationism has NO factual proof therefore in the strictest sense of the word is NOT a theory. The bible cannot be proof as it relies on Faith, and faith is the acceptance of a particular peice of knowledge without evidence...therefore i would argue that although is a topic that should be discussed, it shouldnt be discussed within the confines of a lesson that should dedicate its time to the persuit of scientific fact. By all means teach it in Religous education but not our science lessons.

What is your opinion?

To add to this i have several freinds who went around america selling science revision books to parents and they had two versions...the religous censored version and the science fact (as we know it version). Should books that allow the deliberate misleading of thousands of children be allowed to be sold for proper teaching or not? Apparently alot of middle american religous families prefer to home school their children so they can teach them a skewed version of the turth...should this be allowed or should a compuslsory curriculum be set up with examinations making sure those who are home schooled are taught properly?


I think that creationism and ID has no place in a science classroom.

And where is the evidence backing creationism? Oh wait, there is none!

Indeed.

Is there scientific evidence disproving it? You betcha! Well, that's faith for you!

(a) Whether or not scientific evidence disproves Creationism depends on the particular definition of the word being used. But yes, Creationism in the "literal Genesis" sense can be disproven with scientific evidence.

(b) Faith does not refer to believing in something that has been contradicted.

You fail at understanding evolution. Proteins becoming sugars has nothing to do with evolution, neither does how the universe came into existence. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies only to closed systems, and the Earth is not one.

See here (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_1.html) for your 'disorder' argument.

And as for:



So far behind on what path? You think the 'goal' of evolution is to produce humans? Everything that exists is very specialised towards what it does, humans are actually fairly unimpressive as organisms aside from our brains; we're weak, slow, and extremely easy to kill. Were it not for our opposable thumb granting us the ability to use tools, we'd likely be a footstool for the rest of the animal kingdom.
I don't have the scientific background to respond to that claim at this time.

Your right I don't fully understand why (if it makes you feel better) proteins turn into a nuclei (it was a random sampling of basic building blocks).

Which is my point, I'm not saying humans are the goal but why is it that we are so much smarter, its not as though any other animal is close, the smartest species is considered the parrot and they haven’t gotten past pulling bars out of glass tubes to get a piece of food.

now tell me how the universe came into existence.

But you can't prove it anymore than you can prove the existence of God, not only dose it fly in the face of physics (i.e. the universe tends toward entropy and all matter goes to disorder) and I have never been answered these basic questions that evolution relies on:
1. Why I (a basic protein) suddenly decide to become a complex sugar.
2. Why the other animals are so far behind in the evolutionary path
3. How the universe came into existence.

Evolution itself is based on natural selection, where if an animal is born with a mutation that allows it to survive better than a previous animal, then the new animal will be able to climb the food chain and even migrate to a new area. A combination of slow adaptation of every animal in the world has created the building blocks that create the correct ecosystem that allow for the next evolutionary step, from chimpanzee all the way to homo-erectus.

It's incredibly hard to comprehend, and that's why so many people don't believe in it - just imagining how long it takes for evolution to have a noticable change is millions if not billions of years in the making, and we can't even begin to understand just how long that is and the type of changes, both dramatic and subtle, over the course of that time period could happen and affect each individual animal and its habitat and the way they act and the way they think and react and coexist.

The first step is to truly understand how long a billion years is, and many people can't get past it.

And where is the evidence backing creationism? Oh wait, there is none!

Indeed.

Is there scientific evidence disproving it? You betcha! Well, that's faith for you!

(a) Whether or not scientific evidence disproves Creationism depends on the particular definition of the word being used. But yes, Creationism in the "literal Genesis" sense can be disproven with scientific evidence.

(b) Faith does not refer to believing in something that has been contradicted.


But you can't prove it anymore than you can prove the existence of God,

Science cannot prove anything. That isn't how it works. However, evolutionary theory is well-supported by empirical evidence, and has not been disproven. Thus, it is a valid scientific theory.

not only dose it fly in the face of physics (i.e. the universe tends toward entropy and all matter goes to disorder)

Physics doesn't say any such thing. In fact, order occurs all the time, according to physics. The law to which you refer states that, [b]In a CLOSED system, the entropy change caused by a spontaneous process must be greater than or equal to zero. We generally see the universe as a closed system, but the Earth, the Solar System, etc. obviously are not. As such, order occurring spontaneously makes perfect sense - so long as it is balanced by an increase in the entropy of the universe.

and I have never been answered these basic questions that evolution relies on:

Maybe that has a lot to do with the fact that evolution relies on none of these questions.

