PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Evolution in Schools
       Same as Forced Religion?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I've just completed my first year of High School (I'll be a sophomore this fall), and its been one of the most stressful years of my life. I'm like most other kids of my age--I'm uncertain. Let me tell you that it certainly doesn't help to have Science teachers cramming evolution down your throat. It bothers me to see the infamous posters of primitive apes evolving into modern-day man. However, the odd thing is that despite the Bible's accuracy in prophecies, it's dismissed as inconclusive evidence. Yet, when scientists uncover skulls that even remotely resemble the top portion of the modern-day man's skull, this is automatically assumed to be proven evidence. Still, we can't see the processes of evolution going to work. I believe that there's a missing link in the fine lines between being man and ape. Why are our Public Schools able to cram evolution down kids' throats, but why can't we have the right to study the Koran or Bible in our schools? We can't live on 'you evolved from an ape, the grave is the end.' I despise going to school because of all of the completely hopeless, directionless kids who think it's all right to carry guns into school, who think it's all right to pollute their bodies with drugs, and with kids who see nothing wrong with grotesquely disrespecting, even physically hurting their mentors and themselves. After all, what cost is it if they have nothing to gain or lose, in accordance to what our schools are teaching us? What about separation of Church and State? If we can't have Christianity, we shouldn't have 'humanism,' or rather, effective athiesm, in our schools either.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:53 AM on June 14, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

Evolution is "crammed" down your throats in science class because it is the only theory that explains the diversity of life on Earth.  Creationism was desively disproven over 200 years ago so it should not be taught as science.
I don't know why it bothers you that we evolved from more primitive ancestors, that's reality, learn to live with it.
Science by definition can say nothing about the supernatural, it neither confirms nor denies God.  The Theory of Evolution does not deny the existance of God, and since the majority of christians accept evolution, young earth creationism is rightly looked on as the lunatic fringe.
As to biblical prophecy, like any good fortune telling scam they are so vague and general they can prove anything while actually saying nothing.
The Theory of Evolution, on the other hand, is one of the strongest theories in science.  The empirical evidence supporting it is overwhelming.  That all life evolved from a common ancestor is not even debated anymore, only the poor, hopelessly out of touch with reality fundamental creationists rail against it.
But hey, you're young, hopefully you'll learn that accepting the reality of evolution doesn't mean rejecting God.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:18 AM on June 14, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

Am I the only person to be suspicious of the validity of the first posters claims?


 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 1:04 PM on June 15, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

However, the odd thing is that despite the Bible's accuracy in prophecies, it's dismissed as inconclusive evidence[/i]

you need to sit down and have a conversation with a jew. they will not only tell you that jesus (who was a jew) didn't fufil the proficy but that he was a profet much the same as mohomid (which spawned of jewdism much like christianity or momonism which spawned from christianity which also sub divided into prodstant and chatolic among others). but if both the muslems and the christians say they are right then the people who would know about it would be the jews who say they are both wrong and going to hell for worshiping false idols. religion evolves... lol
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:46 PM on June 28, 2003 | IP
Meatros

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
0

Rate this post:

Quote from Void at 1:04 PM on June 15, 2003 :
Am I the only person to be suspicious of the validity of the first posters claims?





Not at all!  After all, we all know that plants can live without the sun and that locus have four legs.

Why would you question the accuracy?

 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 08:20 AM on July 15, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

If we can't have Christianity, we shouldn't have 'humanism,' or rather, effective athiesm, in our schools either.


Yea I agree. Lets throw out Religion and athiesm...
We should all worship our own personal Gods...(mine is secretly gay)..


 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 4:43 PM on July 18, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

It seems to me that the first post comes from someone quite intelligent and enlightened. Evolution is, without a doubt, mankinds biggest lie. There is no basis for it and Darwin himself says at the end of his book that he could not find fossil records of what supposedly lies between the so called evolution. And there is abundant evidence of sudden appearances of species. How do we explain this? And carbon dating is not accurate at all. If you carbon dated an animal that is alive now it would show that that animal, which chances are is looking at you perform the test, is thousands of years old. I for one protest evolution being taught in our schools. I would like my children to learn FACTS not ideas.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:53 PM on August 25, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So how is the bible's creationism any more fact then evolution??  As far as I'm concerned they are both theories.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:50 PM on August 26, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Bible is documented events that were recorded as they happened. Take a looka t an evolution chart. You will se a huge blank space of the creatures that are unaccounted for. It's simply a theory to disprove the existence of God so people can feel better about the indescretions of their lives. They think there is no price to pay to do whatever they want. But there is a huge price to pay. And unfortunately people die everyday realizing that fact, but too late. I pray that each one of you that do not believe in God find Him before you die. :-)
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 09:14 AM on August 27, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thats a load of rubbish.

1) Most people who accept evolution, believe in God, so your argument there is without substance.

2) Darwin wrote his book 150 years ago, a lot more fossil evidence now exists. But lets see you prove there is a "huge blank space" in the evolutionary tree. Go on show us some links to back up your claim.

3) Lots of books "document" things. UFO enthusiasts claim alien abductions have been witnessed and documented, so are we to believe them too?
And the Bible didn't document events as they happened. Did Adam write Genesis? No.
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 3:52 PM on August 27, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In addition, science makes no claims about morality or acceptable conduct among humans. it's only desire is to explain the natural universe. Evolution itself in no way makes ANY claims about what is good and evil, and how people should live their lives.

Anyone who tries to infer moral guidelines from evolution is interpreting evolution in a way it was not intended to be interpreted (much like violent religious fanatics).

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:06 PM on August 27, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am of Muscogee descent (Creek Indian is what the europeans and early Americans called us)  and I find this debate most interesting and the beliefs carried by many on this board to be disturbing and very narrow minded.

Lets put evolution aside for a moment and talk about religion in public schools.    My two young children go to public school and are not christians.     I would find it very offensive for my children to be taught another religion's version of creation and not our own.    I am sure you, as a christian, would not like for teachers to teach your children the Muscogee version of creation as well.   This, in itself, is a good reason to keep religions out of schools.

Secondly,   My Nation had a thriving Religion and Culture long before the man named Jesus Christ was even born.    If my  children were taught christian creationism and incorporated that into their beliefs then they would have to forego many thousands of years of their culture and ancestors just to make things fit within their christian creationist's beliefs.  Especially if you held to the view that the earth is only 5000 to 6000 years old.   My ancestors and the precursors to my culture have been around for at least 10,000 years and most likely long before that.

Thirdly,  if the christian bible is to be taken literally, then my people and my Nation would have been wiped out by the great flood.    The Muscogee and many other Native North American tribes would be absent and extinct when the first Europeans arrived on this continent.




