Originally posted by Draenor To the one that says that he didn't find anything to corroborate: that isn't surprising that you can't just google something like that and get a bunch of sources...I'm sure that if you did enough digging, you would find that it isn't just the most hardcore of Christian Jesus freaks that don't buy the old world theory...I remember listening to a CD last year where the guy speaking rattled off about a hundred different various scientists who agree that the world can't possibly be bilions of years old...he didn't read them all in a row of course, but over the course of this lecture that he gave which lasted for five days he named all of these people, along with various quotes.
With that said, what makes you believe this minority rather than the other well-educated scientists? What I mean is: why accept the word of this chosen minority; for example, I'm willing to entertain your information (assuming that there is strong science behind it, which, by the way, I'm researching at length) - why not be skeptical of it and challenge it?
Originally posted by Draenor To the one that says that he didn't find anything to corroborate: that isn't surprising that you can't just google something like that and get a bunch of sources...I'm sure that if you did enough digging, you would find that it isn't just the most hardcore of Christian Jesus freaks that don't buy the old world theory...I remember listening to a CD last year where the guy speaking rattled off about a hundred different various scientists who agree that the world can't possibly be bilions of years old...he didn't read them all in a row of course, but over the course of this lecture that he gave which lasted for five days he named all of these people, along with various quotes.
With that said, what makes you believe this minority rather than the other well-educated scientists? What I mean is: why accept the word of this chosen minority; for example, I'm willing to entertain your information (assuming that there is strong science behind it, which, by the way, I'm researching at length) - why not be skeptical of it and challenge it?
Because given what I do know about evolution, and given what I do know about the Bible, I prefer to take my chances with a creator...To understand fully you would need the detailed history of my religious past...and I don't feel like writing a book at this time...But I'll give you a brief overview, as well as some key facts that were involved in my turning away from Evolutionary theory.
I was agnostic from the time I was a sophomore in High School until less than a year ago...I believed in evolution and thought that the Bible was a fictional tale created by the government at the time in an effort to control the populace...That was until I begun to learn about what exactly evolutionary theory is, up until that point, I had taken everything that I had heard in my science class at face value, that evolution was indeed fact and that nobody in the actual science community disputed this.
Then towards the end of my Freshman year of college, I decided to actually go out and get an education. My parents kept telling me goofy things like that the global flood was real, and that the world is only about ten thousand years old....I laughed at them at first, and then I realized something, I was laughing because it had been so engrained into my head that evolution is fact, and that we KNOW that the world is billions of years old...From that point, I decided that I was very emphatically unsure about everything. So I did what many people like to do when they have no clue about a particular area of study that they are interested in...I went out and gathered my facts.
What I found was that evolution isn't fact, as it is taught in school, that Charles Darwin was a complete nut job, and that evolution has no more science in it than Creationism does. Argue all that you want, evolution has so many holes that it is an absolute wonder that it is such a widely accepted theory...and an even bigger wonder why so many Christians would decide that they believe in God, and Jesus, but that the whole book of Genesis and most of the old testament is nothing but a lie.
Evolution has many glaring holes, I have already posted the Grand Canyon falacy, the Mount Saint Hellens Eruption "mini grand canyon" and the FACT that no organism has ever been observed to add information into its DNA, which is a necessary component of evolution. I could go on and on, but it will change the minds of very few...and that is sad to me, it is sad to me that a theory like evolution, a theory with NO true observable science, is taught in schools, and that Christian youth is forced to believe it, or risk being ostracized by their peers.
Now, what about adaptation? Surely adaptation is an example of evolution at work.
Wrong, adaptation occurs when an animal has an existing strand of their DNA kick in and change the animal so that it can survive, no information is added to the DNA, it is simply brought out and becomes more prominent.
Proponents of evolution will argue that their beliefs are supported by modern science, dating techniques, and that belief in anything else is simply preposterous. I urge those of you who are thinking about hitting that reply button and telling me that I am wrong to go out and become educated about your beliefs...I refused to begin calling myself a Christian until I could believe the Bible. If you are going to believe in evolution, then you need to educate yourself on its flaws, its inconsistancies, and its fallacies. Does the bible have any of these? The inconsistancies in the Bible are few and far between...a common montra is that the Bible is full of holes. Of course a book that was written two thousand years ago is going to have a few holes in it...but if you are going to actually say "well the Bible has holes" at least do your part, and find out what those holes are, find out what it says in the origional hebrew, and THEN make the judgement on whether or not it is a hole, or simply something that was lost in translation. It is extremely easy to take things at face value, because it is what we want to believe. We hear that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, which coincides with the belief that the Earth is billions of years old, so we believe it...But if you probe deeper, you will quickly find that the age of dinosaurs is often disputed, and not only by the crazy bible thumpers, but also by reputable scientists. You need to understand the basic human tendancy to ask questions until we get the answers we want, the same has occured with evolutionary theory.