1. Why I (a basic protein) suddenly decide to become a complex sugar.

Nowhere in evolutionary theory is it suggested that a protein becomes a complex sugar. In fact, sugars and proteins are two separate types of polymers.

2. Why the other animals are so far behind in the evolutionary path

They aren't. There is no "evolutionary path" that all creatures are following. A bacterium is just as evolved as a housecat. In fact, you might say that it is more evolved as its species has most likley gone through more generations and changes than cats.

Your question is based upon the misconception that evolution is directed - and that the purpose is to be more like humans - a very arrogant viewpoint indeed.

3. How the universe came into existence.

Evolutionary theory does not seek to explain how the universe, or even life itself, came into existence. It describes only the process by which life changes over time.

I don't have the scientific background to respond to that claim at this time.

Your right I don't fully understand why (if it makes you feel better) proteins turn into a nuclei (it was a random sampling of basic building blocks).

Which is my point, I'm not saying humans are the goal but why is it that we are so much smarter, its not as though any other animal is close, the smartest species is considered the parrot and they haven’t gotten past pulling bars out of glass tubes to get a piece of food.

now tell me how the universe came into existence.

How bout we start with the world first? Baby steps. You have to realize the possibility that the world didn't come until billions of trillions of years after the universe was first started.

Evolution itself is based on natural selection, where if an animal is born with a mutation that allows it to survive better than a previous animal, then the new animal will be able to climb the food chain and even migrate to a new area. A combination of slow adaptation of every animal in the world has created the building blocks that create the correct ecosystem that allow for the next evolutionary step, from chimpanzee all the way to homo-erectus.

It's incredibly hard to comprehend, and that's why so many people don't believe in it - just imagining how long it takes for evolution to have a noticable change is millions if not billions of years in the making, and we can't even begin to understand just how long that is and the type of changes, both dramatic and subtle, over the course of that time period could happen and affect each individual animal and its habitat and the way they act and the way they think and react and coexist.

The first step is to truly understand how long a billion years is, and many people can't get past it.
But for a slow, gradual change due to mutations mating with the population also is flawed. Many mutations also have a down side. In addition according to evolutionists we came from fish, all well and good but how did whatever mutant fish:
1. How the fish started breathing air?
2. How afore stated fish mutated mate with another to pass it's air breathing mutation on?
3. How did it survive on dry ground?

Which is my point, I'm not saying humans are the goal but why is it that we are so much smarter, its not as though any other animal is close, the smartest species is considered the parrot and they haven’t gotten past pulling bars out of glass tubes to get a piece of food.

You are placing your own value on being smart. We are intelligent because intelligence was selected for in our evolutionary pathway. In other species, brawn has been selected for. In other species, other traits have been selected for. You are still trying to claim that human beings are the pinnacle of existence and that other things should somehow be like us.

Did you know that some species of bat are monogamous and others are not? Interestingly enough, in those species that have not developed this trait, the brains of the male bats are smaller, and the testicles are very large. In those that have developed this trait, the brains are larger and the testicles are large enough to do their job, but are not as emphasized. Is one of these species, "more evolved" than the other? No, of course not. They simply evolved differently.

now tell me how the universe came into existence.

Why? It has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand.



Evolution itself is based on natural selection, where if an animal is born with a mutation that allows it to survive better than a previous animal, then the new animal will be able to climb the food chain and even migrate to a new area.

This is also a bit of a mischaracterization of evolutionary theory. There is no reason to believe that a beneficial mutation will allow a species to 'climb the food chain' or migrate. A beneficial mutation is anything that increases the reproductive success of that particular creature. It is entirely possible that the mutation in question could make it better adapted exactly where it is, could move it down the food chain, as it were, or could simply increase its fertility.

A combination of slow adaptation of every animal in the world has created the building blocks that create the correct ecosystem that allow for the next evolutionary step, from chimpanzee all the way to homo-erectus.

