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
    

    
kc2gwx

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As I said before, evolution is also based on faith. Why did you not address this point? If you think that evolution is not, you are mistaken.

"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 posted this. Evolution is based on faith.


-------
Sam, KC2GWX
 


Posts: 101 | Posted: 3:18 PM on October 30, 2002 | IP
Prometheus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"As I said before,evolution is also based on faith.  Why did you not address this point?"

Nothing to address.  You will probably be surprised, but I happen to believe in creation also, so I would not even attempt to defend evolution.  I will leave that to people who believe it is true.

My only purpose was to make the point that there is no possible way to prove creation is true, so it can not be a science.  Hence, it should never be taught in public schools.  Seems like we are probably in agreement as long as you agree creation should not be taught in public schools. Since we both think it is based on faith, it should only be taught by parents or church.  To me it boils down to a separation of church and state issue not a science issue.


-------
"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: 06:33 AM on October 31, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"My only purpose was to make the point that there is no possible way to prove creation is true, so it can not be a science."

My point was that the exact same can be said for evolution. As I've posted before, it requires great amounts of faith to believe in evolution. For example, the universe arising from nothing at no partiular time for no reason (which I might add, defies all the laws of physics we have). Or the mathamatic impossiblity of life arising from non-living material. Or the unobserved, genetically impossible benefiacial mutations which must occur for evolution to be true.

To believe in evolution is to break all the laws of physics, ignore all mathamatic princibles, and forget that the agent of change (mutations) is non-existent.

"Seems like we are probably in agreement as long as you agree creation should not be taught in public schools."

Creation isn't taught in schools. Many people think it is, but the contraversy in Kansas was not about teaching creation or evolution. It was whether or not to admit the gaping holes in evolution and not present it as a fact, as is being done now. Creation should be taught along with evolution, it is unfair to only show them one theory, and not the other. They are both based on faith, and should be treated equally.

"To me it boils down to a separation of church and state issue not a science issue."

Unfortunatly many tend to think this, which is ridiculous. Many scientist reject evolution, and believe in 'design', but do not have any real religion. And on the flip-side, many evolutionist are religious.

It is sad to see seperation of church and state turn into what it is now. This is not what the founding fathers had in mind.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:22 AM on October 31, 2002 | IP
kc2gwx

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

By the way, that was my post. It says I was a guest. I guess I wasn't signed in.


-------
Sam, KC2GWX
 


Posts: 101 | Posted: 10:25 AM on October 31, 2002 | IP
Prometheus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"....the controversy in Kansas was not about teaching creation or evolution."

It just so happens I live in Kansas and I know exactly what the controversy was.  A group of fundamentalist ran stealth campaigns for the state school board.  They did not state their hidden agenda of installing creation in the classrooms when they ran, because they knew they would not get elected if they did.  Enough of them got elected to pass their silly creation law, which did mandate presenting creation in the public schools.  At the very next election, all of these fundamentalist that were up for re-election were defeated by wide margins at the polls and the law was overturned at the very first meeting of the state school board after that election.  Your right, it was never taught in the classrooms of Kansas because the vast majority of Kansans did not want it to be taught.

"This is not what the founding fathers had in mind"

On this you are entirely wrong.  As I have posted on another thread, the founding fathers could have made this a Christian nation if they had wanted to, they chose not to do so.  Prior to the constitution, 11 of 13 states had religious qualifications for public office.  However, at the Constitutuional Convention the founding fathers voted down such qualifications, creating the separation of church and state that we have in the First Amendment today.

The reason for the establishment clause in the First Amendment is because of the historic abuse of religion mixing with government that was experienced by the founding fathers in their day.  Today, we don't have to look very far to see what happens when God becomes accepted as a governmental power.  Just think of the Taliban in Afghanastan, Iran, or just about any country in the middle east.

"It is unfair to only show them one theory, and not the other."

While they are both based on faith, creation is based on religious faith and evolution is based on scientific faith.  And don't even try saying evolution is a religion, that is the most ridiculous argument ever made.  Don't see any evolution churches, any evolution preachers on television hustling money, or any praying to evolution.   They are both based on faith, with religion being the one covered by the first amendment, hence the ban on it being taught in the schools.

No one has a problem with people proving that evolution is wrong, just don't try to replace it with another theory that is based upon religious beliefs.  Lets leave religion out of the public schools and have it in the homes and places of worship where it belongs.






-------
"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: 08:57 AM on November 1, 2002 | IP
kc2gwx

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"It just so happens I live in Kansas and I know exactly what the controversy was."