You must also take into account the belief of evolutionists that life started from, as Modjoe would put it PRIMORDIALSOUPDIDIT
Okay, Primordial soup...but what exactly does that mean? It means that out of this primordial soup, life emerged, single cell organisms capable of sustaining themselves...Is that a fair enough definition for you? I don't want to argue semantics because it isn't my point. This theory would be fine if it wasn't for the fact that it is impossible to create life where there is none, nobody has ever done it, nobody has even come close to doing it...not to mention that many scientists argue that all life started in water, which is also impossible, because water is the least hospitable environment possible for life to begin, it's a natural solvent, no single cell organism would ever be able to just appear and suddenly be alive, anywhere, in water, primordial soup, or otherwise. Water is not really considered to even be a possibility these days. So I ask you, if science has been unable to spark life out of nothingness when they are trying to do so under optimal conditions, what makes them think that it could happen by chance?? That my friends, is not good science...Good science provides results that you can recreate over and over again, but they can recreate none of their own theories, even under the most optimal conditions.
Some of you more educated people may now be thinking about the Miller experiment.
Background: The Miller experiment was an attempt to create amino acids(building blocks of life...proteins) in a closed environment, resembling what evolutionists believe to be the world's atmosphere at the time. Miller recreated small lightning storms, which were believed to be very common in the Earth's infancy. Miller was successfull in creating a 50-50 ratio of left handed and right handed amino acids. GREAT! He created life!...Hardly. All living organisms have left handed amino acids, and zero right handed amino acids, when something dies, the left handed amino acids slowly turn into right handed amino acids until a balance is reached. What Miller created was not the beginnings of life, but death. If that is proof of evolution to you, then so be it, but to me, it simply proves that man is better at killing than creating.
I could go on for pages and pages about this stuff, I really could...but I doubt that very many people are even going to read something this long, but you wanted an explanation as to how I came to the conclusions that I did, and how I consider a source credible when it isn't backed up by a majority. The thing about it is that evolution has become such a main stream belief that it is difficult, but not impossible to dig up information to disprove it.
Man I was tempted to get into UFO's and outer space stuff, but I didn't...you're welcome
I look forward to intelligent conversation about this...I will not respond to any kind of "dude you're stupid because evolution is fact and well you're just dumb" posts...I deal with enough of that kind of thing for my beliefs when I'm face to face with people, I'm not going to waste my time typing back to someone who believes blindly and refused to accept that I just will not.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I do not seek to insult your intelligence over a disagreement of your opinion. So basically, you're saying that you believe in the minority's claims because of personal experience.
You say that evolution was taught as 'fact'? This strikes me as interesting, because in my high school, biology class wasn't about finding the origins of mankind or the world; it was about classifying and structuring the diverse species on Earth into a system that could worked with.
So, actually, if your idea about evolution deals with contesting the origin of man - well, belief is belief. You choose to support it with what science (I'm still researching this, if its really sound science) you believe in. Science was never meant to interact with belief, but to use senses and tools to draw greater conclusions about the world.
As for interpreting the Bible: I'm not Christian, and I don't seek to maliciously poke holes in your faith, but I can give you a good run for your money someday in some other thread (but not here, really).
There's a lot in your post to respond and reflect about, but I'll just pick what interested me most and leave the rest to other posters. You mentioned, "So I ask you, if science has been unable to spark life out of nothingness when they are trying to do so under optimal conditions, what makes them think that it could happen by chance??" The phrase, "by chance" particularly bothers me. Do you acknowledge that there are billions of planets out there in the universe? It is not strange that at least on one planet there exists sentient life. Perhaps the discovery of life on other planets would show some more meaning to this phrase, 'by chance'.
I don't deny the existance of billions of planets...what I was trying to get across is that if humans, while making a concerted effort to do so, cannot make something happen that they claim happened without any sort of outside influence, and happened simply by chance and accident...what makes them so sure?
I use the words chance and accident without malicious intent, it is simply what evolution implies, is that life started by chance...I understand that there are religions that teach that evolution was sparked by whatever God they believe in, and that the first beings were in fact created by God...my coment on this aspect of evolution is strictly for the evolutionary purists.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
In my opinion both theories are right in some parts and should be taught at school, but not separately from each other.
I believe that at first was creationism and after was evolution. The only problem is that many people say "God did it" while others say luck did it. So evolutionists deny god(s) while Creationism denies evolution.
Evolution theory is right about the colors and the eyes of humen and about the wings of the butterflies but it does not prove why and how human brain evoluted in a way that for many intelligent people is impossible without external interference of a "beeing" or a factor, that took human out of the organic "soup" and made him feel curiosity and imagination. If you call this factor luck then it is possible that if you put a pig together with wheat in a billion years you might have a hot dog. But i can't wait that long to eat it...
Creationism is mostly symbolic and it does not answer the question of why if god(s) created everything as it is now there has been some billions of years of unspoken exelixis by the church and it's followers, so why God needed evolution since He is powerful? I don't know and i can't get an answer from Creationism theory.
It is obvious that if you put these conflicting philosophies appart you get unresonableness, but if you combine them together, you might reach a point where maybe a true theory will arise since in universe there are is not true of false or right or wrong.
It is our duty to teach younger people everything that we know even we don't believe in it since ignorance of opposite ideas leads to idiocy and hate.
"What should be taught in our schools?"
I think everything but not with the words: right or wrong.
Ok, for all you anti-evolutionists.. or wahtever you are...
I'm not sure if this proves anything but:
Take a look at the way a new human being is created... I heard someone say "Noone proves we descend form something, something, unicelular beings".... Now tell me, what is the "making" of a new human being(or any other animal for the matter) more than the "evolution" from a unicelular "being" to a fully operational, complex human being? I mean... at first it's just one cell.... Than it starts dividing, and dividing, and dividing... then these cells start assuming different roles... some will make your bones, others your internal organs.... In the end you have a unicelular being turned a complex human being..... If this happens, than why is it so hard that at first there were only simple beings, that started evolving into other more complex beings? If you're born from a single cell that keeps evolving, than why is it so hard to believe that you descend from ancient unicelular being that keps evolving with time?