You are making the mistake of assuming that there are particular evolutionary steps to follow. A chimpanzee is no less evolved than homo-erectus. They have both evolved to different ecosystems.

How bout we start with the world first? Baby steps. You have to realize the possibility that the world didn't come until billions of trillions of years after the universe was first started.
Why should I do that? This entire time I have been arguing alone generally accepting you all's grounds for the debate. Why can't I get the answer from you that it is all based on.

Science in schools! :eek: When did this happen? It's that damn Darwin, trying to make a monkies outta all of us!

But for a slow, gradual change due to mutations mating with the population also is flawed. Many mutations also have a down side.

Yes, they do. And those mutations are often selected *out* of the population, unless their "upside" counterbalances or overbalances their "down side".

1. How the fish started breathing air?

Most likely, mutations allowed fish to breathe for short times out of water (some fish today can do so). This increased their reproductive success, so it was selected for. Eventually, the selection of this trait could lead to creatures that spent time both in and out of the water (like amphibians).

2. How afore stated fish mutated mate with another to pass it's air breathing mutation on?

The same way the fish without the mutation mated. How do human beings with mutations mate?

3. How did it survive on dry ground?

The same way some fish and all amphibians do, while also surviving in the water.


Why should I do that? This entire time I have been arguing alone generally accepting you all's grounds for the debate. Why can't I get the answer from you that it is all based on.

You seem to think that evolutionary theory is based in a theory of the origins of the universe. It is not. You are asking a question that cannot have an answer because it is based in your own false assumptions.

You are placing your own value on being smart. We are intelligent because intelligence was selected for in our evolutionary pathway. In other species, brawn has been selected for.
Why is a certain pathway chosen? For what reason can I only evolve by getting smarter?

Which is my point, I'm not saying humans are the goal but why is it that we are so much smarter, its not as though any other animal is close, the smartest species is considered the parrot and they haven’t gotten past pulling bars out of glass tubes to get a piece of food.

But this is the problem; you're superimposing creationist thinking [that human beings are the 'best' lifeform because we're the most intelligent] over the theory of evolution and then noting it doesn't make sense. Well, of course it doesn't make sense when you do that.

Point is, the goal of evolution is to produce the creature best adapted to its enviroment. That doesn't necessarily mean the most intelligent creature, since for a tree or a gut bacteria the ability to do calculus is somewhat unnecessary. You might as well point out that humans are bad at photosynthesis, therefore humans are crap trees.

Also, why should there be more than one species comparable in intelligence to us? Given our records with our [i]own species, don't you think we'd have probably killed all of them?

now tell me how the universe came into existence.

No. As I said before, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe or even the origin of life; it's merely the process by which life adapts to its surroundings. Abiogenesis doesn't have to be true for evolution to be true, and neither does the Big Bang theory.

No. As I said before, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe or even the origin of life; it's merely the process by which life adapts to its surroundings. Abiogenesis doesn't have to be true for evolution to be true, and neither does the Big Bang theory.
How is how is started not important? Using your symbol, that is like saying George Washington is unimportant to understanding the United States, it is how it started.

Why is a certain pathway chosen?

It increases the reproductive success of the creature in question.

For what reason can I only evolve by getting smarter?

Who said you can only evolve by getting smarter?

Of course, the question is flawed, because a person (or any particular single creature) cannot evolve. Evolutionary theory refers to the changes in species over time, not changes in an individual.

However, if you are asking why human beings can "only evolve by getting smarter", your question is still flawed. Intelligence was one of the traits that seems to have been selected for in homo sapiens. Another was walking upright. Another was the loss of most of our hair. Another was a long period of nurturing. Others involved our social structure. And so on......

Intelligence is what you have chosen to make the crux of the debate, because you have decided that it is the ultimate measure of "humans being awesome" or something.

You are placing your own value on being smart. We are intelligent because intelligence was selected for in our evolutionary pathway. In other species, brawn has been selected for. In other species, other traits have been selected for. You are still trying to claim that human beings are the pinnacle of existence and that other things should somehow be like us.

Did you know that some species of bat are monogamous and others are not? Interestingly enough, in those species that have not developed this trait, the brains of the male bats are smaller, and the testicles are very large. In those that have developed this trait, the brains are larger and the testicles are large enough to do their job, but are not as emphasized. Is one of these species, "more evolved" than the other? No, of course not. They simply evolved differently.



