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 School

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

    
admin

|      |       Report Post



Administrator
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Should Evolution be removed from Education ?

http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/creationism_evolution.HTM

 


Posts: 31 | Posted: 3:16 PM on April 30, 2002 | IP
Mad_dog

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The purpose of high school / elementary school education is to prepare youths for a career.  This necessitates also preparing them for college due to the difficulties of having a stable income without a college diploma these days.  The field of biology, like it or not is becoming more unified by the theory of evolution (genetics, medicine, ecology, and even psychology).  Without ample preparation for biologically based college careers, many students suffer.  There is also the delayed improvement to the field because colleges often have to start at ground zero.  

Everything that biology is based on is considered theoretical, there will never be any laws in biology.  Undoubtedly, evolution should be questioned, however questioning in ignorance will not improve the field nor be considered valid.  The unfortunate circumstance that evolution is not taught to everyone is that few even know what the term really means.  

I'll give an example of this: one of the major arguments that Creation Scientists often use is that even the theory of evolution is debated among biologists.  That is wrong, what is debated among biologists is the mechanism by which evolution occurs (a specific example is the 1970s neutralist / natural selection debate).  The point is that few even know the difference between evolution and its theorized mechanisms.  A review of the referied and peer-reviewed literature would prove that biologists agree on the theory of evolution.  That is why it is so important that Creation Scientists question it, because then the theory can be either improved or disproved, but the arguments need to refined in order to be considered legitimate.  

A high level of respect must be given to the Creation Sciences, because it offers alternate theories that may prove to be legitimate and beneficial to biology if more refined.  I feel that discontinuation of the teaching of Creation Sciences has also caused its progression to be more impaired than evolution's.  Perhaps many important discoveries that could have been made have been lost due to its banning which was motivated by an evolutionist agenda.  

What can be shown is that both views can improve on each other and thus both should be taught in schools.  It is idiotic for evolutionists and Creation Scientists to fear each other because they think they might lose some "believers".  What is necessary is that the two improve upon themselves, using each other as catalysts, because if the theories were strong enough, they themselves would be able to convince individuals to follow suit.  Need I remind you that we were not that impressionable in highschool?

-Margaret, evolutionist and lacking education in Creation Science.
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 02:29 AM on May 7, 2002 | IP
Jigokusabre

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The one striking quirk of creation science is that it started with the solution (that God created the heavens and the earth.) and then works it way backward by looking for evidence that validates the pre-determied conclusion. This is in stark contrast to the scientific method.




-------
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 8:40 PM on August 19, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

well, eventually either evolution will be widely believed by all people...or the idea will be thrown out and some new theory, or possibly religion will always prosper.... so you have to ask yourself about this 2 sided subject, should religion be taught in school?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:21 AM on August 28, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First of all, evolution has never been proven, therefore I don't understand why everyone always calls it a "theory," when it is still a hypothesis.  Secondly, i think that if we are going to let them teach evolution in schools, i don't see why they can't teach creationism.  Both are unproven hypothesis, and if its not fair to teach religion to atheists, it shouldn't be fair to teach atheism to religous students.  In other words, if creationists have to sit through a class teaching evolution, why don't evolutionists have to sit through a class teaching creationism?  Its only fair, I have been through many science classes that teach evolution and I took a stand against it every chance I got.  Consider that before responding to this.[color=navy][color=navy]
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 08:49 AM on September 18, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolutionism is a theory (an unproven one, but that's what a theory is. If it was proven it'd be a law) that is based off of sound scientific data. Creationsim is a theory that, as mentioned above, is based off a conclusion and has little scientific data except that the theory of evolution isn't perfect (which no one is claiming anyway). I think the FLAWS in the theory of evolution should be taught, but until creationism can stand on its own as a scientific argument, it should be kept out. Oh, and btw, evolutionism isn't incompatable with a belief in God. I know many folks who believe in both God and evolution (myself amongst them).