So then you must have seen how the media completely blew it out of proportion? TV news stations, web-sites, magazines were all saying that creation was being taught instead of evolution in schools, which, as you know, was not true.

"On this you are entirely wrong.  As I have posted on another thread, the founding fathers could have made this a Christian nation if they had wanted to, they chose not to do so."

I am not arguing that some of the founding fathers didn't wanted seperation of church and state. They did, without a doubt, see what catastrophes have happened in the past because of this. Many of the founding fathers were for seperation of church and state, but would not stand for what it means today.

They wanted to make sure that America did not establish a national religion, such as Spain's catholic church. They did not want another inquisition. But they also did not want seperation of RELIGION and state, which is what it has become. Church and religion are totally different. Our culture is trying to remove any remanants of religion.

"No one has a problem with people proving that evolution is wrong, just don't try to replace it with another theory that is based upon religious beliefs."

Oh yeah, in Kansas (as I'm sure you know), no one tried to 'replace' evolution. Evolution would still have been taught. In fact, the textbooks didn't even hint to creation whatsoever.

Many people do not understand what happened in Kansas. TIME magazine even wrote an article about it which was TOTALLY false. They said evolution was banned (false) and that creation was 'injected' into the schools (false). They also mentioned that creationist believe that God fabricated "phony artifacts designed to confound human reason."
Completely ridiculous!!! I certainly don't believe this, and no creationist I know would either.


-------
Sam, KC2GWX
 


Posts: 101 | Posted: 4:44 PM on November 1, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Many of the founding fathers were for seperation of church and state, but would not stand for what it means today."

Actually, most were for the separation of church and state or we wouldn't have it that way in the constitution.  I guess you are trying to make an original intention argument here?  But the fact is that times change, a fact admitted by the founders themselves.  If they meant for their original intentions to stand forever they would not have created an amendment process; which means they expected changes from their original ideas.

"But they also did not want seperation of RELIGION and state, which is what it has become.  Church and religion are totally different."

Nothing could be farther from the truth.  If you read Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, which is were the phrase separation of church and state was first proposed you will see he did mean religion.  Jefferson stated:

"Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and state."  -- Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802

The First Amendment does not even mention the word church, all it talks about IS religion, so to claim they did not want separation of religion and state is false.  Our founders wisely adopted a secular, godless constitution (the word God never appears in the Constitution), the first government to derive its powers from the people and the consent of the governed, rather than claiming divine authority.  The only references to religion in the constitution are exclusionary, such as there shall be no religious test for public office as stated in Article VI.  There were no prayers offered at the Constitutional Convention, which shows their intent to separate religion from secular affairs.








 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 03:52 AM on November 2, 2002 | IP
Prometheus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The above was from me.  For some reason it shows as guest.


-------
"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: 03:55 AM on November 2, 2002 | IP
kc2gwx

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"The First Amendment does not even mention the word church, all it talks about IS religion, so to claim they did not want separation of religion and state is false."  

What did Thomas Jefferson say? I know you are talking about the First Amendment, but you quote Thomas.

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and state."  

He mentioned the word Church, and he mentioned 'establishment of religion'. He didn't say 'Religion must be totally removed from our government.' He said there should be no law respecting an 'establishment of religion' (A  Church).


-------
Sam, KC2GWX
 


Posts: 101 | Posted: 12:19 PM on November 2, 2002 | IP
Prometheus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here is what the first amendment says:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I quoted Thomas Jefferson because he is the one who first used the term seperation of church and state that you had used previously when you said: "It's sad to see separation of church and state turn into what it is now".  I wanted to make sure you knew it was Jefferson who said it not the first amendment.  He used it to explain to the Danbury Baptists what the first amendment meant.

You say:  "He said there should be no law respecting an 'extablishment of religion'(A Church).

No, Jefferson said exactly what he meant "establishment of religion"  The (A Church) is added by you.  If Jefferson had meant establishment of A Church he would have said that and not said establishment of religion.  

People are free to have whatever religious beliefs they want.  It is when those religious beliefs attempt to become public policy and are coercively forced upon others is when the problems begin.  In a free country, public policy must be based on allowing all citizens to live according to their own personal religious beliefs.




-------
"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: 12:18 AM on November 3, 2002 | IP
kc2gwx

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

An establishment of religion means a church. If Jefferson had meant a religion he would have said that and not an establishment of religion.

Perhaps Jefferson did not say 'church' specifically because some religions do not use 'churches'. They use mosques, or sanctaurys, or a place of worship other than a church. Perhaps this is why Jefferson did not specifically say 'church'.

"It is when those religious beliefs attempt to become public policy and are coercively forced upon others is when the problems begin."