Why? It has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand.




This is also a bit of a mischaracterization of evolutionary theory. There is no reason to believe that a beneficial mutation will allow a species to 'climb the food chain' or migrate. A beneficial mutation is anything that increases the reproductive success of that particular creature. It is entirely possible that the mutation in question could make it better adapted exactly where it is, could move it down the food chain, as it were, or could simply increase its fertility.



You are making the mistake of assuming that there are particular evolutionary steps to follow. A chimpanzee is no less evolved than homo-erectus. They have both evolved to different ecosystems.

Right-o, old chap. Though my point is in retrospect - if a species were to mutate a negative trait, that species would either turn it into a beneficial trait, balance it by a positive trait, or die.

Yes, they do. And those mutations are often selected *out* of the population, unless their "upside" counterbalances or overbalances their "down side".



Most likely, mutations allowed fish to breathe for short times out of water (some fish today can do so). This increased their reproductive success, so it was selected for. Eventually, the selection of this trait could lead to creatures that spent time both in and out of the water (like amphibians).



The same way the fish without the mutation mated. How do human beings with mutations mate?



The same way some fish and all amphibians do, while also surviving in the water.



You seem to think that evolutionary theory is based in a theory of the origins of the universe. It is not. You are asking a question that cannot have an answer because it is based in your own false assumptions.
Assuming you are right in that a fish got the ability to breath on ground what possesed it to jump out, something instinct tells it is deadly, and then why did it go back and what about that helped it outmate the other fish.

How is how is started not important? Using your symbol, that is like saying George Washington is unimportant to understanding the United States, it is how it started.

That's not what I said. The reason evolution doesn't have to explain how the universe started is because that's outside what evolution describes; the theory of evolution only describes how creatures adapt to their environments. While the origin of the universe is important, it's outside the scope of the theory: you might as well ask why sewing or plumbing can't explain the origin of the universe.

Assuming you are right in that a fish got the ability to breath on ground what possesed it to jump out, something instinct tells it is deadly,

Do you really think that instinct "tells it" anything? There are fish in existence today that jump out of the water, use their fins to walk across to other waters, and then jump in. Why would we assume that an ancient fish could not have done something similar?

And imagine, if you will, the situation in which fish live in shallows or in ponds that shrink and grow with time (the seasons, for instance). All sorts of occurrences related to these things could cause a fish to end up on the bank, even without it making an effort to get there. Most fish that end up on a bank die, correct? But what if a given fish could survive until it was either washed back into the water or flopped itself there? Would it not be able to go back and mate, while all the fish that died on the shore would die?

and then why did it go back

Well, we aren't talking about a single mutation that meant it could stay out of the water indefinitely. Most likley, the first fish that could spend any amount of time out of the water could only do so for a short time. Not returning to the water would have meant death.

and what about that helped it outmate the other fish.

The fact that it could exploit territory with no other animals to compete would be a biggie. Remember that evidence suggests that, until fish began developing this capability (eventually developing into frogs), there were no major land-based animal species. A species that developed the ability to exploit resources on land would have had quite an advantage over the other fish, which would have had to compete only for the resources in the water.

Assuming you are right in that a fish got the ability to breath on ground what possessed it to jump out, something instinct tells it is deadly, and then why did it go back and what about that helped it out mate the other fish.

Well, based in the behavior of modern air-breathing fish, one distinct advantage is the ability to evade aquatic predators. They can wait out the predator on land until it loses interest or it picks another fish for dinner. Given this kind of a survival advantage, air-breathers would have a greater chance of surviving predators, increasing the probability that they would mate. If the enviroment's primary threat came from predators, then outbreeding fish that couldn't breathe air wouldn't be difficult, since they water-bound have a greater chance of getting eaten.

[Darn, not only did I not notice my duplicating my own argument (in an attempt to shorten it) I ended up posting essentially duplicate to what others have already said. Message left in for curiosity value only, with this disclaimer....]