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 2:45 PM on September 18, 2002 | IP
Xenjael

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ah.... so what ur saying is that until we point oiut the flaws we should be ignorant right???? so then what aobut religion in school dsadevil, there r more flaws in that than there r in evolution...personnaly i dont believe in anything at all so i wont take sides
 


Posts: 83 | Posted: 5:29 PM on September 19, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

wrong. flaws dont disprove a theory, they merely point out its limitations. the theory of evolution, while incomplete, is the best on we have. When I say the flaws should be taught, i mean we should teach students what the flaws are, not pretend that they dont exist.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 6:33 PM on September 19, 2002 | IP
kuanteen

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

well, in geometry, a conjecture (hey, i'm learning in class!) is proven false just by ONE counter-example! it means that the conjecture should be remoulded to fit the example, the evidence.

Well, according to my school, the Scientific Method is when you see a problem, something in need of an explaination, you hypothesize(solution), you experiment(test that solution), you observe, gather data, and reach a conclusion! since both of the theory's mechanisms and explainations cannot be observed, it is both speculation. now, when we try to deduce the past we rely on the present, but the present is NOT the past, as in the present is NOT the key to the past. so, still, no valid conclusion can be reached, it both requires faith. "Faith is the substance of fossils hoped for, of links unseen."


-------
AMD Athlon XP 1600+ | Gigabyte GA-7VTXH+ | Samsung 256 Mb. DDR-SDRAM | Seagate 40 Gb. 7200 rpm ATA100 | nVidia GeForce 2 MX400 64 mb | LG 24x10x40 CD-RW 8 Mb. Buffer | ASUS 52x CD-ROM | NEC Zip100 | US Robotics 56 K Ext. Modem | MAG 15'' Trinitron
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 11:29 PM on September 20, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In geometry that works fine. In terms of scientific theories, it just means the theory needs to be remodeled. But so far, I know of no areas where evolution has been disproven, just areas where it hasn't covered (i.e., how does evolution explain this?). That is very different than disproving it, it just means the theory needs to be expanded more.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 11:39 PM on September 20, 2002 | IP
Xenjael

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

dsadevil, that is very,very true, yes flaws help us remodel our theories and mistakes help us edit them... so really u cant actually have a perfect theory ever...there will always be a flaw somewhere
 


Posts: 83 | Posted: 9:40 PM on September 21, 2002 | IP
Exxoss

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, for those that are not atheist, but any other religion.  It is a bad thing.  At least let them back out of it.


-------
I am Exxoss, come to save you all from your impending doom!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

-Exxoss
 


Posts: 438 | Posted: 09:02 AM on September 25, 2002 | IP
Ennara

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Isn't the basic idea of the scientific community that ideas should be spread to increase the knowledge of the general public?
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 11:21 PM on September 27, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

but the marketplace of ideas (John Stuart Mill) dictates that theoritically the false ideas, once presented, should be identified and discarded. I'm not saying "ban talk on creationism." But a science class should teach things that can be based on hard data, not belief. Belief aint science.

(Edited by dsadevil 10/8/2002 at 11:56 PM).


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 2:49 PM on September 30, 2002 | IP
Sakata

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As a Christain high school student I am not as much worried with the teaching of evolution in the scince class, where the teachers are pressured to say that it is just a theory and you dont have to believe, but the more subtle methods of brainwashing that I have seen schools employ.  For example I am in an Oceanography class where I notice every so often "The sponge evolved from a single celled organism" They are blatently reffering to Evolution as a fact, but since it is not in the context of a evolution lesson, no one even seems to notice...


-------
No time for mediocrity.

People call me a Bible-Thumping reactionist ...and I'm proud to bear the name.
 


Posts: 293 | Posted: 10:36 PM on October 8, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Because there is a difference between in controversy levels between "life started via evolution" and "life started via factor x, but once it started, new species evolved from old ones."


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 11:58 PM on October 8, 2002 | IP
Exxoss

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

(CONFROOSED)  Well, god says, 'life began with adam.  Then i amde eve.  Then they got jiggy with it and had children, who kept on going until we had population.'  Science says 'An ameoba evoled to a fish, to a snake, to a lizard, to a gorilla, etc.'  And this is not a clash, Starting out as two incestual people versus starting out as blobs.