Originally posted by Zepee Ok, for all you anti-evolutionists.. or wahtever you are...
I'm not sure if this proves anything but:
Take a look at the way a new human being is created... I heard someone say "Noone proves we descend form something, something, unicelular beings".... Now tell me, what is the "making" of a new human being(or any other animal for the matter) more than the "evolution" from a unicelular "being" to a fully operational, complex human being? I mean... at first it's just one cell.... Than it starts dividing, and dividing, and dividing... then these cells start assuming different roles... some will make your bones, others your internal organs.... In the end you have a unicelular being turned a complex human being..... If this happens, than why is it so hard that at first there were only simple beings, that started evolving into other more complex beings? If you're born from a single cell that keeps evolving, than why is it so hard to believe that you descend from ancient unicelular being that keps evolving with time?
I would like someone to answer me..
You are confusing two different processes, evolution contends that information is added to an animals DNA over long periods of time, and that change results from those pieces of added information. A child developing from a zygote into a fully formed human already has all of its genetic information, it's not evolution, it's simply development using the information already existing. Are the two processes similar in effect? Perhaps, but they are completely different in process.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
My school (I would say the UK, but half of the schools here are sh*t) has the only sensible solution for this issue.
Evolution is a THEORY. Creationism is a THEORY. That's all there is to it. Evolution is based on testable evidence, it's a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. Creationism is based on tradition/teaching/belief, it's a RELIGIOUS THEORY. It naturally follows that evolution be taught (AS A THEORY) in Biology, and creationism be taught (AS A THEORY) in Religious Studies/Religion/Philosophy and Beliefs (or whatever they're calling it this week). I can't see how anyone can possible ask for anything else :S
It really pisses me off when all of the 'concerned parents' come on the air saying about how they've got special permission for their son/daughter to miss biology class so they won't have 'evolution forced upon them.' Noone forces it on them. If they'd even sit in on a lesson then they'd understand it's taught AS A THEORY. Instead they'd prefer their child to have creationism forced upon them. That way they feel less insecure and worried about whether they will 'do a good job as a parent' by bringing up their child 'the right way.'
Even if evolution were taught as fact, it only affects a child from 12-15 really. At that point children tend to get what we 'grown-up' folk like to call 'brains.' These are devices which most parents tend not to accredit their children with, which are responsible for autonomy, decision making, initiative, and common sense. As long as the child isn't brainwashed like they are in SOME christian schools, which they most certainly aren't in public schools (purely because noone takes their teachers that seriously anyway , they are more than capable of making their own decisions once properly informed in their teens. I don't share almost any belief with my parents, nor with my teachers, and the former DID try to brainwash me into it, so ya-boo-sucks to you!
Originally posted by Khuzarrz My school (I would say the UK, but half of the schools here are sh*t) has the only sensible solution for this issue. Evolution is a THEORY. Creationism is a THEORY. That's all there is to it. Evolution is based on testable evidence, it's a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. Creationism is based on tradition/teaching/belief, it's a RELIGIOUS THEORY.
No, Evolution is a theory, Creationism is only a suggestion with absolutely no facts or testable statements behind it.
Characteristics of a scientific theory (from wikipedia.com):
The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions about things not yet observed. The relevance, and specificity of those predictions determine how (potentially) useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no predictions that can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions which are not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term 'theory' is inapplicable.
In practice a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis. That is, it:
is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense, and
is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.
Additionally, a theory is generally only taken seriously if it:
is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting certainty, and
is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing the Ockham's razor test.
Theories do not have to be perfectly accurate to be scientifically useful. The predictions made by Classical mechanics are known to be inaccurate, but they are sufficiently good approximations in most circumstances that they are still very useful and widely used in place of more accurate but mathematically difficult theories.
Sometimes it happens that two theories are found to make exactly the same predictions. In this case, they are indistinguishable, and the choice between them reduces to which is the more convenient.
Karl Popper described the characteristics of a scientific theory as follows:
It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory if we look for confirmations.
Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory an event which would have refuted the theory.
Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.")
Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later describe such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.").
One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.
The difference between science and unscientific nonsense was well caught in Wolfgang Pauli's famous comment on a paper he was shown: "This isn't right. It's not even wrong."
Creationism has no place in the schools, because it has absolutely no factual evidence behind it, only religious spew. If it is in a private school, fine, I have no quarry with that, but for it to be taught in public schools is bullsh*t.
(BTW, I agreed with the rest of your post, this was mostly aimed at other members.)
Wow, you just proved that creationism isn't a scientific theory! Unfortunately, my article-spewing friend, the person you quoted made no such assertion. See, when we combine our sense of sight with our mental ability to comprehend what we read, then we can actually make rational responses to whatever it is we disagree with. You didn't do this, so I'll be happy to explain to you what you obviously didn't get. See, what Khuzarrz suggested isn't that Creationism is a scientific theory, but a RELIGIOUS one, and therefore it has every right to be taught in theology classes. All those requirements you so gleefully posted for scientific theories, don't apply to religious ones, so I'm afraid your entire post in pretty irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Now, I'll agree with you that Creationism shouldn't be taught in science classes, simply because it's a thinnly-vieled attempt to bring religion into a classroom, with very questionable scientific "evidence". I however see no reason that Creationism shouldn't be taught alongside other world religions in *gasp* classes based on religions! But I guess general knowledge about the world around us, is such a horrible thing to possess nowadays, huh?