Assuming you are right in that a fish got the ability to breath on ground what possesed it to jump out, something instinct tells it is deadly, and then why did it go back and what about that helped it outmate the other fish.
What possesed the fish to jump out? Maybe it was stranded on a mud-flat in a tidal estury.
Something instinct tells it is deadly? Well, it can't breathe (at first at all, later on not very easilt)
And then why did it go back? To survive. At first it couldn't survive for any long periods. In fact, it personally never improved, but...
What about that helped it outmate the other fish? It outcompeted its brethren that died gasping on the open mudflats. It outcompeted its brethren that did not take the risk and grab all that nutritious seaweed/whatever. Its offspring (even with a female that was only 'average' in the ability) were skewed to be more tolerant than the average. Some better than its father (or even mother, of the female was a stranding-survivor). Those offspring, and/or any generations down the line that also inherited better tolerance to out-of-waterness and got caught, survived longer.
Offspring that didn't just 'flop' back to water but had stronger pectoral fins (did not break in the flopping, maybe even assisted movement. Offspring that could actuall absorb a small amoutn of oxygen from air did better than those that did not. The ability to 'nest' eggs in amongst sheltering rocks at the bottom of shallow pools, rather than release 'spawning clouds' of eggs and sperm into the open waters. All these fortuitous chance things that could happen to these 'fish' got concentrated in the breeding population's total gene-pool. Some things probably got lost through chance (who knows if any developed the ability to reliably 'pogo' around the mud-flats, but got stricken by some unrelated disease and never survived to breed any further generations).

That's the shortened answer to a longer one I originally wrote.

















Let's postulate a possible situation. This need not be the correct one, the one that actually happened (or one of the several situations that might have actually happened, since severel different living things will have transitioned from sea to land), but I submit it to you as a plausible answer.
It's amazing how interesting 'edges' are, so let's imagine the edge of the Fish universe. The shore. There are tides. Tides go out, leaving pools of water or even just damp mud.
You don't need me to tell you how the fish that are succesful in living in this environment are already ones that are probably not averse to low dissolved oxygen levels in temporarily-disconnected rock pools and mud-puddles, I hope, but (just to spell it out) fish without a good tolerance to low oxygen more easily die and do not contribute further to the gene-pool. Fish that have better oxygen-absorbing mechanisms live until the next tide and are (other accidents/predators/etc allowing) reproduce more than the previous 'average' fish. The average ability goes up, in this respect.
So when fish that can already live on low oxygen levels are stranded indraining puddles, they may be able to sit in the wet mud and survive, or if they are too high up the shoreline, that could be bad. Maybe they can survive long enough to flop back into any remaining water, though. It's stressful, but it allows them to feed on something (seeweed, other stranded creatures) that lives in the perilously dry zone, so as well as surviving the air, they can get resources their more cautious/less able brethren cannot.
Flopping around is a bit haphazard. Fin-damaging dangerous, too. The ones with stronger fins survive more (for one thing, they don't break their fins and find themselves unable to swim as well, once back in the water). Stronger fins might also be ones more suitable for purposeful 'flopping about' from puddle to puddle. And the ones that can make better use of the water-dissolved oxygen, or start dissolving oxygen from the air, can aford to be more energetic in their attempts to get back to water.
This is all happening over many, many, many generations. The 'average' abilities of the fish population is being skewed towards ever better abilities to survive in air, move over the mud. All fish in any generation are at least distant cousins to each other, having some ancestor in common, and as every generation breeds and creates a new generation, the 'average ancestor' is getting better, so there's everyone's in the same boat. Erm. Puddle, no problems breeding.
The land at this time is, of course, is full of insects and other interesting protein sources. A flolloping fish, or one skipping along the mud on strong pectoral fins, gets opportunities to eat more than seawead and less-fortunate stranded sealife, and the 'fish' (by now it's evolved ability is far beyond a mere 'fish', but it can trace it's ancestry back to a fish) that is better at dealing with increasingly dry land gets the better grub. Fish eggs laid and fertalised in less and less wet environments ('nesting' puddles rather than spawning clouds set adrift in the open waters) is de rigur for these creatures that spend more time out of water than in. The ability to absorbtion of oxygen from air is massively improved. Their fins are more suited for dragging themselves over ground.
Well, I've already exceeded the scope of your given questions....