-------
I am Exxoss, come to save you all from your impending doom!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

-Exxoss
 


Posts: 438 | Posted: 08:54 AM on October 11, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

true, but how long was the gap between god creating animals, and creating men? it says 1 day in the bible, but what is a day? it isn't what is today, because all the things we base time on (the sun, rotations etc.) didnt come into being until a few "days" passed. so a "day" could be anything...long enough for those blobs to become human


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 2:52 PM on October 11, 2002 | IP
thistownwilleatu

|       |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

WHy is it so impossible to think that God USED evolution to create man.  Nowhere in the bible does it say and God "snapped" his fingers and "pop", man appeared.  The two don;t really contradict each other in that many ways.

I think the reason that a lot of religious people disagree is the whole, created in God's image thing, and as they most intelligently say, "God ain't no munkee."  Aren't we kind of putting mankind on a pedestool when we say this?  Would it be to much better to say God was a man.  He's perfect we're not.  He's omniscient, we're not.  He's all powerful, we're not.  So it's quite obvious that this can't be taken literally, we are not God copies, God doesn;t have a physical image, and as far as the mental state goes, we are monkeys in comparison.  And again I know this is completely irrelevent if you don't believe in God, but that does seem to be the argument, and I simply don't see why the two cant coincide.


-------
"The greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evil that Dickens loved to paint ... but is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices." - Thomas Merton

"I thank my God for every remembrance of you." - Paul
 


Posts: 341 | Posted: 10:44 PM on October 11, 2002 | IP
Sakata

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You said you where a Christain thistownwilleatyou, but I am beginning to wonder what that really means to you.  People where created in the image of God but we were damaged in the fall (when Adam and Eve sinned and we fell away from God)  only when we return home and are given our new bodies will we return to his image.  As for evolution and creation working together...


Bible-The world was created in 6 24 hour periods. (Gen 1, Ex 20:8-11)
Evolution-The world has evolved over billions of years

Bible-The oceans were created before land (Gen1:2)  
Evolution-The land came about before the ocean

Bible-The first life was on land (Gen 1:11)  
Evolution-Life began in the oceans

Bible-The earth was created before sun and stars (Gen 1:4)  
Evolution-The sun and stars came about before the earth

Bible-Fruit trees were created before fish (Gen 1:11, 20, 21)  
Evolution- Fish evolved before fruit trees

Bible-Birds and fish were created on the fifth day (Gen 1:20,21)  
Evolution- Fish evolved hundreds of millions of years before birds appeared

Bible-Birds were created before insects (Gen 1:20-31, Lev 11)  
Evolution-Insects came before birds

Bible-Whales were created before reptiles (Gen 1:20-31)  
Evolution-Reptiles came before whales

Bible-Man was created before woman (Gen 2:21-22)  
Evolution-Woman came before man (by genetics)

Bible-Plants were created before the sun (Gen 1:11-19)  
Evolution-The sun came before the plants (before any life)

Bible-An abundance of marine life was created all at once (Gen 1:20-21)  
Evolution-All of marine life gradually developed from a primitive organic blob.

Bible-Manís body was created from the dust of the earth (Gen 2:7)  
Evolution-Man evolved from apes

Bible-All life was created in distinct and fixed kinds (Gen 1:11,12,21,24,25; 1Cor 15:38-39)
Evolution-All life forms are in a continual state of flux

Bible-Manís sin (rebellion) was the source of death (Rom 5:12)
Evolution- Struggle and death has always existed, billions of years prior to humanity

...and besides, with all the holes in the evolution theory why would you want to believe it anyway?


-------
No time for mediocrity.

People call me a Bible-Thumping reactionist ...and I'm proud to bear the name.
 


Posts: 293 | Posted: 11:09 PM on October 11, 2002 | IP
thistownwilleatu

|       |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wow, it is quite apparent to me that you have copied and pasted this or something along those lines since you signed in about 5 minutes ago and this appeared.  I respect you a great deal but I would occasionally like to hear YOUR opinion.  Anyway....
I never said I 100% completely agreed with every aspect of the theory of evolution, but I do agree with the basics.  I believe that God is a creative God, look around you, things are evolving as we speak.  But aside from that, to interpret the Bible literally is wrong, and to think you completely understand creation is wrong.  It was meant to be vague.  No man, save one, knows what went on so many aeons ago, and I definitely don't either.  But I think that this whole debate (on a global perspective) is doing more harm than good, as is made apparent by your holier-than-thou attitude in that you obviously think because we disagree on something that, in truth, no one knows anything about?  Keep in mind that your ill-conceived judgment of me, a person you've never met and know nothing about is exactly the same in the eyes of God as being gay, or lustful, or whatever.  
I never said the theory was perfect, notice "theory", so watch your tongue and think your word before you tell me that I'm not a christian.  Being a christian has nothing to do with whether our creation was instant or otherwise, its about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.