Originally posted by ConverseSC Wow, you just proved that creationism isn't a scientific theory! Unfortunately, my article-spewing friend, the person you quoted made no such assertion. See, when we combine our sense of sight with our mental ability to comprehend what we read, then we can actually make rational responses to whatever it is we disagree with. You didn't do this, so I'll be happy to explain to you what you obviously didn't get. See, what Khuzarrz suggested isn't that Creationism is a scientific theory, but a RELIGIOUS one, and therefore it has every right to be taught in theology classes. All those requirements you so gleefully posted for scientific theories, don't apply to religious ones, so I'm afraid your entire post in pretty irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Now, I'll agree with you that Creationism shouldn't be taught in science classes, simply because it's a thinnly-vieled attempt to bring religion into a classroom, with very questionable scientific "evidence". I however see no reason that Creationism shouldn't be taught alongside other world religions in *gasp* classes based on religions! But I guess general knowledge about the world around us, is such a horrible thing to possess nowadays, huh?
"Creationism has no place in the schools, because it has absolutely no factual evidence behind it, only religious spew. If it is in a private school, fine, I have no quarry with that, but for it to be taught in public schools is bullsh*t."
Originally posted by ConverseSC Wow, you just proved that creationism isn't a scientific theory! Unfortunately, my article-spewing friend, the person you quoted made no such assertion. See, when we combine our sense of sight with our mental ability to comprehend what we read, then we can actually make rational responses to whatever it is we disagree with. You didn't do this, so I'll be happy to explain to you what you obviously didn't get. See, what Khuzarrz suggested isn't that Creationism is a scientific theory, but a RELIGIOUS one, and therefore it has every right to be taught in theology classes. All those requirements you so gleefully posted for scientific theories, don't apply to religious ones, so I'm afraid your entire post in pretty irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Now, I'll agree with you that Creationism shouldn't be taught in science classes, simply because it's a thinnly-vieled attempt to bring religion into a classroom, with very questionable scientific "evidence". I however see no reason that Creationism shouldn't be taught alongside other world religions in *gasp* classes based on religions! But I guess general knowledge about the world around us, is such a horrible thing to possess nowadays, huh?
"Creationism has no place in the schools, because it has absolutely no factual evidence behind it, only religious spew. If it is in a private school, fine, I have no quarry with that, but for it to be taught in public schools is bullsh*t."
^^Read it. It was at the bottom of my post.
Thank you for being retarded.
Many public schools offer courses on religion...so you are saying that creationism shouldn't even be taught in religion classes? I'm sorry but that makes no sense...considering it's a basic principal of at least two major religions.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by Xexima Originally posted by ConverseSC Wow, you just proved that creationism isn't a scientific theory! Unfortunately, my article-spewing friend, the person you quoted made no such assertion. See, when we combine our sense of sight with our mental ability to comprehend what we read, then we can actually make rational responses to whatever it is we disagree with. You didn't do this, so I'll be happy to explain to you what you obviously didn't get. See, what Khuzarrz suggested isn't that Creationism is a scientific theory, but a RELIGIOUS one, and therefore it has every right to be taught in theology classes. All those requirements you so gleefully posted for scientific theories, don't apply to religious ones, so I'm afraid your entire post in pretty irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Now, I'll agree with you that Creationism shouldn't be taught in science classes, simply because it's a thinnly-vieled attempt to bring religion into a classroom, with very questionable scientific "evidence". I however see no reason that Creationism shouldn't be taught alongside other world religions in *gasp* classes based on religions! But I guess general knowledge about the world around us, is such a horrible thing to possess nowadays, huh?
"Creationism has no place in the schools, because it has absolutely no factual evidence behind it, only religious spew. If it is in a private school, fine, I have no quarry with that, but for it to be taught in public schools is bullsh*t."
^^Read it. It was at the bottom of my post.
Thank you for being retarded. Dude, seriously. What is wrong with you?
Can you honestly not read, or are you simply unwilling to admit that you're wrong?
I directly addressed your silly notion, and yet your only response is childish name-calling? That's nothing but a sure sign that you can't think of a response, and I'd hoped you'd have the intelligence, civility, and tact to simply bow out before resorting to such such silly tactics. Ah well, guess I expected too much from you. Wouldn't be the first time.
Guess, I'll just repeat myself, just because I like being right.
"Creationism has no place in the schools, because it has absolutely no factual evidence behind it, only religious spew."
Wrong. I'm not saying that Creationism should be taught in a classes based on "factual evidence", such as science courses. There are those pushing intelligence design as a science, but I'm not talking about that nonsense. I'm saying it should be taught in classes based on researching and studying religions, such as theology and philosophy classes. Seriously, how hard is this to understand?
Actually, creationism should be taught mostly in private Christian schools. If it is a public school, then God comes into play. If it is a Christian School then it would be ok. They can teach both. Public schools might cause an issue with some people.