I know they have them in colleges and I do want them to use them to show the culture and history of foreign lands, as for Christianity being glazed over, don’t' think that everyone knows about Christianity, the other day someone started a thread putting forward that Jesus walked on ice, because the dead sea froze, that not only doesn’t pass the logic test it also shows little actual knowledge of Christianity. EDIT: Also displayed by the acceptance of the DeVinchie Code.

I agree, the entire Ice thing is an attempt to rationalize miracles, when clearly they're cut from the same cloth as hercules and the augean stables.

I'm from Ontario, Canada, and I took a social sciences course in high school. We were taught many theories, both creationist theory and the evolution theory. I personally think it is critical that students get exposure to more than one theory, as this wouldn't hurt anyone.

The curriculum even says that these are just THEORIES, and that the curriculum itself and/or the teacher isn't preaching anything to the students. Its solely up to the students to decide for themselves which theory they wish to believe or not believe in.

I don't even think there should be a debate, as whats goin on in some schools, as no matter how you see it, an education is an education, faith and what you believe in is another thing.

But you can't prove it anymore than you can prove the existence of God, not only dose it fly in the face of physics (i.e. the universe tends toward entropy and all matter goes to disorder) and I have never been answered these basic questions that evolution relies on:
1. Why I (a basic protein) suddenly decide to become a complex sugar.
evolution does not deal with how life started, that is a different area of science.

2. Why the other animals are so far behind in the evolutionary path

The other animals aren't behind "the evolutionary path." large populations are stable populations, evolution doesn't tend to come into play much when a lifeform is effective reproductively. Grass isn't looking forward to the day that it evolves into man, evolution is about living long enough to reproduce. If you live long enough to reproduce, and do so, and your children do so, you win. Ant, blade of grass, or man. It's all about there being another generation. For instance, the evolution of cows since man discovered they were tasty cridders, has favored being tasty, because of the selective pressure of mankind. We allow the really tasty lines to reproduce in abundance.

If one day the population of men is dropped back to a handful and the problems we faced were different than the ones we do now, we could become a less brainy species. or more. It depends on what problems we face. We aren't becoming more perfect, random mutations happen, the ones that harm us disappear, the ones that do nothing just get mixed in the deck of cards, and the ones that help us live long enough to reproduce, and even assure that our children live long enough to reproduce, survive and thive.

3. How the universe came into existence.
Evolution is a BIOLOGICAL concept. It has *NOTHING* to do with how the universe came into existance. That's rather like asking why the theory of gravity doesn't explain why glass is transparent. Well.. it doesn't, because that's not what it's about.

I don't have the scientific background to respond to that claim at this time.

Your right I don't fully understand why (if it makes you feel better) proteins turn into a nuclei (it was a random sampling of basic building blocks).

Which is my point, I'm not saying humans are the goal but why is it that we are so much smarter, its not as though any other animal is close, the smartest species is considered the parrot and they haven’t gotten past pulling bars out of glass tubes to get a piece of food.

now tell me how the universe came into existence.

random mutation made it easier for us to cool our brains. Without it, a brain our size would slow cook itself. Evolution wouldn't favor a species that cooked it's brain.

But for a slow, gradual change due to mutations mating with the population also is flawed. Many mutations also have a down side. In addition according to evolutionists we came from fish, all well and good but how did whatever mutant fish:
1. How the fish started breathing air?
2. How afore stated fish mutated mate with another to pass it's air breathing mutation on?
3. How did it survive on dry ground?

...

http://mama.essortment.com/lungfish_rank.htm

there are fish today that can breath air. It's not like, all at once, a fish baby was born that was drowning, and then it hopped up on the beach.

Frogs are amphibians, and I'm sure you've seen evidence of frogs starting their lives in water. The first things to "walk on land" most likely spent the majority of their time in water, and left it because there was less competition outside the water than in. Expoiting an ecological nitch is something Evolution is usually pretty good for. If a small change offers up a new food source, or a new place where it's harder to get eaten, then that change usually does pretty well. After amphibians you have reptiles, who can exploit more of the land, because they're less tied to water, yada-yada. Everything didn't leave the ocean, because if they did, it would be empty of those that eat and full of things to be eaten.. obviously, that would be an ecological nitch.. if the oceans emptyed out something else would just craw back in, as evidenced by whales and the like.

fish successful reproduce, don't they? And frogs, and foxes, and lizards, and all that? You see them, don't you? Things eat them, they eat things, plants push each other out of the way and strech out their leaves towards the sun, cutting off outer plants.. it's a war out there- a war for energy and for reproduction. Those that were more successful are what you see today. Obviously they were more successful, because you see them. As for why they were? Well, think their lives though. How many babies they have, what they eat, what eats them. Do enough of them survive to keep their populations going? That's why governments try to keep people from transplanting species from one place to another. If they don't come from where they're put, there aren't things that naturally eat them, they might be better than what's local at doing the job. Like with the australian rabbits...