-------
"The greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evil that Dickens loved to paint ... but is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices." - Thomas Merton

"I thank my God for every remembrance of you." - Paul
 


Posts: 341 | Posted: 11:34 PM on October 11, 2002 | IP
Sakata

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wow, I got told :p I never remember telling you that you werent a christian... or that I was judging you, I just wondered what it ment to you, what does it mean to you?

Yeah I did copy and paste it, and it is my opinion, thats why I put it there, you dont have to get all hostile towards me...

I wasnt trying to be holier than thou, sorry if it came off that way, I guess I just assumed you knew about the fall and image of God thing...


-------
No time for mediocrity.

People call me a Bible-Thumping reactionist ...and I'm proud to bear the name.
 


Posts: 293 | Posted: 12:05 AM on October 12, 2002 | IP
thistownwilleatu

|       |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I do know about the fall of mankind, it's just that I don't believe it started with an apple.  I believe in God's love of metaphors, it is after all, Jesus's, preferred method of teaching throughout the new testament.
So this is my humble opinion, which might very well be wrong: I think that the fall of man did not begin and end in the bite of fruit, it was born in us and continues until we are pulled from sin.  It is a continous process, the apple is sin, the Garden of Eden is heaven, and we are apart from it because of the apple.  A hopeless situation until the arrival of Christ.  So there you have it, my flawed perception of the fall of man.


-------
"The greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evil that Dickens loved to paint ... but is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices." - Thomas Merton

"I thank my God for every remembrance of you." - Paul
 


Posts: 341 | Posted: 12:19 AM on October 12, 2002 | IP
Cool-Hand-Dave

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

sakata,  just out of curiosity, can you tell me what the image of God is?  does He have two legs, and two arms?  does He have blonde hair or black?  are His eyes green, blue, or brown?  How can you say that evolution is impossible based on the sole word image which has who-knows-how-many different meanings.  Image doesn't necessarily refer to a physical being.  Image can be a mental picture.  Maybe God created us from the image he had in his mind.  Maybe he used evolution to make us who we are today.  I agree with thistownwilleatu,  look around at nature.  limit God to six 24-hour periods then.  


-------
Cool Hand Dave
 


Posts: 134 | Posted: 12:20 AM on October 12, 2002 | IP
Sakata

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is not reffering to a phisical body dave

and thistown, I just got to say please, please dont call it an apple, no where in the bible does it ever say it was in apple, that is the same as the renaceance art where Jesus is blonde hair blue eyed, but I have heard college professors talk about how ludicrus christianity was because apples dont grow in the place where eden was thought to be *rolls eyes*


-------
No time for mediocrity.

People call me a Bible-Thumping reactionist ...and I'm proud to bear the name.
 


Posts: 293 | Posted: 12:48 AM on October 12, 2002 | IP
thistownwilleatu

|       |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Your kidding.  Thats it?  Thats all?  You correct my reference to the fruit.  Wow.  I will have to make my sarcasm scream next time, subtlety hasnt yet entered into your vocabulary yet huh?  I answered your question, say something besides "Uh...oh yeah...it wasn;t an apple."  Thank you, I'm a changed man.


-------
"The greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evil that Dickens loved to paint ... but is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices." - Thomas Merton

"I thank my God for every remembrance of you." - Paul
 


Posts: 341 | Posted: 01:58 AM on October 12, 2002 | IP
Sakata

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, what do you want me to say? "I was there and saw the actual fruit!!" I dont think it could be proven either way, you think it is an allagory, I think it is literal, their is nothing we can really do but agree to disagree right?