Ok, apparently we have misunderstood each other. What I was talking about was teaching creationism next to evolution as an equivilant theory. Then I went on to say how creationism wasn't a theory. That's why I cut out the rest of khuzarrz's post, just to single out the theory portion. I never had any beef with teaching it in theology class (which I've never actually seen in a public school). In theology classes you can't not teach creationism as a belief, that would be utterly retarded.
I guess I apologize for using an ad hominem argument in something that was never an argument to begin with...
Originally posted by Xexima Ok, apparently we have misunderstood each other. What I was talking about was teaching creationism next to evolution as an equivilant theory. Then I went on to say how creationism wasn't a theory. That's why I cut out the rest of khuzarrz's post, just to single out the theory portion. I never had any beef with teaching it in theology class (which I've never actually seen in a public school). In theology classes you can't not teach creationism as a belief, that would be utterly retarded.
I guess I apologize for using an ad hominem argument in something that was never an argument to begin with...
Creatism: This teaching includes the statement that the entire universe was created relatively recently, i.e less than 10,000 years ago. This statement contradicts results of astronomical research during the past two centuries indicating that some stars now visible to us were in existence millions or billions of years ago, as well as the results of radiometric dating indicating that the age of the earth is about 4 1/2 billion years.
Evolution: Evolution is a valid scientific theory for the origin of species that has been repeatedly tested and verified through observation, formulation of testable statements to explain those observations, and controlled experiments or additional observations to find out whether these ideas are right or wrong. A scientific theory is not speculation or a guess -- scientific theories are unifying concepts that explain the physical universe.
How do you teens decide what is correct? Help an old dog here.
thx all
When i was in School i was neither taught Evolution or Creationism. some of our biology classes hinted to evolution but it wasn't specifically taught. I was raised believing in creationism although its a little different than the one you described in your post. You can believe in creationism and believe that the universe is billions years old. actually 6,000 years has only passed since adam. the Creation written of in Genesis is actually the "Recreation" of the earth. I can go very deep and explain it in detail, send me a PM if your interested. Evolution has never been proven, and in fact remains a theory. the difference between creationism and evolution is one is based on faith and the other on science. me personally i don't think we evolved, in fact i don't understand how people believe it. The human body is the most sophisticated peice of technology/biology imo the world will ever see. for example computers/structures/mechanical assemblies etc, don't come near the complexity of the human body and the universe. the brain is the most sophisticated computer ever, and most likely ever will be. the point i'm trying to make is we see objects that are made by our hands and wouldn't give a thought that the complexity of those objects weren't created, but the moment we question our existence we put it all in the hand of fate and out of the hand of a creator. I look at the function of my senses the thoughts and desires,emotions,morals, spiritual aspirations and say there's more to life than evolution, We were created after the image of god, in his likeness to commune with him and fellowship with him on his level. But here's a thought, maybe neither of them should be taught in school and let the students figure it out for themselves, i mean was anyone really here to witness the birth of the universe? so all in all, its either in the hands of faith or assumptions of science....
Originally posted by Soejckdswg Creatism: This teaching includes the statement that the entire universe was created relatively recently, i.e less than 10,000 years ago. This statement contradicts results of astronomical research during the past two centuries indicating that some stars now visible to us were in existence millions or billions of years ago, as well as the results of radiometric dating indicating that the age of the earth is about 4 1/2 billion years. Evolution: Evolution is a valid scientific theory for the origin of species that has been repeatedly tested and verified through observation, formulation of testable statements to explain those observations, and controlled experiments or additional observations to find out whether these ideas are right or wrong. A scientific theory is not speculation or a guess -- scientific theories are unifying concepts that explain the physical universe. How do you teens decide what is correct? Help an old dog here. thx all
I had never thought about that...I went to look up some answers, most of which seemed a bit outlandish, claiming that perhaps the speed of light was sped up during creation week...and mostly things of that nature. The most compelling argument(in my opinion) for creationism was that the Stars were created prior to Earth...and that the light had already reached Earth by the time it was made. The problem with this is that there is a particular passage in the Bible that says that "god created heaven and Earth in 6 days" Exodus 20: 9-11(I think that's the correct chapter/verse) This is open to interpretation as to whether it means "the heavens" or heaven itself...it reads literally "created heaven" so I would probably go with the theory that God created the universe and all of the stars prior to making the Earth...maybe he got bored with his lifeless planets? I dunno
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Comments
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08
Because given what I do know about evolution, and given what I do know about the Bible, I prefer to take my chances with a creator...To understand fully you would need the detailed history of my religious past...and I don't feel like writing a book at this time...But I'll give you a brief overview, as well as some key facts that were involved in my turning away from Evolutionary theory.
I was agnostic from the time I was a sophomore in High School until less than a year ago...I believed in evolution and thought that the Bible was a fictional tale created by the government at the time in an effort to control the populace...That was until I begun to learn about what exactly evolutionary theory is, up until that point, I had taken everything that I had heard in my science class at face value, that evolution was indeed fact and that nobody in the actual science community disputed this.
Then towards the end of my Freshman year of college, I decided to actually go out and get an education. My parents kept telling me goofy things like that the global flood was real, and that the world is only about ten thousand years old....I laughed at them at first, and then I realized something, I was laughing because it had been so engrained into my head that evolution is fact, and that we KNOW that the world is billions of years old...From that point, I decided that I was very emphatically unsure about everything. So I did what many people like to do when they have no clue about a particular area of study that they are interested in...I went out and gathered my facts.