 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:13 AM on October 28, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am 15 years old and a Freshman in high school. It really scares me that next year I'm going to have to take Biology and learn about evolution. I'm a Christian and a teenager. I am at a very vulnerable age. There are so many things out there that try to make you see Christianity as some kind of big joke. I don't want to doubt my God. I don't think that it is at all fair that we are being led to believe that evolution is true. We are being fed it, and we're just supposed to accept it as a fact of life. In all reality, there isn't much in science that can be proven. And certainly not evolution. It's a theory. If teaching religion is unconstitutional, then why isn't teaching evolution. It's the same. It's just a godless religion. People may claim to be Christians and still believe in evolution, but they obviously don't know what they're talking about. The Bible plainly states that God created man in the beginning and that he created all animals to produce more of their own. Not that he created monkeys who produced man. This is America; we are given so many freedoms. I have to freedom to believe whatever I wish to. So why are schools trying to tell me that what I believe is wrong? Tell me that isn't unconstitutional. I may be only 15, but I will see to it that one day my children will have the freedom to go to a public school and not have evolution drilled into their minds. They will again be free to have their own thoughts. Because that's what this country is all about.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:43 PM on January 24, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There are so many things out there that try to make you see Christianity as some kind of big joke
Oh please, of all the major religions in america christianity is the least persecuted. Christianity has a large number of representatives in government positions, just look at judge ray moore for an example of this.
And for minority religions its even worse. Just look at the ridicule the raelians get whenever they are mentioned on tv.

People may claim to be Christians and still believe in evolution, but they obviously don't know what they're talking about
Ahem that isn't very nice and it opens up the field for them to claim that you don't know what you are talking about

The Bible plainly states that God created man in the beginning and that he created all animals to produce more of their own
Many people 100s of years ago also thought the Bible plainly states that the Sun orbits the Earth. They could have used exactly the same arguments you are using. They could have claimed "its a godless religion" or "its not fair to teach it because we don't think its true". Clearly though even you must admit all their arguments against a sun centred solar system turned out to be wrong. You cannot miss the clear parallels between evolution and galileo

So why are schools trying to tell me that what I believe is wrong? Tell me that isn't unconstitutional
It isn't unconstitutional. If we stopped teaching science whenever a religious group didn't believe in it then there would be nothing left to teach.
If a religious group believed gravity was caused by invisible angels, would it then become unconsituational to teach the scientific version of gravity in schools?

You are looking at this issue as either promoting evolution in schools or promoting christianity. But you are not taking into consideration all the other relgions. If christian creationism gets into science classes then soon after so will islamic creationism, raelian creationism, buddhist creationism and kids will be *more* confused. They will get dozens of creation stories from all angles and each will claim to have "scientific proof" and I dont doubt kids intelligence. I think they might smell a rat and begin to doubt all the religious "science".  In fact you might find they start to doubt religion in general. Have you considered that?



(Edited by Void 1/25/2004 at 1:03 PM).
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 12:48 PM on January 25, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Guest at 3:43 PM on January 24, 2004 :I am 15 years old and a Freshman in high school. It really scares me that next year I'm going to have to take Biology and learn about evolution. I'm a Christian and a teenager. I am at a very vulnerable age. There are so many things out there that try to make you see Christianity as some kind of big joke. I don't want to doubt my God. I don't think that it is at all fair that we are being led to believe that evolution is true.


Evolution does not disprove God, there is no reason to relate the two actually.  So don't be scared and enjoy learning.

Quote from Guest at 3:43 PM on January 24, 2004 :We are being fed it, and we're just supposed to accept it as a fact of life.


Well, it *is* a fact of life.  If you doubt you can look at the evidence yourself.  That's the great thing about science.

Quote from Guest at 3:43 PM on January 24, 2004 :In all reality, there isn't much in science that can be proven. And certainly not evolution. It's a theory.


You are only 15, so my advice is to stay in school.  They should teach you a lot of things you apparently don't know about science; things like: The public's definition for 'theory' is different from the way scientists define theory.  

After all, you wouldn't doubt the theory of gravity would you?  Or atomic theory?  

Quote from Guest at 3:43 PM on January 24, 2004 :If teaching religion is unconstitutional, then why isn't teaching evolution. It's the same. It's just a godless religion.


Because evolution is science.  You are young though and you haven't learned anything about evolution, so I can understand why you'd be so ignorant as to assume that it's a religion.  Stay in school and you'll be alright.  

Quote from Guest at 3:43 PM on January 24, 2004 :People may claim to be Christians and still believe in evolution, but they obviously don't know what they're talking about.


You shouldn't judge other people that way-Christianity actually teaches this.  Perhaps you should do a little bible study. ;)

Quote from Guest at 3:43 PM on January 24, 2004 :The Bible plainly states that God created man in the beginning and that he created all animals to produce more of their own.


The bible also has 2 different creation stories; so which one are you going to believe?  In addition, the bible also says that insects have four legs-are you going to believe it OR your own eyes?

Quote from Guest at 3:43 PM on January 24, 2004 :Not that he created monkeys who produced man.


Technically evolution doesn't claim this either.  You really need to get some generally learning done in order to understand the theory.

Quote from Guest at 3:43 PM on January 24, 2004 :This is America; we are given so many freedoms. I have to freedom to believe whatever I wish to. So why are schools trying to tell me that what I believe is wrong?


You can *believe* whatever you wish, but school is for learning facts-not bizarro 'beliefs'.

Incidentally what you apparently believe IS WRONG.  It's also a very (no offense) ignorant viewpoint, and the majority of those who hold the opinion that you have don't have highschool educations.

Lack of education=creationism.

;)

So stay in school

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:18 PM on January 27, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
0

Rate this post:

Evolution, to put it simply, is change through time.  No one denies that change occurs over time.  Even young earth creationists accept that animals diversified since Noah because he clearly could not have put all of the species (living and extinct) onto a single ark.  It is counterintuitive to believe that great diversification and extinction could occur in a few thousand years since Noah, but could not occur if we accept the earth is much older.

Nonetheless, there are some things about science that you should anticipate as you enter high school.  Science is not about bringing a preconception to the table.  In other words, leave your religious beliefs AND your preconceptions about evolution at home when you enter your science classes.

Science is about discovery, not the religious beliefs or concensus opinions of your elders or anyone else.  The scientific method arises from observation, which leads to hypothesis formation, testing, verification or falsification, and corroboration.  The data must speak, even if you do not like what they say.  Unlike Creationism, science does not begin with an assumption that a conclusion is true. For this reason, you will not find Creationism in science class, except to contrast it to science.  

You claim to know that evolution is false.  This "knowledge" is a result of what you have heard from others you respect, but not a result of your own objective search for truth.    How can you claim evolution is false unless you are personally familiar with the mechanisms of genetic drift, polyploidy, geology, biogeography, the physics of light speed, radioactivity, coral biology, and more...as all of these topics hold corroborating evidence of either evolution or an ancient earth.