-------
No time for mediocrity.

People call me a Bible-Thumping reactionist ...and I'm proud to bear the name.
 


Posts: 293 | Posted: 1:33 PM on October 13, 2002 | IP
thistownwilleatu

|       |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thats all I wanted to hear the first time.  You asked for my opinion, so I gave it.


-------
"The greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evil that Dickens loved to paint ... but is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices." - Thomas Merton

"I thank my God for every remembrance of you." - Paul
 


Posts: 341 | Posted: 10:16 PM on October 13, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let's get one thing straight, evolution is a religious opinion about the origin of life.  Neither evolution nor intelligent design will ever be proven scientifically until we die and meet our maker, whether that maker is God or an amoeba.  The constitution calls for a freedom of religion.  If darwinists opt not to be a part of God and His design, thats fine but the problem I have is the use of my tax dollars to promote a state atheism theory to MY children.  After all, atheism is a religious choice too.  Do I have a choice to teach my children intelligent design?  No.  My right to do that ended when Evolution entered the classroom and Intelligent Design was forbidden.  All questions about origins should be LEFT at home unless we want to commit our public schools to one religion.  Sure, I can teach them Intelligent Design at home, but what do you say to your child when they ask, "Dad, are you saying that the teacher, the school and the book are lying to me and that all the other kids are believing a lie?"  Well in that instance I would have had to say yes son, what they teach at school is not true.  Does anyone else see the problem here?  When you break the foundation of trust, the learning environment changes for the worse.  Students generally should trust that their teachers are teaching factual information to them.  When they lose trust and start to think that its a lie (yes i believe evolution is a creative lie without scientific foundation) then the student starts to discredit Mathematics and History and Chemistry.  I am an adult and I can pick and choose what I believe but children are all the more impressionable.  Adolf Hitler did say, "give me control of the textbooks and then I will control the nation."  
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:57 PM on October 18, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how is evolution a religious belief? Just because science disagrees with classical christianity doesn't make it athiest. It is a theory, with ample scientific evidence. To be distinguished from creationism, which is a theory that has no evidence outside one book.

If evolution is religious simply because it is unprovable, then so is the theory of gravity, and other unprovable phenomna. Most science is based off theory, so science can't teach what is known to be truth, but rather must look at competing theories and decide which ones seem reasonable, and which ones arent. Evolution is scientifically reasonable. Creationism isn't.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 10:36 PM on October 18, 2002 | IP
Sakata

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In court if you are found once to have lied under oath than everything else you say can be disscredited.  I sit in science classes today and dont believe half of the things the teacher tells me, and why should I? She teaches evolution as a fact and no one does anything, she has posters up showing graphs of creatures evolving,  why should I believe a person who I believe has already lied to me? who lies to me every day?  I go to public school because its the law, but I learn from the word of God.


-------
No time for mediocrity.

People call me a Bible-Thumping reactionist ...and I'm proud to bear the name.
 


Posts: 293 | Posted: 10:48 PM on October 21, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i believe in evolution to the estent of certain genes being breed out..for example if some giraffes had short necks and some had long necks i believe that yes evolution could happen bc the short necked giraffes would starve and the longer necked girrafees could eat the food on the higher trees and live and continue to breed during a drought or dry spell when food is limited....but evolution from a single celled organism into a fish into a monkey and then into a human is completely impossible. first off every 1000 years a star supernovas somewhere in the galaxy (not the univers but the galaxy) there have only been around 25 supernovas in our galaxy..meaning the world is only about 25,000 yaers old which is not long enough to evolve all that is claimed to have happened. the big bang THEORY is like saying that you can throw a grenede into a junkyard and a brand new corvette Z06 will come flying out.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:22 AM on October 22, 2002 | IP
madbilly

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

see it is calling me guest again..the one above this is madbillies and so is this one...if it is still calling me guest


-------
my name is madbilly....what did you expect me to be happy when my name says Mad in it...
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 12:23 AM on October 22, 2002 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

HUH? The earth is only 25,000 years old??? I don't think so...