I agree. When people are forced to believe a religion, that is wrong. However, I do not think this happens much in our government.


-------
Sam, KC2GWX
 


Posts: 101 | Posted: 10:19 AM on November 4, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The reason WHY we agree the government doesn't force people to believe in a religion is b/c we don't enforce religious beliefs upon a populace (AKA: School Prayer)


-------
"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: 4:34 PM on November 4, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The bible has a great amount of valuable information that should be taught. On the other hand Science has a great amount of information that should taught. I do believe in the separation of church and state and therefore think that the bible (relgion) should not be part of the public school curriculum unless it is a general non required class. I think that to give our young people a well rounded approach to religion (all relgions) should be taught with a decidedly philosophical bent. Science should be taught with a decidedly scientific bent. They are two completely separate areas and if they are taught without prejudice then the student will have a solid foundation to make his or her choice when they are able. Nothing should be forced one way or the other.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:01 PM on November 11, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[color=maroon] I think they should give the students a choice on what they want to take... Back in the day they only taught Creationism and now all they teach is Evolution... Why not teach both if they have the knoweldge?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:48 PM on November 11, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If creation were taught in schools, whose version would it be? The Native Americans, the Muslims, the Jews, the fundies, the liberal christians, mine?
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 10:01 PM on November 24, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

not true dsadevil, what about the religous schools? are they illegally forcing these children to pray? a number of my friends go there and they are jewish, or muslim, i say it is almost like brainwashing

-i am xenjael
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:44 PM on December 11, 2002 | IP
sourbubblegum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

They can make it an optional science class that students dont have to take unless they want to and they can still get credit for it. But i think not everyone should have to take it.


-------
Our days are numbered. Live each day to the fullest because there may not be a tomorrow.
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 4:23 PM on December 31, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Christianity is NOT religion. Religion is man's attempt to please god and to reach out to god. Christianity is God reaching out to man.  I don't see any reason why anyone would turn away from God's love.  Hey, check out Jesus fulfilling Bible prophesy.             Benjamin
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:42 PM on December 31, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

*walks in*

Hello all.  I find it interesting that many people claim that we've never observed macroevolution.  But before I present the following, I need to set a ground level of understanding of what speciation is.

Speciation (for sexual organisms) is said to have occurred when two organisms can no longer reproduce under natural conditions because of a hereditary trait.  And with that, I present just 1 of the several observed instances of speciation.

5.7 Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.


WH X WH - 75%
P1 X P1 - 95%
P2 X P2 - 80%
P1 X P2 - 77%
WH X P1 - 0%
WH X P2 - 0%

They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations.

Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

And yes, Creationists have acknowledged this, but their claim is that this proves the Creationist position of rapid speciation after the flood.


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 06:30 AM on January 5, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

whoops, that post should have been me.  For some reason, it logged me in as Guest and I didn't catch it until too late.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 06:31 AM on January 5, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Weird, it's still logging me in as guest even though I have the user name.  (Name should be Dracil).

Anyway, another two bits of why I don't think Creationism should find its way into the classrooms.  Creationism to most people means Christian Creationism.  If you really want to start promoting beliefs, we should also include Islamic Creationism and Hindu Creationism and all the other tribal Creation stories.

Here's another reason why I feel Creationism should not be simply included as an "alternative" to Evolution.  We don't include "Flat Earth" as an alternative to the "(approximately) Spherical Earth" either just to present other views, so why should we do this for Creationism.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 06:38 AM on January 5, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i myself am not a full-fledged creationist, but the reason why we dont include "flat earth" is because we know as a FACT that the earth is spherical. evolution is not even close to being FACT


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 11:05 AM on January 5, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You mean population gene frequencies don't change?  How odd.  Even Creationists acknowledge this (they call it "microevolution").

Macroevolution has also been demonstrated since we have already observed actual speciation.

And no objection to teaching other Creationism other than Christian Creationism?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:12 AM on January 6, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well let's see what the professianals think.
  "The mass of evidence shows that all or almost all known mutations are mistakably pathological and the few remaining one's are highly suspect."       -C.P. Martin, evolutionist


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 04:00 AM on January 6, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Professionals?  I see one.

Funny, I think the bacteria are rather enjoying the anti-antibiotic mutations they've been going through.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:50 PM on January 6, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

BTW, your quote should be "unmistakably"
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:51 PM on January 6, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, to kc2gwx

My point was that the exact same can be said for evolution. As I've posted before, it requires great amounts of faith to believe in evolution. For example, the universe arising from nothing at no partiular time for no reason (which I might add, defies all the laws of physics we have). Or the mathamatic impossiblity of life arising from non-living material. Or the unobserved, genetically impossible benefiacial mutations which must occur for evolution to be true.