In any event, you should enter biology class with an open mind, question the data, examine the evidence...and discover for yourself.  Seek experimental data and peer-reviewed journals, avoid non-scientific opinion on either side. If evolution were indeed false, all of the smart young folks like yourself would surely go to work to disprove it.  


If you want, you can find all sorts of anti-evolution and religious web sites that will make you happy in your beliefs, or you can look at the data on both sides.  

Most importantly, the common descent of organsims with modifications over many millions of years does not have to be in conflict with your religious convictions.  The wonderous reality of our evolution should only further your appreciation of the magnitude of the creator.


Good luck

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:45 PM on January 27, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

first of all, christianity is not a religion. It is a personal relationship with the one god who created the universe and everything in it. It is a personal relationship that each and every person needs to devolop, trust and maintain, not a religion. Religions are something that are man made and even in the bible God speaks of how he dislikes religions. if you want to find out about evolution and everything that is wrong with it go to - http://www.drdino.com/

Dr. Kent Hovind was a science teacher for many years in the public school system. If you want to learn the truth, go hear. Keep an open mind. Do not think of being forced into having to believe something, and if you check it out in depth, you too will no longer believe in evolution. Not one thing about evolution makes sence. Ask yourself this question... whens the last time you saw a leg growing out of a tree?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:51 PM on January 29, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"first of all, christianity is not a religion. It is a personal relationship with the one god who created the universe and everything in it. "

You don't seem to understand what religion is....Let's look it up, shall we?

From here:  dictionary

religion

1.   a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

      b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

Hmmm, it looks like your definition of Christianity fits the definition of religion to a "tee".  So yes, Christianity IS a religion.

"Dr. Kent Hovind was a science teacher for many years in the public school system. If you want to learn the truth, go hear. Keep an open mind. Do not think of being forced into having to believe something, and if you check it out in depth, you too will no longer believe in evolution. Not one thing about evolution makes sence. Ask yourself this question... whens the last time you saw a leg growing out of a tree?"

OK, "Dr." Hovind is a boob and a liar.  He's not a real doctor, he doesn't do real science and from reading his website, he doesn't know the first thing about real science!  It's obvious that you don't know the first thing about the theory of evolution, it makes perfect sense.  A leg growing out of a tree?  Please tell me where in the theory of evolution that's supported!  When's the last time you saw God poof anything into existance?  The TOE is the only theory that explains the diversity of life on our planet.  Don't forget, creationism was proven wrong over 200 years ago.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 06:43 AM on January 30, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First of all I said Christianity, which is not a religion. Obviously you havent read, and or perhaps understood your bible.  For how anybody can choose a theory that was written by 1 man in a very short time (keep in mind Darwin himself admitted his theory was nothing but nonsence) compared to a book that was written over a long period of time by many different authors is way beyond my comprehention and I will admit, I may not be that bright, but...  The only reason evolution still exists is because it is a copout for those who do not want to believe that they will be held accountable for there life and the way the live it. I will pray for you.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:16 PM on January 30, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"First of all I said Christianity, which is not a religion"

As a Christian, do you believe in God as the creator of the universe and everything in it?
Then Christianity is a religion.  Do you have a personal relationship with God, a supernatural being?  Then you practice the religion of Christianity.  You can play games with words all you want but what you describe is a religion, plain and simple.

"Obviously you havent read, and or perhaps understood your bible."

No, I've read the Bible cover to cover many times, and it's obvious it's not an accurate book of history or science.

"keep in mind Darwin himself admitted his theory was nothing but nonsence"

This is a lie, Darwin never said the theory of evolution was nonsense.  Please show us where Darwin said this or admit your a liar and retract the statement...

"The only reason evolution still exists is because it is a copout for those who do not want to believe that they will be held accountable for there life and the way the live it. I will pray for you."

Another lie!  Evolution is not a copout, it is the ONLY explaination for the diversity of life on Earth.  There are no other theories.  Creationism was proven wrong over 200 years ago.  For a so called Christian, you have a hard time telling the truth!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:55 AM on January 31, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[color=fuchsia]

Hey guys! i'm currently in a Biology class in my first year of high school. My class is learning about evolution and I completely disagree with it. It's a bunch of bogus if you ask me. I mean what are they talking about we came from apes? So let me get this straight, the gorillas in the zoo are soon going to become a human being? Maybe even a father? Does that make any sence at all? I'm sick of all these atheists. Dont they realize that this life is short? We're all going to die, but obviously that's not going to be the end. What would be the point of coming to this earth in the first place. In my opinion I feel you don't need to have "proof" about the bible. It's FAITH! That's the word that will get you to heaven. Do you agree?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:43 PM on February 3, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

Kent Hovind is a young-earth creationist who gives frequent public lectures on evolution and creationism. He is well-known for repeating the claim that the remains of a basking shark found by Japanese fishermen off the coast of New Zealand were actually those of a recently deceased plesiosaur.  

Hovind claims to possess a masters degree and a doctorate in education from Patriot University in Colorado. According to Hovind, his 250-page dissertation was on the topic of the dangers of teaching evolution in the public schools. Formerly affiliated with Hilltop Baptist Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Patriot University is accredited only by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, an accreditation mill that provides accreditation for a $100 charge. Patriot University has moved to Alamosa, Colorado and continues to offer correspondence courses for $15 to $32 per credit. The school's catalog contains course descriptions but no listing of the school's faculty or their credentials. Name It and Frame It lists Patriot University as a degree mill

Ouch!

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:10 PM on February 3, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We did not come from apes, they are here today.  We evolved from common ancestors. Biogeography, the fossil record, and the molecular clock of recorded genetic changes in our mitochondrial dna (consistent with genetic drift) all provide substantial evidence.


You are correct it does not make sense that an ape could give birth to a human  It does not, because it is completely unrelated to the mechanisms or tenets of evolution and if this is your understanding of evolution, you may have false hopes of proceeding to the next grade level.  


Aethiests are not evolutionists. Being sick of aethists and realizing we are all going to die are simply not arguments of any merit against evolution. Most people who accept evolution as historical reality are in fact religious.  The fact we are going to die is irrelevant.  And, exactly what is obvious about your death not being the end?  Got empirical evidence?

Yes, no proof of the bible is required; hence, it has no place in the science class or in any discussion about the historical reality of evolution supported by far more data than you are remotely aware of at this time.  You are no doubt a smart young man.   Leave your preconceptions at home, it will make you a better scientist.


 I agree that you are welcome to your faith and your belief, but it cannot negate the historical reality of evolution ...just because you have been taught to have a preconception that it is not true.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:23 PM on February 3, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[random] First of all I said Christianity, which is not a religion. Obviously you havent read, and or perhaps understood your bible.  For how anybody can choose a theory that was written by 1 man in a very short time (keep in mind Darwin himself admitted his theory was nothing but nonsence) compared to a book that was written over a long period of time by many different authors is way beyond my comprehention and I will admit, I may not be that bright, but...  The only reason evolution still exists is because it is a copout for those who do not want to believe that they will be held accountable for there life and the way the live it. I will pray for you.
[random]


Forgive me for not figuring out how to properly put the above paragraph in quotations.