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 01:46 AM on October 23, 2002 | IP
madbilly

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

go to the science section or read up on moon dust and the electro magnetic field...no one can prove it is older


-------
my name is madbilly....what did you expect me to be happy when my name says Mad in it...
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 01:47 AM on October 23, 2002 | IP
kc2gwx

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from madbilly at 01:47 AM on October 23, 2002 :
go to the science section or read up on moon dust and the electro magnetic field...no one can prove it is older


I am a creationist, and there is much evidnece for a young earth. Unfortunetly, some arguements are false. For example, the moon-dust arguement should not be used anymore.

However, the magnetic field, receding moon, salinity in the oceans, size and charcheteristics of the sun, geology, and several other arguements are good.

Here is a good place to start:

Answers in Genesis - Geology


-------
Sam, KC2GWX
 


Posts: 101 | Posted: 1:27 PM on October 23, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

all that questions is when humans came about. what about the evidence that is there about animals living here thousands of years ago.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 2:43 PM on October 23, 2002 | IP
Sakata

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

there were animals here thousands of years ago, but not millions of years ago.


-------
No time for mediocrity.

People call me a Bible-Thumping reactionist ...and I'm proud to bear the name.
 


Posts: 293 | Posted: 8:39 PM on October 23, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

http://museums.state.nm.us/nmmnh/dinosinnm.html

Quote: "Dinosaurs lived in New Mexico between 220 and 66 million years ago. These 154 million years encompass the Late Triassic Period and the entire Jurassic and Cretaceous periods of geologic history.

They also represent nearly the entire timespan of the dinosaurs, from their first appearance during the Late Triassic until their extinction at the end of the Cretaceous.

Dinosaur fossils have been found across New Mexico, except for the southeastern portion of the state. Dinosaur fossils were first collected in New Mexico during the 1880s, and the state's dinosaurs now are displayed in many museums throughout the world. In New Mexico, dinosaur fossils are displayed at the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, the Geology Museum of the University of New Mexico, the Ruth Hall Museum of Paleontology at Ghost Ranch near Abiquiu, Clayton Lake State Park near Clayton, and the Museum of the New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources in Socorro.

Dinosaurs became extinct 66 million years ago at the end of the Cretaceous Period. The Late Cretaceous dinosaurs from the San Juan Basin were some of the last to have lived on Earth. They are world famous because of the information they provide scientists about the cause of dinosaur extinction."

"All Jurassic dinosaurs from New Mexico are 140-150 million years old."

From the New Mexico State Museum Website.



-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 9:47 PM on October 23, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The  "creation science' debate is perhaps the biggest fraud ever perpertrated.  Primarily it concerns the difference between the Scientific Method and the Nitwit Method.  The evolution side works from the premise that one begins by gathering all the facts and data they can get on the subject, and then arriving at a conclusion.  On the other hand, creation science begins with the conclusion and then looks only for facts and data to prove their already arrived at conclusion

To give and credence to creation science one must first accept that cosmology is wrong, astronomy is wrong, geology is wrong, anthropology is wrong, archeology is wrong, paleontoloogy is wrong, biology is wrong, and thousands of tons of bone, rock and fossils are wrong.  And on the other side?  A few pages of one book written by superstitious people who thought the world was flat and that the stars were floating lanterns in the sky, and a few scientist who just happen to be christian fundamentalists with questionable credentials.

DENYING SCIENCE DOES NOT A SCIENCE MAKE.  Duane Gish and John Morris are the center pieces of this chicanery at the Institute of Creation Science.  What they did was take the original creationist doctrine from the 19th Century, remove all references of God and religion and rename it from creationsim to creation science.  From that point on it has been nothing more than denying reason, logic and common sense to become not science, but anti-science.

This all comes down to what they claim is their tolerant stand on the issue, that as evolution is a theory, than to be fair, creation science should be given equal time in public school biology classes, or evolution not be taught at all.  

The entire issue revolves around people who are so insecure in their faith they try to change science to prove what everyone else knows can not be proven.

It took the Catholic Church 200 years to validate Galileo's heretic theory that the earth revolved around the sun, I figure we only have to deal with this creation science for another 50 years or so before it goes away.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:18 PM on October 23, 2002 | IP
kc2gwx

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"What they did was take the original creationist doctrine from the 19th Century, remove all references of God and religion and rename it from creationsim to creation science.  From that point on it has been nothing more than denying reason, logic and common sense to become not science, but anti-science."