What you're speaking of is abiogenesis, which is separate from Evolution.  Evolution is not dependent on the validity of Abiogenesis.

To believe in evolution is to break all the laws of physics, ignore all mathamatic princibles, and forget that the agent of change (mutations) is non-existent.

Such as?  Care to state some?  In case your argument relies on the idea that Evolution is based all on probability, it's not.  There's something called Selection.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:59 PM on January 6, 2003 | IP
debategirl88

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't think schools should teach evolution. There are quite a few Christians in public schools around the country. The LEAST they can do is make a class for kids who want to learn Creationism. If not, there taking away our rights.


-------
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
-Thomas Jefferson
 


Posts: 157 | Posted: 6:50 PM on January 7, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

what kind of creationism should they teach? there are very many varieties. there is the six-days creationist for example. and then there are people like me who think that the days were symbolic and represented geological time periods. i dont believe in evolution either. but if we are to teach creation, then which version do we teach?


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 11:31 PM on January 7, 2003 | IP
Dracil

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't think schools should teach evolution. There are quite a few Christians in public schools around the country.


But this statement operates under the assumption that Evolution is against Christianity, which is not necessarily true, since there are Christian Evolutionists.

However, your suggestion of offering a Creationism class as an alternative might be a suitable compromise.  That class could teach all the different forms of Creationism that are out there, not limited in focus to only the Christian perspective either.  I suppose we should also offer a Geocentrism (Sun revolving around the Earth) class as an alternative too while we're at it.

(Edited by Dracil 1/11/2003 at 5:06 PM).
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 5:03 PM on January 11, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution just puts the problem to the side.  Just saying we formed over time is stupid because were did it start their was a starting point and yet more before.  Every little part of a human even salyva every thing in our skin blood insides all contain a mineral only found in dirt just as the Bible tells.  Nothing like this i found in any other specieas or even yet a stupid monky.  Why isnt it happening know why arent their any other living things with cognition only humans have cognition, animals have Classical Condtioning thats it.  Why else sence we can remember every culture all over the world belives in a form of God.  Because,  Its ridiculase to say oh we popped up, or maybe a big bang. Big bang happen from these particals hitting eachother were did the particales come from.  Their is something out their we dont understand its because were Human.  Well what do you need to believe in their is so many religions.  Well every religion branched off one religion the Original Hebrew Text now translated as the Bible not he morman one.  Many religions make up their own bibles.  THe only one that has ever proofed itself and has never contradicted itself it the origanl bible it has pridected thousands of things that nothing has ever predicted before it happen to the T.  You think a man was able to right such a book of the most inspiration and factual book.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:54 AM on January 15, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution just puts the problem to the side.

Puts what problem to the side and how does it do it?

Just saying we formed over time is stupid because were did it start their was a starting point and yet more before.

Why can't creationists learn to spell correctly or learn how to form a sentence?  Not that I don't ever misspell anything but  looking at the above, what comes after, it's a wonder that creationists get out of grade school.

Please, could you restate your objections in a form that somewhat resembles the english language?

Porky Pine


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 06:24 AM on January 15, 2003 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

that was the dumbest post ever

tell me more about this dirt mineral we have that no other animal has.

please explain to me how hinduism or buddhism or taoism came from the Old Hebrew Text. i would love to understand that


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 10:05 AM on January 15, 2003 | IP
Sarah2006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from debategirl88 at 6:50 PM on January 7, 2003 :
I don't think schools should teach evolution. There are quite a few Christians in public schools around the country.

Just because there are Christians in school doesn't mean that they shouldn't teach evolution.  That doesn't make sense.  
The LEAST they can do is make a class for kids who want to learn Creationism.

There is its called Church, and you can do your own research online.

If not, there taking away our rights.

That's not really taking away your rights.  Not only that, but high school students don't actually have all their rights.  Otherwise, school uniforms and dress codes would be illegal, that is hurting your freedom of speech.  They could say anything they want, they can't.   There are actually a lot of rights high school students don't have if you look at your school rules and at the constitution.  When you are in high school, they take some of your rights in the name of keeping all the kids at the school safe.

Sarah





 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 6:09 PM on January 15, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[color=aqua][/color]You are the ones who are ball lickers :-0
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:23 AM on January 16, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, that was real mature.  What are you?  14, 15?  Does mom know how you're spending your time on the computer?  Maybe you should go back to the Dragon Ball Z message board.  You'll be safer there.


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:22 PM on January 16, 2003 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ball lickers? that's crude, even for me.