The Origin of the Species is a book penned by one man, who along with a few fellows named wallace, lamarck, and others, started to make people think, study, and test ideas...leading to the Theory of Evolution.  Like other creationists before you, you perpetuate a missquote of Darwin as he never thought his writings on the origins of species were foolish.  Even if he did, we have learned much in the past 200 years that is hard for even the most devout creationists to ignore..although I am certain you will try.


A theory, in science, means the generally accepted laws or principles describing observed phenomenon.  Much like the Theory of Newtonian Mechanics or Atomic Chemistry describe chemical and physical phenonmenon. The theory,like all others in science, contains many facts.  The theory of evolution is about natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, translocation, polyploidy etc etc etc.  The fact part....is that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors...as surely as the earth rotates about the sun.

The theory has it basis in thousands of independent studies from every single field of science. It is predictive, verifiable, corroborated, and has not yet been falsified in any way.  All these  factors render it science.  The bible is a story about a preconception we humans have about our origins.  Regardless of how many men helped to write it, there is no emprirical evidence that the earth is 10,000 years old and that organisms were all created in the same week, or of any global flood.


I am a marine ecologist and study growth and depostion of corals.  I can tell you with 100% certainty that the coral record goes back nearly 200,ooo years with no record of a flood.  Corals cannot survive even slight changes in salinity or turbidity or water level change that a flood would create.  

Please feel free to ask me about any of your doubts regarding radiometric dating, genetic change, natrual selection, or any topic related to evolution.

skwanderer  
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:39 PM on February 3, 2004 | IP
alliwantisalife

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First off the story of adam and eve wasn't even written during their time.  Evolution has more evidence of creationism and as a debator i am suprised that you would actually believe in something with no acurate evidence.  I have no idea what school you go to that tells you to believe in something that you don't but mine doesn't.  So could it be possible that the evolved from apes and then reproduced?
 


Posts: 61 | Posted: 10:42 PM on February 7, 2004 | IP
alliwantisalife

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

oh yeah and how I know it wasn't written during their time is because it was written by a guy named genesis not adam.  Also genesis isn't the name of any of their offspring either.
 


Posts: 61 | Posted: 10:50 PM on February 7, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"A guy named Genesis"

Haha LOL.  Nice joke man, that was funny.
 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 11:16 PM on February 7, 2004 | IP
alliwantisalife

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

your right I researched it and it was written by moses.  it was written in 1518 B.C.
 


Posts: 61 | Posted: 3:17 PM on February 8, 2004 | IP
jito

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To answer the title question of this topic - why is evolution taught and creationism is not.

One is science one is not.  That is not underscore one vs. the other at all.  There is nothing wrong with faith.

However, science has methodolgy, science follows what the evidence (be it a fossil or an experiment) - what the science finds.  Science has no other agenda - it works mot to please any man or God.  It simply shows what it has found.  And it most certainly may be wrong.

Creationism is based on faith in a book and a mythology (one that I personally hold dear as it is my own).  It does not follow nor can it be proven through scientific method.  To teach creationism as a science is ludicrous.  To claim science is a faith is as well.

You don't have to believe either.  But religion has no place in public school unless you are looking at it from a historical or sociological perspective.

Personally I don't see why evolution is such a threat to anyone's faith anyway.  No matter how God rolled creation into motion - it's a miracle.  And quite frankly I find the mechanism of evolution far more fascinating and amazing and incredible than *poof* it's there.

No doubt (for me) that God is the spark that created life - and everything else.


-------
- Leslie
 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 6:01 PM on February 19, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A Response


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 10:45 PM on March 20, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Young Earth Toad, once again you exceed my expectations of the typical YEC:
1)  Anyone who doesn't agree with you hates god.  
2) Evolution is a religion or a tool of atheists to destroy religion (you guys can never seem to make your minds up on that one for some reason)

“What is stoping them from teaching creation along side evolution? Is it somehow a threat to evolution?”
Gee, it could be the complete and absolute lack of evidence to support creationism.  If there is all kinds of evidence to support creationism, why did you run like a scalded dog from the thread where I asked for any and all creationist evidence after posting 1 (that's "one",  folks) incomplete study based on anomalous data?

The second question would be, if creation is so fraudulant and chocked full of holes as the evolutionists insist, wouldn’t teaching this faulty creation science extol the “fact” of evolution even greater in the students minds?
 I can see it now:  "Class, the following is a bunch of crap I have to teach you that is wrong.  Let's make a game of it.  It's called "spot the huge blunders in logic and rationality", otherwise known as "scientific" creationism.  Next week, we're going to take up the "theory of the elements, or, as I like to call it "Earth, Air, Fire, and Water, our four misunderstood friends.  We'll follow that up with the "Thunder is just the Angels bowling" theory
1) creation is not as flawed as they would like you to imagine, and 2) evolution is not as solidly confirmed in science as they would like for you to imagine.

1) evidence?
2) disprove it then.  Or do you not want a nobel prize?

Absolutely nothing should be “crammed” down someones throat, no matter how established it is.

"Excuse me, teacher?  I don't feel I should have to learn atomic theory, so if you'll excuse me?"
although the evolutionists seem to have not qualms about brainwashing students.

Yeah, that's why students don't learn evolution until high school, but creationists start trying to indoctrinate kids as soon as they're old enough to understand what's being said to them.  Who's the brainwasher?

The only theory that explains the diversity of life on earth? 1.At least he refered to evolution as a theory, I will give him credit for that. 2.He is agreeing that theories or what have you be “crammed” down students throats. In this statement he is also admitting that it is being forced, thats also a start. 3.How does creation not explain the diversity of life on earth? 4.He is making the absurd assertion that created kinds variating within kinds also known or referred to as micro-evolution, abrupt fossils, and design do not explain the diversity of life on earth- even though that is exactly what we find!


And the ignorance is revealed!
1.  Look up the scientific definiton of a theory.  Here's a couple places to start:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
2. So, once again, we should let students decide what they want to study?  That's what post-secondary studies are for.
3.  Please tell me how creationism does explain the diversity of life, especially if everything but a few men and some animals was wiped out 4500 years ago.  Either creationism is wrong, or you believe in lightning quick evolution to get all these animals out of a few thousand "kinds".  That's another thing.  Do not use "kind" unless you have a bloody definition for it!  Some more typical creationist crap.
4.  Last time: "microevolution" is "macroevolution" over a shorter time period.  That's it.  Here's a question:  Why can't an animal adapt beyond the borders of its "kind" if you accept microevolution.  At what point does it stop, and what is the mechanism that stops it?
He did not provide a single shred of evidence for this [disproveong of creationism]
 Do some research outside of the bible, and you might learn something.  Flood geology was disproven 200 years ago by the theists who set out to prove it.  Hundreds of scientists, including Kelvin (who for some reason the creationists claim as their own) have proven that the earth is more than tens of thousands of years old.  He doesn't have to provide proof of common knowledge.
First, creation nor evolution can be “disproven,” because they are in the past and therefore outside of empiricle science.
Well, half right.  The ToE is in the realm of empirical science because observations which it is based on can be repeated and verified.  As well, predictions can be made based on the evidence available, and as new evidence becomes available, these predictions can be tested.