Is this 19'th century science? Click here to find out!

Ok, then according to you, this link here is actually 19'th century science? That's funny, it sure doesn't look like it.

Oh well, you must be right, after all, you are an anonymus poster on an internet forum.




-------
Sam, KC2GWX
 


Posts: 101 | Posted: 11:34 PM on October 24, 2002 | IP
madbilly

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

good work on that citation kc2gwx. as i previously stated there is no evidence to support an eart that is any more than 25000 years old. If you rread your geology book it will tell you in one chapter that the age of the layers of the earth are determined by what fossils are in them. these fossils are carbon dated (which is highky unaccurate). In another chapter it will tell you that the ages of the fossils are determined by what layers they are in. (my geology book from high school did) this is a contradiction as to how the ages are determined.


-------
my name is madbilly....what did you expect me to be happy when my name says Mad in it...
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 03:30 AM on October 25, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

why is carbon dating in accurate? The premise seems solid to me. We know carbon half-lives, so we can see how much of it has decayed into a different isotope of carbon and how much remains, thus getting a reasonably accurate date (perhaps not within the hundreds of years, but within the thousands, and certainly in the millions). Not to mention, I posted evidence somewhere (I think in one of the religion forums) about fossils dated to the millions of years.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 2:39 PM on October 25, 2002 | IP
madbilly

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

carbon dating is only that accurate under controlled circumstances. The earth is not a controlled environment. Many areas have soils of varying ph level. For example Georgia has very acidic soils which is why no fossils of any kind have ever been found in Georgia. but if you did find a fossil its age would be older than it really is due to carbon testing due to the fact that they decay so much faster in the acidic soil. The acidic soil is why georgia doesnt grow peaches ( yes we are the peach state but that is only an assumption bc we do not have any peaches in GA). So if a fossil was buried and GA and at the same time somewhre in Wyoming the Ga fossil would decay much faster due to the acid in the soil and would thus be determined older due to the more decay that has happened.


-------
my name is madbilly....what did you expect me to be happy when my name says Mad in it...
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 3:02 PM on October 25, 2002 | IP
kc2gwx

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"We know carbon half-lives, so we can see how much of it has decayed into a different isotope of carbon and how much remains, thus getting a reasonably accurate date (perhaps not within the hundreds of years, but within the thousands, and certainly in the millions)."

Your post shows that you do not know of what you speak.

The half-life of carbon is 5,730 years. This means that in 5,730 years, it has half the carbon 14 it originally did. There are some problems with this assumption, but I won't get into it unless you want me too.

You said we can get a 'reasonably accurate date'  , then 'certainly in the millions'. Wrong. The absolute most carbon dating can acheive is 75,000 years. There is simply no detectable amount left after that. Evolutionist even admit they can not use Carbon 14 for that long.

How accurate is Carbon 14 dating?

"Not to mention, I posted evidence somewhere (I think in one of the religion forums) about fossils dated to the millions of years."

You have evidence that radiometric dating is completely accurate? I'd like to see that! Here are some examples of it NOT being accurate:

1. In New Zealand at Mt Ngauruhoe, rock from a lava flow were dated at about one-quarter million years. However, these rocks were known to have formed in a lava flow in 1949!!

New Zealand lava flows.

2. A rock sample from the lava dome of Mt. St. Helens gave results which said that the rock was .35 million years old. However, the lava dome solidified in 1986!!!

Mount St. Helens dating problems

3. A fresh seal skin was dated at 1,300 years old.

4. Mortar from an english castle (800 years old) was dated at 7,370 years old.

Also, many thing could change the decay rate of Carbon 14, such as Atmospheric pollution, Solar activity, Cosmic radiation, meteors, ect.

Carbon dating is not accurate.[b]


-------
Sam, KC2GWX
 


Posts: 101 | Posted: 3:07 PM on October 25, 2002 | IP
Prometheus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
0

Rate this post:

Creationism is not a science because it fails two important tests of science:  it neither makes predictions nor makes claims that can be empirically verified.  It simply makes proclamations by faith.  Also, creation scientists have yet to offer any scientific evidence that proves the case of creationism; their efforts are almost entirely spent critiquing apparent contradictions within evolution.