What I found was that evolution isn't fact, as it is taught in school, that Charles Darwin was a complete nut job, and that evolution has no more science in it than Creationism does. Argue all that you want, evolution has so many holes that it is an absolute wonder that it is such a widely accepted theory...and an even bigger wonder why so many Christians would decide that they believe in God, and Jesus, but that the whole book of Genesis and most of the old testament is nothing but a lie.
Evolution has many glaring holes, I have already posted the Grand Canyon falacy, the Mount Saint Hellens Eruption "mini grand canyon" and the FACT that no organism has ever been observed to add information into its DNA, which is a necessary component of evolution. I could go on and on, but it will change the minds of very few...and that is sad to me, it is sad to me that a theory like evolution, a theory with NO true observable science, is taught in schools, and that Christian youth is forced to believe it, or risk being ostracized by their peers.
Now, what about adaptation? Surely adaptation is an example of evolution at work.
Wrong, adaptation occurs when an animal has an existing strand of their DNA kick in and change the animal so that it can survive, no information is added to the DNA, it is simply brought out and becomes more prominent.
Proponents of evolution will argue that their beliefs are supported by modern science, dating techniques, and that belief in anything else is simply preposterous. I urge those of you who are thinking about hitting that reply button and telling me that I am wrong to go out and become educated about your beliefs...I refused to begin calling myself a Christian until I could believe the Bible. If you are going to believe in evolution, then you need to educate yourself on its flaws, its inconsistancies, and its fallacies. Does the bible have any of these? The inconsistancies in the Bible are few and far between...a common montra is that the Bible is full of holes. Of course a book that was written two thousand years ago is going to have a few holes in it...but if you are going to actually say "well the Bible has holes" at least do your part, and find out what those holes are, find out what it says in the origional hebrew, and THEN make the judgement on whether or not it is a hole, or simply something that was lost in translation. It is extremely easy to take things at face value, because it is what we want to believe. We hear that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, which coincides with the belief that the Earth is billions of years old, so we believe it...But if you probe deeper, you will quickly find that the age of dinosaurs is often disputed, and not only by the crazy bible thumpers, but also by reputable scientists. You need to understand the basic human tendancy to ask questions until we get the answers we want, the same has occured with evolutionary theory.
You must also take into account the belief of evolutionists that life started from, as Modjoe would put it PRIMORDIALSOUPDIDIT
Okay, Primordial soup...but what exactly does that mean? It means that out of this primordial soup, life emerged, single cell organisms capable of sustaining themselves...Is that a fair enough definition for you? I don't want to argue semantics because it isn't my point. This theory would be fine if it wasn't for the fact that it is impossible to create life where there is none, nobody has ever done it, nobody has even come close to doing it...not to mention that many scientists argue that all life started in water, which is also impossible, because water is the least hospitable environment possible for life to begin, it's a natural solvent, no single cell organism would ever be able to just appear and suddenly be alive, anywhere, in water, primordial soup, or otherwise. Water is not really considered to even be a possibility these days. So I ask you, if science has been unable to spark life out of nothingness when they are trying to do so under optimal conditions, what makes them think that it could happen by chance?? That my friends, is not good science...Good science provides results that you can recreate over and over again, but they can recreate none of their own theories, even under the most optimal conditions.
Some of you more educated people may now be thinking about the Miller experiment.
Background: The Miller experiment was an attempt to create amino acids(building blocks of life...proteins) in a closed environment, resembling what evolutionists believe to be the world's atmosphere at the time. Miller recreated small lightning storms, which were believed to be very common in the Earth's infancy. Miller was successfull in creating a 50-50 ratio of left handed and right handed amino acids. GREAT! He created life!...Hardly. All living organisms have left handed amino acids, and zero right handed amino acids, when something dies, the left handed amino acids slowly turn into right handed amino acids until a balance is reached. What Miller created was not the beginnings of life, but death. If that is proof of evolution to you, then so be it, but to me, it simply proves that man is better at killing than creating.
I could go on for pages and pages about this stuff, I really could...but I doubt that very many people are even going to read something this long, but you wanted an explanation as to how I came to the conclusions that I did, and how I consider a source credible when it isn't backed up by a majority. The thing about it is that evolution has become such a main stream belief that it is difficult, but not impossible to dig up information to disprove it.
Man I was tempted to get into UFO's and outer space stuff, but I didn't...you're welcome
I look forward to intelligent conversation about this...I will not respond to any kind of "dude you're stupid because evolution is fact and well you're just dumb" posts...I deal with enough of that kind of thing for my beliefs when I'm face to face with people, I'm not going to waste my time typing back to someone who believes blindly and refused to accept that I just will not.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
You say that evolution was taught as 'fact'? This strikes me as interesting, because in my high school, biology class wasn't about finding the origins of mankind or the world; it was about classifying and structuring the diverse species on Earth into a system that could worked with.
So, actually, if your idea about evolution deals with contesting the origin of man - well, belief is belief. You choose to support it with what science (I'm still researching this, if its really sound science) you believe in. Science was never meant to interact with belief, but to use senses and tools to draw greater conclusions about the world.
As for interpreting the Bible: I'm not Christian, and I don't seek to maliciously poke holes in your faith, but I can give you a good run for your money someday in some other thread (but not here, really).