Second, if creation were “disproven” (even though the assertion relies on a lack of understanding of empiricle science), the founding scientists of the 1800s would not have been creationists in the first place!

So, let me get this straight.  First, creationism wasn't disproven because it can't be by empiriacal science?  Wrong.  Second, if it was disproven 200 years ago, it would have been by creationists, and they wouldn't have, so they couldn't have been creationists, and since that's all there were, it wasn't falsified?  Um, no.  Creationism was disproven, by a lack of any evidence or rationality behind the theory by those very people who set out to prove it.
Who falsified it two-hundred years ago, how, and who declared creation “falsified.” Some questions that Im afraid will remain unanswered.

Actually they're quite easy to answer.  Open a book.  Even easier, search the web.
He frequently states that science does not deal with the supernatural or rule it out, but in this statement he asserts that creationism, which includes God in the beginning, has been falsified two-hundred years ago- an obvious self-contradiction.

No.  Creationism (the literal genesis account of creation) has been disproven by mountains of evidence, and there has been none to support it.  There, disproven, and quite easily.  What he is saying is that science makes no claims on God.
Such as genetic information in mass quantities can somehow spring up in the genome through mutation, which all observation militates against.

Oh?  Says who?  You may want to check your sources, and then show them off
It doesn’t bother anyone, its only in constant conflict with science. More “this is a fact” style dogma in stating that it is “reality” when again, the proposed millions of years are in the past remaining outside the limits of empirical science. It is only more hollow drivel derived from misconceptions in a desperate attempt to reconcile evolution with reality.

Who's the one who has to either ignore or torture the facts to gain an approximation of their version of "reality"?  Seems to me the facts quite easily fit with the ToE, and not at all with creationism
Besides his utter lack of basic manners, and the fact that he refers to creationists as “lunatics,” he contradicts himself again. He has recently stated that life came from non-life, that it was a fact. God by nature is referred to as life, therefore he is claiming that life came from non-life, but yet but that evolution does not deny the existence of God which is life as referred to in the Bible. If he can not agree with himself, how does he expect me or anyone else to agree with him?

Wow, nice double speak.  God is outside of life, unless you consider him "one of the guys".  Last I checked, he was around before the universe, so I'd say he's outside the accepted definition of life, wouldn't you?

(P.S.-ask around, you are considered lunatics.  The rest of the world (those that are actually aware of you, anyways) can't believe there is such a thing as a "creationist" in today's world.)

Again, he fails to give any reference, document, quote, experiment, at all that somehow supports his statement.

Kind of like how you fail to support your view that creationism is the best bet?
Once again, open a book or search the web.  It's no secret.
He appears to be unaware of a very compelling book against evolution called Evolution: A Theory In Crisis by Michael Denton, who is not a creationist at all. Not to mention Not by Chance by Lee Spetner and Michael BeHe (author of Darwin’s Black Box). So criticism of evolution is apparently not limited to us “poor, hopelessly out of touch with reality fundamental creationists.”

Denton- http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&cof=&sitesearch=www.talkorigins.org&q=Michael+Denton
Spetner- http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&cof=&sitesearch=www.talkorigins.org&q=Lee+spetner
Behe-http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&cof=&sitesearch=www.talkorigins.org&q=Michael+Behe

Were did he come to that conclusion? What about all the rulings in court against anything to do with christianity, especially creation. Recently the US Supreme Court struck down a policy that a Louisiana school district that mandated that public school teachers read a disclaimer about evolution to their students. The votes were six to three, overwhelmingly biased against christianity.

I think you meant "biased against ignorance" in this part. Don't worry about it, everyone has typos now and then
http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&cof=&sitesearch=www.talkorigins.org&q=Louisiana+court

Scopes trial?  
http://www.google.com/custom?q=scopes+trial&sitesearch=www.talkorigins.org
Sorry, you guys made yourself to look like idiots there.  Are you aware the international press laughed their asses of at the creationists?  They couldn't believe what was happening in America, that there were people that ignorant left around.

Why then are so many states beginning to allow homosexual marriages which are clearly not condoned in the Bible, if christians hold so many government positions?

Because most christians aren't as bigoted as you?
It is not objective science if it is the only model being presented. True science is not comprised by one side, and it is not comprised of one theory- the theory of evolution. I nor any other creationist I know has any problem with evolution being presented in school, but it is reasonable to teach its flaws along with its evidences and interpretations, otherwise it does not meet the standards of science by the definition of many evolutionists themselves.


The flaws are taught.  Let me point out the obvious:  Creationism is not a viable alternative "theory".  Sorry, I hate to break it to you, but there is no evidence, and mountains against.  According to your reasoning, we should also teach flat earthism, geocentrism, and any other "theories" that fringe elements hold.  Not neccesarily as truth, but just so the kids know that there are "other theories"

Any further ranting by those who find scientific creation threatening will only prove my point(s) beyond reasonable doubt not only to me, but to other readers.

Hmm, so disagreeing with you supports your position in your mind?  Tell you what:  Anyone who has read this far, go to the "Valid creationist evidence" thread on this board.  After 60+ replies, YET has posted one (yes, one) piece of evidence:  An incomplete study on helium diffusion rates from zircons, based on a few anomalous results.  Yes, that's right.  Incomplete, and anomalous results.  Wow, where do I sign up?




The rest is a bunch of nonsense (as if this wasn't).  YET, you may want to take some of your own advice and open your mind to learning of the other side of the "debate".  It's quite clear from your comments that you aren't aware of the very basics of the life sciences, and gain the majority of your scientific knowledge  from the bible.  Which is strange, considering your replies on the other thread.
















(Edited by TQ 3/21/2004 at 01:09 AM).

(Edited by TQ 3/21/2004 at 01:55 AM).

(Edited by TQ 3/21/2004 at 02:05 AM).


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 01:02 AM on March 21, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ,

I couldn't have illustrated my point(s) better myself,  you only provide further proof of the rhetoric you use in misrepresenting my (and other creationists) arguments. Providing "refutations" to Denton, Spetner, and BeHe was beside the point. Demon38 had used the erroneous argument that only creationists rail against evolution. Second, your post is not void of the usual insults and intimidation tactics used by your kind as I mentioned and you so graciously displayed for us. And yes, I would encourage other readers to go to the "Valid Creationis Arguments" thread to observe how TQ asks for evidence but when it is presented he doesn't want it (or doesn't want to discuss it).