The Institute for Creation Research employs many researchers who have written many books but virtually none of these books makes a positive scientific description of creationsim.  There is almost no attempt to use the scientific data found in the world today to prove creationsim.  Instead the overwhelming majority of these books present a negative scientific critique on its opponent, evolution.  When not doing that, they concern themselves with the theological or legal issues surrounding the debate.

The near complete absence of a scientific theory of creationsim has been an embarrassment to that movement ever since it started.  Creation scientists claim to have scientific evidence but they never produce it.  The simple fact is, creationists do not have any scientific evidence to support their hypothesis.  If they had it they would offer it.  Nor are the "scientists" at the Institute for Creation Research what we might charitable call top-drawer.  Many have degrees in fields other than what they are debating.  Many are theologians who are passing themselves off as scientists.


-------
"There are seven sins in the world: Wealth without work, Pleasure without conscience, Knowledge without character, Commerce without morality, Science without humanity, Worship without sacrifice, and politics without principle." --Mahatma Gandhi
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 08:44 AM on October 28, 2002 | IP
Sakata

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

On the contrary, many creationist have worked to prove that the earth is young, the evidence of the flood, as well as a bunch of other stuff like evidence of sodom and gommria (which they found) and the ark, so what else do you expect them to do? they cant go find missing links because their arnt any. Consider the current fossil record, it daily proves what creationist have been saying all along, there were people, just like us, living a long time ago.


-------
No time for mediocrity.

People call me a Bible-Thumping reactionist ...and I'm proud to bear the name.
 


Posts: 293 | Posted: 8:17 PM on October 28, 2002 | IP
Prometheus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In order for their to be creation science there must of course be a creator.  Any scientific proposition must be capable of being tested with scientific experiments.  It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to prove the existence of a creator or the creation process.

No one can scientifically prove the existence of a creator.  Any creator that would exist outside the laws of nature would by definition be God, and God is by definition religious and not scientific in nature.  Thus the entire argument for creation is religious belief.  It is not scientific, since it can not be tested and proven that their is a God.

Creationists are of course entirely welcome to their religious beliefs.  But unless they can tell us how we can test for the presence of God, they aren't saying anything scientific, but are just indulging in religious doctrine.


-------
"There are seven sins in the world: Wealth without work, Pleasure without conscience, Knowledge without character, Commerce without morality, Science without humanity, Worship without sacrifice, and politics without principle." --Mahatma Gandhi
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 03:58 AM on October 29, 2002 | IP
kc2gwx

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Any scientific proposition must be capable of being tested with scientific experiments.  It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to prove the existence of a creator or the creation process."

Nice try. But if you go by this standard, then evolution falls far short also. Can you repeat macro-evolution in a lab? Can you observe macro-evolution? Can macro-evolution be 'tested with scientific experiments'? No, it can not. Therefore, by your standards, evolution is not scientific.

I don't believe I can scientifically prove God exists. So you are correct, creation is based on faith. But evolution is also, as I have already posted. To simply entertain the thought of the 'Big Bang theory' is to rely on faith.


-------
Sam, KC2GWX
 


Posts: 101 | Posted: 09:53 AM on October 29, 2002 | IP
Prometheus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Nice try.  But if you go by this standard, then evolution falls far short also...So you are correct, creation is based on faith."

I wasn't trying anything.  All I was doing was pointing out the obvious fact that creation depends solely on religious faith.  By your previous posts it appeared that you thought the so called creation science was really a science.  I'm glad you agree that it is based on religious faith.  Now if those pseudo-scientists at the Institute For Creation Research would just agree, this whole silly debate over teaching evolution in school could just go away.  Since we would all agree creation is not a science, but religion, there could be no possible reason for teaching it in a public school.


-------
"There are seven sins in the world: Wealth without work, Pleasure without conscience, Knowledge without character, Commerce without morality, Science without humanity, Worship without sacrifice, and politics without principle." --Mahatma Gandhi
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 01:22 AM on October 30, 2002 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
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.