Evolution wouldn't favor a species that cooked it's brain.

Unfortunatly some where not luckly enough to get the mutation and generally become politicians and celebrities.

Why is a certain pathway chosen? For what reason can I only evolve by getting smarter?

if our population got small enough evolution became reasonably active in our species, there is no guarentee that smarter would be the direction we'd go. Evolution favors over all success. Success ≠ smarter. It could be that a dumber but stronger, or dumber much faster, or smaller, or larger, or whatever would be what it took to survive. Whatever had, across a few generations the best reproductive success would have the greatest impact.

I'm from Ontario, Canada, and I took a social sciences course in high school. We were taught many theories, both creationist theory and the evolution theory. I personally think it is critical that students get exposure to more than one theory, as this wouldn't hurt anyone.

The curriculum even says that these are just THEORIES, and that the curriculum itself and/or the teacher isn't preaching anything to the students. Its solely up to the students to decide for themselves which theory they wish to believe or not believe in.

I don't even think there should be a debate, as whats goin on in some schools, as no matter how you see it, an education is an education, faith and what you believe in is another thing.

Evolution is a theory, Creationism is an unprovable hypothosis.

I'm from Ontario, Canada, and I took a social sciences course in high school. We were taught many theories, both creationist theory and the evolution theory. I personally think it is critical that students get exposure to more than one theory, as this wouldn't hurt anyone.

The curriculum even says that these are just THEORIES, and that the curriculum itself and/or the teacher isn't preaching anything to the students. Its solely up to the students to decide for themselves which theory they wish to believe or not believe in.

I don't even think there should be a debate, as whats goin on in some schools, as no matter how you see it, an education is an education, faith and what you believe in is another thing.
This is faulty because there is no creationist "theory". Maybe creationist hypotheses, but it is easily discredited. Evolution for the most part is fact and can be proven. It is used everyday by a multitude of people.

Next time you take some life saving medication(well lets hope that you dont have too, but if you do) ask which "theory" provided the knowledge to formulate it. Here's a hint..its not creation.

Fallacy of Appeal to Authority. You presented the argument, not that website; therefore, unless you are capable of defending the argument you made, concede. We are not debating a random website, we are debating you.Actually, I'd say a dictionary is a valid authority (for word definition/explanation/description/use), and therefore it was not a falacy of appeal to authority.
Was there even really any significant difference between the two dictionary readings? Seemed to say pretty much the same.

How bout we start with the world first? Baby steps. You have to realize the possibility that the world didn't come until billions of trillions of years after the universe was first started.About 10 billion. And that's assuming earth came first as life bearing planet. An assumption that is almost entirely baseless.
In any case, with the universe dated at some 14-15 billion years, adding another factor trillion is overstating it a bit..

Actually, I'd say a dictionary is a valid authority (for word definition/explanation/description/use), and therefore it was not a falacy of appeal to authority.

You'd be wrong. The Appeal was when he started saying 'if you want to disagree, disagree with the website, not the point I'm making based on it;' effectively trying to foist his argument on a dictionary website and put their name on it, a textbook Appeal To Authority.

You might as well point out that humans are bad at photosynthesis, therefore humans are crap trees.
What? What are you on about? I myself have no problems in the photosynthesis department. You might want to have a chat with a professional, maybe you're just low on chlorophyll?

:p

What? What are you on about? I myself have no problems in the photosynthesis department. You might want to have a chat with a professional, maybe you're just low on chlorophyll?

:p
Maybe he needs to get out into the sun more. Trees need their sunlight!