There's a lot in your post to respond and reflect about, but I'll just pick what interested me most and leave the rest to other posters. You mentioned, "So I ask you, if science has been unable to spark life out of nothingness when they are trying to do so under optimal conditions, what makes them think that it could happen by chance??" The phrase, "by chance" particularly bothers me. Do you acknowledge that there are billions of planets out there in the universe? It is not strange that at least on one planet there exists sentient life. Perhaps the discovery of life on other planets would show some more meaning to this phrase, 'by chance'.
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08
I don't deny the existance of billions of planets...what I was trying to get across is that if humans, while making a concerted effort to do so, cannot make something happen that they claim happened without any sort of outside influence, and happened simply by chance and accident...what makes them so sure?
I use the words chance and accident without malicious intent, it is simply what evolution implies, is that life started by chance...I understand that there are religions that teach that evolution was sparked by whatever God they believe in, and that the first beings were in fact created by God...my coment on this aspect of evolution is strictly for the evolutionary purists.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
In my opinion both theories are right in some parts and should be taught at school, but not separately from each other.
I believe that at first was creationism and after was evolution. The only problem is that many people say "God did it" while others say luck did it. So evolutionists deny god(s) while Creationism denies evolution.
Evolution theory is right about the colors and the eyes of humen and about the wings of the butterflies but it does not prove why and how human brain evoluted in a way that for many intelligent people is impossible without external interference of a "beeing" or a factor, that took human out of the organic "soup" and made him feel curiosity and imagination. If you call this factor luck then it is possible that if you put a pig together with wheat in a billion years you might have a hot dog. But i can't wait that long to eat it...
Creationism is mostly symbolic and it does not answer the question of why if god(s) created everything as it is now there has been some billions of years of unspoken exelixis by the church and it's followers, so why God needed evolution since He is powerful? I don't know and i can't get an answer from Creationism theory.
It is obvious that if you put these conflicting philosophies appart you get unresonableness, but if you combine them together, you might reach a point where maybe a true theory will arise since in universe there are is not true of false or right or wrong.
It is our duty to teach younger people everything that we know even we don't believe in it since ignorance of opposite ideas leads to idiocy and hate.
"What should be taught in our schools?"
I think everything but not with the words: right or wrong.
I'm not sure if this proves anything but:
Take a look at the way a new human being is created... I heard someone say "Noone proves we descend form something, something, unicelular beings".... Now tell me, what is the "making" of a new human being(or any other animal for the matter) more than the "evolution" from a unicelular "being" to a fully operational, complex human being? I mean... at first it's just one cell.... Than it starts dividing, and dividing, and dividing... then these cells start assuming different roles... some will make your bones, others your internal organs.... In the end you have a unicelular being turned a complex human being..... If this happens, than why is it so hard that at first there were only simple beings, that started evolving into other more complex beings? If you're born from a single cell that keeps evolving, than why is it so hard to believe that you descend from ancient unicelular being that keps evolving with time?
I would like someone to answer me..
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Played- Runescape, Conquer
Tested- EQ, RYL, Freeworld
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
My school (I would say the UK, but half of the schools here are sh*t) has the only sensible solution for this issue.
Evolution is a THEORY. Creationism is a THEORY. That's all there is to it. Evolution is based on testable evidence, it's a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. Creationism is based on tradition/teaching/belief, it's a RELIGIOUS THEORY. It naturally follows that evolution be taught (AS A THEORY) in Biology, and creationism be taught (AS A THEORY) in Religious Studies/Religion/Philosophy and Beliefs (or whatever they're calling it this week). I can't see how anyone can possible ask for anything else :S
It really pisses me off when all of the 'concerned parents' come on the air saying about how they've got special permission for their son/daughter to miss biology class so they won't have 'evolution forced upon them.' Noone forces it on them. If they'd even sit in on a lesson then they'd understand it's taught AS A THEORY. Instead they'd prefer their child to have creationism forced upon them. That way they feel less insecure and worried about whether they will 'do a good job as a parent' by bringing up their child 'the right way.'
Even if evolution were taught as fact, it only affects a child from 12-15 really. At that point children tend to get what we 'grown-up' folk like to call 'brains.' These are devices which most parents tend not to accredit their children with, which are responsible for autonomy, decision making, initiative, and common sense. As long as the child isn't brainwashed like they are in SOME christian schools, which they most certainly aren't in public schools (purely because noone takes their teachers that seriously anyway
, they are more than capable of making their own decisions once properly informed in their teens. I don't share almost any belief with my parents, nor with my teachers, and the former DID try to brainwash me into it, so ya-boo-sucks to you!
</rant>
QFT.
Give this man the whole f*cking cookie jar!
Characteristics of a scientific theory (from wikipedia.com):
The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions
about things not yet observed. The relevance, and specificity of those
predictions determine how (potentially) useful the theory is. A
would-be theory that makes no predictions that can be observed is not a
useful theory. Predictions which are not sufficiently specific to be
tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term 'theory' is
inapplicable.
In practice a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis. That is, it:
pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often
show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense, and
foundation, ensuring that it is probably a good approximation, if not
totally correct.
Additionally, a theory is generally only taken seriously if it:
be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting certainty, and
This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, evolution, etc. Theories considered scientific meet at least most, but ideally all, of these extra criteria.
Theories do not have to be perfectly accurate to be scientifically useful. The predictions made by Classical mechanics
are known to be inaccurate, but they are sufficiently good
approximations in most circumstances that they are still very useful
and widely used in place of more accurate but mathematically difficult
theories.