Let the whining begin...

(Edited by admin 3/21/2004 at 6:33 PM).


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 1:39 PM on March 21, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38 had used the erroneous argument that only creationists rail against evolution.

Young earth toad, please, show us any non creationists that rail against evolution.  You haven't done so yet.  


Second, your post is not void of the usual insults and intimidation tactics used by your kind as I mentioned and you so graciously displayed for us ("P.S.-ask around, you are considered lunatics."). And yes, I would encourage other readers to go to the "Valid Creationis Arguments" thread to observe how TQ asks for evidence but when it is presented he doesn't want it (or doesn't want to discuss it).

But creationists are in the same class as flat earthers, it's difficult NOT to laugh at the ridiculous arguements they make.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 1:58 PM on March 21, 2004 | IP
Brother Darwin

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Eagle Eye TQ, you said of evolution, "disprove it then.  Or do you not want a nobel prize?"

It's impossible to disprove or prove a philosophy induced story about the unobservable past.  

You seem to do the same thing as Demon38.  You get real science, applied science, the science that gives us medical breakthroughs, technology by observing and experimenting with things in the present...mixed up with scientific sounding stories about the past.




-------
John Henry
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 2:22 PM on March 21, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

YET, as I said, you've provided one incomplete study based on anomalous data as support for your ideas.  That's all.  And if you read the thread, I said that it was interesting, but incomplete, same as Demon said.  
Once again, you repeat the thought that disagreeing with you only supports your position.  Great logic on display here.  Denton, Behe and Spetner are creaionists.  They may not be YEC, but they are creationists under a different name. (In case you missed it, ID and YEC advocates have "joined forces" to overthrow the Darwinian overlords)

Brother Darwin, no matter what you think, or how hard you huff and puff, the ToE is firmly grounded in science.  Protest all you want.  Calling it a philosophy does not change that fact.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 5:58 PM on March 21, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Instead of trying to argue my point, I will let our evolutionary fellows do it for me:

Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.

"And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary."


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 9:02 PM on March 21, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Instead of trying to argue my point, I will let our evolutionary fellows do it for me:

Please show me where Singham is an "evolutionary fellow".  It appears he is just a disgruntled creationist who can't refute the theory of evolution with facts so he must resort to unfounded accusations.  Your post amounts to nothing, again...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:17 PM on March 21, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-53/iss-11/p14.html

So, what we find is he is criticising the teaching method, not saying that what he is teaching is incorrect.  He is basically saying that the current method of teaching does not promote critical thinking.  He is in no way disagreeing with what is being taught, only the method in which it is taught.  

Way to check your sources!


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 9:51 PM on March 21, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's impossible to disprove or prove a philosophy induced story about the unobservable past.

But evolution is not a philosophy based story, it's an explaination of how life has changed on the planet.  It is supported by all the evidence found to date.

From here:Evolution

"Science operates first by observation, and then by developing a hypothesis as a preliminary explanation of the data. A theory is a hypothesis that has been subsequently confirmed by abundant, consistent data obtained from tests of the hypothesis. The theory of evolution by natural selection is exactly such a confirmed hypothesis, as developed through the ongoing investigation and understanding of many different areas of biological, chemical, physical and earth science. As such, it is modifiable and constantly refined as new research and information come to light. Without evolutionary theory, we would be forced to completely discard much of what we understand about fields such as genetics, botany, zoology, paleontology, and anthropology.
"Scientific creationism," "intelligent design," and other terms have been offered as alternate explanations for past and present biological processes. However, these represent a collection of beliefs based on a literal interpretation of religious texts, and are thus disguises for religious doctrine, and not scientific theories. They ignore the empirical data around us and fail to provide a testable hypothesis. Consequently, since no testable explanation for biological history has been provided, they cannot be considered scientific theories, and should not be part of school curricula."

Your continued insistance that evolution is based on philosophical stories and that the theory of evolution can not be falsified are just not true.  You don't seem to understand the concept of falsification very well...

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:06 PM on March 21, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Looks like I have hit a raw nerve, but there still seems to be some confusion so maybe this is blatant enough for you to understand.

Dunphy,John J.,"A Religion for a New Age," The Humanist, vol. 43

(January/February 1983), pp. 23-26. p. 26

"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being.

"These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level-preschool day care or large state university.

"The classrom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new--the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of 'love thy neighbor' will finally be achieved."

P.S. Eagle Eye TQ, the method in which it is being taught is the whole point, way to check your sources!

(Edited by Young Earth Toad 3/22/2004 at 09:04 AM).


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 08:46 AM on March 22, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I love how creationists slip away when pinned:
The point you were attempting to make is that evolution is taught as dogma, that it is forced down people's throats despite the fact it is untrue.  That was not the author's point.  The point he was making was that to encourage critical thinking, students should be exposed to all aspects of the material (ie the debate over PE, which mechanisms affect evolution when, etc).  In other words, they should be taught about the debates over the details.  He was in no way, shape or form denouncing evolutionary theory as you claimed.

As for your next quote:  How many times must it be said?  Evolution says nothing about the existence/non existence of god.  Many people in the life sciences are religous.  It in no way interferes with accepting the theory of evolution.  The only ones who can't see this are the creationists.  So what you have here is a quote from a humanist, which in no way has any bearing on the subject at hand.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 1:24 PM on March 22, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: I love how creationists slip away when pinned:

How have I "slipped away?"

TQ: The point you were attempting to make is that evolution is taught as dogma, that it is forced down people's throats despite the fact it is untrue.

Excuse me, but Im the one making the point so don't try to tell me the point I was trying to make. Not to mention it is precisely wrong. It has nothing to do whether or not evolution is "true" or "untrue," but the way in which it is being presented in the classroom. Once again you mangle the point I try to make.

TQ: The point he was making was that to encourage critical thinking, students should be exposed to all aspects of the material (ie the debate over PE, which mechanisms affect evolution when, etc).

I thought his point was rather obvious....by the way, which quote are you referring to?

TQ: In other words, they should be taught about the debates over the details.  He was in no way, shape or form denouncing evolutionary theory as you claimed.

Denouncing as I claimed? Please tell me where I said he "denounced" evolutionary theory....

TQ: As for your next quote:  How many times must it be said?  Evolution says nothing about the existence/non existence of god.  Many people in the life sciences are religous.  It in no way interferes with accepting the theory of evolution.  The only ones who can't see this are the creationists.  So what you have here is a quote from a humanist, which in no way has any bearing on the subject at hand.

How theories are presented in the public school education is the subject at hand, and I think most lurkers would agree that that quote has quite a bit to do with public classrooms.