You'd be wrong. The Appeal was when he started saying 'if you want to disagree, disagree with the website, not the point I'm making based on it;' effectively trying to foist his argument on a dictionary website and put their name on it, a textbook Appeal To Authority.Well, I don't have my textbook handy. But I thought "appeal to authority" was a falacy when you appeal to someone/something which is not in actuality considered an authority. I.e. in contrast, when arguing time dilation or gravity you could validly appeal to Einstein.
But as I said, I ought to dig up my textbook first. But then, if I do argue from my textbook, I'm using it as an authority on the subject. And any further hypothetical disagreements would then have to be deferred to its authors :p

On the same note. Before starting this discussion, we ought to have defined the terms used. If everyone argues from different conceptions of theory and hypothesis and whatnot, it's no surprise we can't agree. We're talking about different things.
It's like talking about trees, without distinguishing whether you mean the organism growing out in the sun, or the abstract mathematical contruct. A mathematician might argue trees don't produce oxygen, while a biologist argues they do. And they're both right.

Speaking as a devout born again Christian I firmly believe that schools are the place for teaching Science and Home and Church are the places to teach religion. Arm your kids with both theories and let them decide for themselves which is right. Me, I side with God. But thats just me.

But as I said, I ought to dig up my textbook first. But then, if I do argue from my textbook, I'm using it as an authority on the subject. And any further hypothetical disagreements would then have to be deferred to its authors :p

Not entirely true, no. It's also the same fallacy when you attempt to appeal to the authority when the usefulness of the authority is exactly what's in question.

Appeal to authority is essentially 'X is correct because Mr Authority says so' when Mr Authority is not an expert, is disputed, or was not speaking seriously. In this case, the dictionary definition is precisely what's being questioned, using another dictionary definition. Therefore, you cannot say 'this must be right because it is an authority' since the fact that it is an authority is exactly what's being disputed.

On the one hand Evolution and Creationism will be given equal amounts of time in science classrooms. Children will be exposed to both and allowed to make their own minds up. The science teachers will stress to their pupils that they are both 'only theories' and that they are both on an equal footing.

On the other hand both the Bible and the DaVinci Code will be given equal amounts of time in churches. Churchgoers will be exposed to both and allowed to make their own minds up. The preachers/vicars/priests will stress to the congregation that the Bible and the DaVinci Code are both 'only books' and that they are both on an equal footing.

On the one hand Evolution and Creationism will be given equal amounts of time in science classrooms. Children will be exposed to both and allowed to make their own minds up. The science teachers will stress to their pupils that they are both 'only theories' and that they are both on an equal footing.

On the other hand both the Bible and the DaVinci Code will be given equal amounts of time in churches. Churchgoers will be exposed to both and allowed to make their own minds up. The preachers/vicars/priests will stress to the congregation that the Bible and the DaVinci Code are both 'only books' and that they are both on an equal footing.
But creationism is NOT SCIENCE

Why the hell should we allow people to waste science class room time on stuff that is not science by its deffinition

Its a frigging stupid as wasting math class time learning how to play the flute.

But creationism is NOT SCIENCE

Why the hell should we allow people to waste science class room time on stuff that is not science by its deffinition

Its a frigging stupid as wasting math class time learning how to play the flute.

Did you read the second half of the post? I was comparing the teaching of creationism in science classrooms to the teaching of the DaVinci Code in churches, i.e. in an utterly innappropriate setting.

Did you read the second half of the post? I was comparing the teaching of creationism in science classrooms to the teaching of the DaVinci Code in churches, i.e. in an utterly innappropriate setting.
bah I am an idiot (look at my sig :) many apologies I must have gotten distracted when posting at work

bah I am an idiot (look at my sig :) many apologies I must have gotten distracted when posting at work

Meh, I've done the same many times. :)

I know they have them in colleges and I do want them to use them to show the culture and history of foreign lands, as for Christianity being glazed over, don’t' think that everyone knows about Christianity, the other day someone started a thread putting forward that Jesus walked on ice, because the dead sea froze, that not only doesn’t pass the logic test it also shows little actual knowledge of Christianity. EDIT: Also displayed by the acceptance of the DeVinchie Code.

actually mate, i heard the same thing on radio 4 (uk) and it wasnt an argument for or against religion it was one thoery of how it could have happened.

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/8191/jesusdino8zl.jpg