Sometimes it happens that two theories are found to make exactly the
same predictions. In this case, they are indistinguishable, and the
choice between them reduces to which is the more convenient.
Karl Popper described the characteristics of a scientific theory as follows:
The difference between science and unscientific nonsense was well caught in Wolfgang Pauli's famous comment on a paper he was shown: "This isn't right. It's not even wrong."
Another argument that creationism is not a theory...Creationism has no place in the schools, because it has absolutely no factual evidence behind it, only religious spew. If it is in a private school, fine, I have no quarry with that, but for it to be taught in public schools is bullsh*t.
(BTW, I agreed with the rest of your post, this was mostly aimed at other members.)
Wow, you just proved that creationism isn't a scientific theory! Unfortunately, my article-spewing friend, the person you quoted made no such assertion. See, when we combine our sense of sight with our mental ability to comprehend what we read, then we can actually make rational responses to whatever it is we disagree with. You didn't do this, so I'll be happy to explain to you what you obviously didn't get. See, what Khuzarrz suggested isn't that Creationism is a scientific theory, but a RELIGIOUS one, and therefore it has every right to be taught in theology classes. All those requirements you so gleefully posted for scientific theories, don't apply to religious ones, so I'm afraid your entire post in pretty irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Now, I'll agree with you that Creationism shouldn't be taught in science classes, simply because it's a thinnly-vieled attempt to bring religion into a classroom, with very questionable scientific "evidence". I however see no reason that Creationism shouldn't be taught alongside other world religions in *gasp* classes based on religions! But I guess general knowledge about the world around us, is such a horrible thing to possess nowadays, huh?
factual evidence behind it, only religious spew. If it is in a private
school, fine, I have no quarry with that, but for it to be taught in
public schools is bullsh*t."
^^Read it. It was at the bottom of my post.
Thank you for being retarded.
^^Read it. It was at the bottom of my post.
Thank you for being retarded.
Many public schools offer courses on religion...so you are saying that creationism shouldn't even be taught in religion classes? I'm sorry but that makes no sense...considering it's a basic principal of at least two major religions.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
^^Read it. It was at the bottom of my post.
Thank you for being retarded.
Dude, seriously. What is wrong with you?
Can you honestly not read, or are you simply unwilling to admit that you're wrong?
I directly addressed your silly notion, and yet your only response is childish name-calling? That's nothing but a sure sign that you can't think of a response, and I'd hoped you'd have the intelligence, civility, and tact to simply bow out before resorting to such such silly tactics. Ah well, guess I expected too much from you. Wouldn't be the first time.
Guess, I'll just repeat myself, just because I like being right.
"Creationism has no place in the schools, because it has absolutely no factual evidence behind it, only religious spew."
Wrong. I'm not saying that Creationism should be taught in a classes based on "factual evidence", such as science courses. There are those pushing intelligence design as a science, but I'm not talking about that nonsense. I'm saying it should be taught in classes based on researching and studying religions, such as theology and philosophy classes. Seriously, how hard is this to understand?
schools. If it is a public school, then God comes into play. If
it is a Christian School then it would be ok. They can teach
both. Public schools might cause an issue with some people.
I guess I apologize for using an ad hominem argument in something that was never an argument to begin with...
I was having so much fun arguing too.
Creatism: This teaching includes the statement that the entire universe was created relatively recently, i.e less than 10,000 years ago. This statement contradicts results of astronomical research during the past two centuries indicating that some stars now visible to us were in existence millions or billions of years ago, as well as the results of radiometric dating indicating that the age of the earth is about 4 1/2 billion years.
Evolution: Evolution is a valid scientific theory for the origin of species that has been repeatedly tested and verified through observation, formulation of testable statements to explain those observations, and controlled experiments or additional observations to find out whether these ideas are right or wrong. A scientific theory is not speculation or a guess -- scientific theories are unifying concepts that explain the physical universe.
How do you teens decide what is correct? Help an old dog here.
thx all
When i was in School i was neither taught Evolution or Creationism. some of our biology classes hinted to evolution but it wasn't specifically taught. I was raised believing in creationism although its a little different than the one you described in your post. You can believe in creationism and believe that the universe is billions years old. actually 6,000 years has only passed since adam. the Creation written of in Genesis is actually the "Recreation" of the earth. I can go very deep and explain it in detail, send me a PM if your interested. Evolution has never been proven, and in fact remains a theory. the difference between creationism and evolution is one is based on faith and the other on science. me personally i don't think we evolved, in fact i don't understand how people believe it. The human body is the most sophisticated peice of technology/biology imo the world will ever see. for example computers/structures/mechanical assemblies etc, don't come near the complexity of the human body and the universe. the brain is the most sophisticated computer ever, and most likely ever will be. the point i'm trying to make is we see objects that are made by our hands and wouldn't give a thought that the complexity of those objects weren't created, but the moment we question our existence we put it all in the hand of fate and out of the hand of a creator. I look at the function of my senses the thoughts and desires,emotions,morals, spiritual aspirations and say there's more to life than evolution, We were created after the image of god, in his likeness to commune with him and fellowship with him on his level. But here's a thought, maybe neither of them should be taught in school and let the students figure it out for themselves, i mean was anyone really here to witness the birth of the universe? so all in all, its either in the hands of faith or assumptions of science....
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.