Toad


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 3:51 PM on March 22, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Excuse me, but Im the one making the point so don't try to tell me the point I was trying to make. Not to mention it is precisely wrong. It has nothing to do whether or not evolution is "true" or "untrue," but the way in which it is being presented in the classroom. Once again you mangle the point I try to make.

Gee, how could I have made the mistake that you were trying to discredit the ToE?
How theories are presented in the public school education is the subject at hand, and I think most lurkers would agree that that quote has quite a bit to do with public classrooms.

Last time I checked, we were discussing evolution in schools, not humanism.  And don't even attempt to link the two



-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 4:24 PM on March 22, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I keep seeing statements like "a few anomalous samples..." "a handful of anomalous samples..." "the only thing you have is a few anonalous samples..." No, just because I present a particular study does not mean that that is the ONLY study that supports a young earth. The reason I continue to discuss it is because neither one of you seem willing to, you are contending just to blow it off as the above "a few anamolous samples." For one thing, those statements are not only illogical in several mathematical senses, but they are just flat out wrong! They are based on an ignorance of information partaining to the study! Because, if you did study, as I
painstakingly have repeated over and over but it never seems to sink in, there were
more than a "few anomalous samples." If you actually took time to study the information before making those claims, you would observe that there were over 96 samples collected, and not just from one area. Nonetheless you continue to spout the same incorrect rhetoric over, and over, and over, and over. (Note: Notice how at the end of Demon38's definition twister, he never mentioned the difinition of science, because it would have exposed his confusion). Its rather obvious that you do not want to see the evidence in the first place because your mind is already made up. Regardless, I would be happy to answer your request for different supporting data for a young earth.

Recently, Dr Baumgardner sent five diamonds to be analyzed for 14C. It was the first time this had been attempted, and the answer came back positive- 14C was present. The diamonds, formed deep inside the earth, are assumed by evolutionists to be over a billion years old. Nevertheless they contained radioactive carbon, even though, if the billion-year age were correct, they 'shouldn't have.' This is exceptionally striking evidence, because a diamond has remarkably strong lattice bonds (as I have mentioned so many times, not to mention it is the hardest substance known), so subsequent atmospheric or biological contamination should not find its way into the interior.

Now to the link between humanism and evolution, most humanists are athiests. So I see why Eagle Eye TQ here does not wish for me to link the two, simply because he knows that they obviously are linked.

Hoagland, Hudson, “Science and the New Humanism,” Science, vol. 143 (January 10, 1964), pp. 111-114.
p 113

But man himself and his behavior are an emergent product of purely fortuitous mutations and evolution by natural selection acting upon them. Nonpurposive natural selection has produced purposive human behavior.

This statement by Science and the New Humanism is rather clear that humanism is linked to evolution.

Dobzhansky, Theodosius, “Evolutionary and Population Genetics,” Science, vol. 142 (November 29, 1963), pp. 1131-1135.
p. 1134

It would be wrong to say that the biological theory of evolution has gained universal acceptance among biologists or even among geneticists. This is perhaps unlikely to be achieved by any theory which is so extraordinarily rich in philosophic and humanistic implications. Its acceptance is nevertheless so wide that its opponents complain of inability to get a hearing for their views.

To try to say that humanism and evolution are not linked are simply wishfull thinking.

Secondly, the humanist quoted was directly assesing the public school classrooms, and seeing how a large majority of humanists are athiest, yes they are linked in some way. But regardless, it is obvious the intentions mentioned by this humanists for the future of the classroom which was the entire point of my essay, which you so gracefully and conveniently missed. Next I quote TQ, "Gee, how could I have made the mistake that you were trying to discredit the ToE?" Thats not even close to the point! What does that have to do with how the ToE is presented in public schools as a fact, besides the point that it is
in the past and outside of empirical science! Once again, you evade the point. Nonetheless, you must be rather afraid of creation entering the public schools because
then all the students that are being brainwashed would compare the evidence and be swayed to creation. Face it, that is the bottom line, there is no way around it. Dance all you want, but you are intimidated by creation being presented, and I note only the
present observations that point to it, being in public school. You also continue to erroneously make the assumption, which I addressed in the essay, that creationists invoke the supernatural in operational science. Therefore, please give me an instance were creationists do this, otherwise, drop the charge. I repeat this, because it somehow slipped from your memory.

You make it sound as though creationists only allow supernatural explanations for operational science but you failed to differentiate between the two. Since creation was finished on the sixth day of creation, creationists look to natural laws when dealing with operational science, and would never invoke a miracle to explain operations being
observed in the present as you imply in your straw man. The past however is unobservable and unrepeatable, therefore this falls under origins science which are educated guesses about unobservable past events. For instance, intelligence is needed to generate complex and coded information in the present so we can assume that this is how it was in the past. Creationists only invoke the supernatural in origins science, although this in no way means that creationists invoke the same in operational science. For example, the laws governing the operation of a computer are not those that actually created the computer in the first place. Although, your straw man implies that if we conceded that the computer had an intelligent designer in the first place, then we would not analyze the computer workings in the terms of natural laws of electron motion through semi-conductors but would assert that there are tiny intelligent “beings” pushing the electrons round and round. This is obviously a major misrepresentation of what creationists really believe.

You forgot to mention my correction of your terrible misconception about creationists and operational science, and of all things continued to repeat it after the correction.
Though you know what you are doing, you still misrepresent what creationists truly believe regardlessly in this rather deceptive fashion without a second thought, it only goes to show what evolutionists will do to push their "facts."

This will be my last post for a while, although I may return later. I must say that it has been enjoyable.

Happy Trails,
Hound Toad


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 7:53 PM on March 23, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I keep seeing statements like "a few anomalous samples..." "a handful of anomalous samples..." "the only thing you have is a few anonalous samples..." No, just because I present a particular study does not mean that that is the ONLY study that supports a young earth. The reason I continue to discuss it is because neither one of you seem willing to, you are contending just to blow it off as the above "a few anamolous samples."

Of course they're just a few anomolus samples when compared to the overwhelming evidence that proclaims the earth is old.  These tests were conducted by questionalbe science by people who have a dogmatic agenda, to prove the bible is literally correct by any means.  When you look at all the other evidence, it's laughable to claim the Earth isn't billions of years old.  Mountains take 100's of millions of years to form.  And you never bothered to reply about plate tectonics when your ridiculous continental sprint claim was thouroughly disproven. Typical creationist, cut and run when you can't refute the facts...  And what about ice core samples, or lake varves, or coral reef formation, or tree ring dating  and radiometric dating still hasn't been disproven. No, there is really no substansive evidence for a young earth, merely creationists desperate attempts that are completely refuted by reality.  

Nonetheless you continue to spout the same incorrect rhetoric over, and over, and over, and over. (Note: Notice how at the end of Demon38's definition twister, he never mentioned the difinition of science, because it would have exposed his confusion). Its rather obvious that you do not want to see the evidence in the first place because your mind is already made up. Regardless, I would be happy to answer your request for different supporting data for a young earth.

Definition twister???  This is a quote from the Genetics Society of America.  I'm sure a society of genetic scientists know a hell of a lot more about the definition of science than a scientific illiterate like you does.  It's rather obvious that there is no real evidence for a young earth, as I said it is a crackpot belief no longer even debated by the scientific world.

Recently, Dr Baumgardner sent five diamonds to be analyzed for 14C. It was the first time this had been attempted, and the answer came back positive- 14C was present. The diamonds, formed deep inside the earth, are assumed by evolutionists to be over a billion years old. Nevertheless they contained radioactive carbon, even though, if the billion-year age were correct, they 'shouldn't have.' This is exceptionally striking evidence, because a diamond has remarkably strong lattice bonds (as I have mentioned so many times, not to mention it is the hardest substance known), so subsequent atmospheric or biological contamination should not find its way into the interior.

This is ridiculous!  Why would you use C-14 dating on diamonds?  They are not organic, and they are far older than C-14 dating's 50,000 year upper limit!  Once again, here is a creationist misusing a tool and trying to say the data supports a young earth!  Commercial geologists have encountered levels of C-14 deep in the earth where they should not be, their explaination?  There are colonies of bacteria and fungi this far below the surface that accounts for the C-14.  So the readings for diamonds don't mean a young earth...

I don't care about your supposed links between humanism and evolution, a large portion of christians accept evolution, so your point goes out the window.

Since creation was finished on the sixth day of creation, creationists look to natural laws when dealing with operational science, and would never invoke a miracle to explain operations being
observed in the present as you imply in your straw man.


And yet, you insist that there really was a global flood, even though it is simply impossible!  So much for that point!

You forgot to mention my correction of your terrible misconception about creationists and operational science, and of all things continued to repeat it after the correction.

Sorry, didn't see any terrible misconception I made...



(Edited by admin 3/24/2004 at 07:25 AM).
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:32 AM on March 24, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A couple points to add to Demon's response.  Toad, you presented one bit of evidence for a young earth.  a study, which is not complete, and therefore not properly reviewed, done by questionable scientists with an agenda.  Not exactly the best evidence, but I said we would have to wait and see.

As well, humanism does not equal evolution.  You may like to believe all evolutionists are soulless atheists out to destroy god, but the majority believe in theistic evolution, and many others are open to the possibility of there being a creator.  Humanists are a philosophical group who seek naturalistic explanations for everything.  Evolution has nothing to do with this.  It explains the modification of life over time.  That's it.

And once again, no matter what you say or what you want to believe, evolution is a science.  To say you can't observe the past is, to say the least, laughable.  You demonstrate complete and utter ignorance in the basics of evolution and science, one which I hope you will rectify.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 01:52 AM on March 24, 2004 | IP
marisadawn612

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I know Young earth toad and TQ are in a heated debate, I was just wondering where you got the fact that evolution was disproved 200 yrs ago. I have never heard that before, and was wondering where you got that information. And please, don't attack the little innocent high schoolers. They are just looking for answes. Please be nice


-------
Marisa Dawn
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 11:10 AM on March 26, 2004 | IP
marisadawn612

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

also, I think schools should teach both creationsim and evolution. They educate the mind and let students think for themselves and decide which one they want to believe in. Some students don't hear about the bible or what it states, all they hear about is creationism and they don't get the different viewpoints. And if we need to teach a whole bunch of other religions' views...why not? They should have a class simply for teaching the coming of man and teach everything else in biology. A lot of people are interested in this topic, obviously, and I think it would be a good class. It would educate the mind. As long as the teacher is not biased to one specific way...


-------
Marisa Dawn
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 11:16 AM on March 26, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You want to learn about creationism? Go to church.  Science (ie evolution) belongs in the classroom.  Religion (ie creationism) belongs in church.  If a student is interested in the subject, he can study it on his own time (as I've done).  There is no place in a classroom for creationism because, quite simply, there is no support for it.  Should we also teach the ancient Greek theory of the four elements?  How about we tell them that some people think the earth is flat, and present the "evidence" for that?  Or, what about the theory that UFO's are satan's chariots?  No?  Why not?  If we're going to let them make up their own minds, should we not present every crackpot theory that has no evidence to support it?

As for where evolution was disproved?  I'm not sure what you mean, but I'll assume you meant creationism was disproved.  It started when a bunch of creationist scientists and clergymen in the early 1800's went looking for evidence to support their beliefs.  Trouble was, there was none there.  No evidence of a flood, no evidence of static, unchanging kinds, no evidence of any of it.  Lots of evidence that pointed them and others towards creating the ToE though.
Read through this site.  Use the search engine to help you find answers:
www.talkorigins.org


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 1:05 PM on March 26, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I was just wondering where you got the fact that evolution was disproved 200 yrs ago. I have never heard that before, and was wondering where you got that information. And please, don't attack the little innocent high schoolers. They are just looking for answes. Please be nice.

As for evolution being disproved, I'll go with TQ and assume you meant creationism because the theory of evolution was put forth about 150 years ago.  Please remeber, we are talking about classic, fundamental creationism.  This was the theory that the earth was only 6,000 years old, there was a world wide flood and animals were created distinct and did not change.  About 200 years ago, christian geologists realized that this hypothesis was simply impossible.  The earth was far older than 6,000 years, there was no evidence of a world wide flood and much evidence against it and animals had changed throughout earth's history.  Since then, all evidence has supported this conclusion, there has been no evidence found that supports a young earth.  This is why creationism is disproven.

also, I think schools should teach both creationsim and evolution. They educate the mind and let students think for themselves and decide which one they want to believe in. Some students don't hear about the bible or what it states, all they hear about is creationism and they don't get the different viewpoints. And if we need to teach a whole bunch of other religions' views...why not?

Why not, because it isn't science.  Creationism is not science, the theory of evolution is, it's as simple as that.  Students should be taught the most up to date, reliable theories in science, why would you want to teach them about an idea that was disproven, shown to be wrong, 200 years ago?  Would you teach them that demons cause disease instead of the germ theory, after all, some religions still teach this...Would you still teach that the earth is flat alongside of a spherical earth, some religions still believe this...Would you teach the earth is the center of the universe and all the stars (including the sun) and planets orbit around it, because there are still religions that believe this...  No, science isn't a democracy, it doesn't support the most popular ideas or the ones most people believe, so I don't think we should teach creationism (a unsupportable myth) along side the theory of evolution and let the students make up their own minds, this leads to ignorance.  Any student, it they're willing to do the work, can test the data available, conduct their own experiments and find any flaws in the TOE themselves.  But in 150 years, no one has been able to do that...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:28 PM on March 28, 2004 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.