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 6:39 PM on January 16, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is not a proven fact, therefore it should not be taught in school. I do not believe that I came from some butt scratching, termite eating monkey. That's degrading to say the least.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:02 PM on January 17, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is not a proven fact,

You're right.  It is not a proven fact.  Neither is gravity or the nuclear theory.  They are however scientific theories with the weight of evidence behind them.  No theories in science are proven facts.  All theories are subject to change.

therefore it should not be taught in school.

If we were to hold to that logic, then we shouldn't have any science classes at all.

I do not believe that I came from some butt scratching, termite eating monkey.

Well, if we were to teach science soley on what you believe in, what exactly would you teach?

BTW, all the world's biologists agree with you.  None of them believe that they evolved from monkies either.

That's degrading to say the least.

But being formed out of the mud by the whims of a magical being isn't?  This is a rather speciescentric view of the world you have.  Would it make you feel better if someone told you that you evolved from dolphins?  They don't scratch their butts and I hear they are quite intelligent.





 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:51 PM on January 18, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is fine being taught if it is accompanied by an optional class on creationism or a debate class. THere are a lot of holes in evolution, and I think those need to be pointed out and someone should try and explain them instead of just teaching it. Many of us have no alternative and I think it's the ACLU that's trying to get OPTIONAL classes like that thrown out...


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 11:41 AM on January 20, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

point out some of those holes


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 12:40 PM on January 20, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is fine being taught if it is accompanied by an optional class on creationism or a debate class.

Which creationism should be taught alongside it?  There's a reason why evolution is taught as science and not creationism.  Evolution has had over 150 years of evidence built up behind it and has gone through the peer review process.  Creationism has what exactly?  Genesis?  Are you going to base the science class on "Let there be light"?

THere are a lot of holes in evolution, and I think those need to be pointed out and someone should try and explain them instead of just teaching it.

If by holes you mean unanswered questions, yes, I agree with you.   There are always unanswered questions in science.  That's what makes it science.  If there were no unanswered questions, it would be a religion.

Many of us have no alternative

Threre are always private and parochial schools so there are always alternatives.

and I think it's the ACLU that's trying to get OPTIONAL classes like that thrown out...

Oh well yes, of course!  It's always dem freakin' liberals.  Why, just the other day, I saw them in there black helicopters stealin' children to indoctrinate them to Darwinism so that they can become liberal pinko's!

[sarcasm mode off]

It would be nice if someone could actually back up their latest conspiracy theory.


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:35 PM on January 20, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As a High School freshman, I've been learning about Evolution and the creation of the universe by the Big Bang for years. Whereas I can see the prophecies of Revelation actively becoming a reality in my world (the forming of the European Union, which is currently questioning the involvement of Christianity in their constitution), whereas evolution cannot be proven as easily as Christianity. Since evolution is also based around faith, should Christianity, Judaism, and all the other religions be taught in schools if students desire to know them? Many kids, whether they're raised in athiestic homes or not, are not given the chance to experience what could potentially be the path of righteousness. I would love to learn about Creationism in my school, and everytime I pull out the palm-sized New Testament I always carry in my backpack after my Science class's lessons, my teacher just glances at me and seems to despise it. Isn't it odd that Christianity has been pressed from our schools? Isn't it odd that Christianity is even being questioned by modern-day governments? Isn't it odd that Wicca and athiesm are suddenly accepted and pertained to? We're boiling down to the last days, in which Christianity is persecuted in every direction.
I should know.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:54 PM on May 29, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is based on science, not faith.   As a science, it is taught in science classrooms.   Religions such as Christianity and Judaism do not belong in a science classroom, but a one on history or world religion.

Christianity is only being 'pressed' from the areas where it didn't belong in the first place.

Your martyr act is unconvincing.   Taking away Christians' ability to indoctrinate children is not persecution.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:30 PM on May 29, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"I would love to learn about Creationism in my school..."

Why?  Creationism was proven wrong roughly 200 years ago.  Proven completely wrong.  It has no place in a science class at all.  
The only place it should be taught in a public school is along side other disproven myths like a flat earth or a geocentric universe.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:58 AM on May 30, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How has christainity been proven worng?? and if evolution is based on science and science is facts, how come they cant PROVE the big bang therefore making evolution a theory not fact, therefore technology not a piece of science but rather a belief or religion
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:15 PM on June 1, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

*theory i mean not technology
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:16 PM on June 1, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I never said science has proven Christianity wrong.
But creationism has been falisified.  The Earth was NOT created 6000 - 10,000 years ago, life does evolve, Genesis is not literally true, there never was an Adam and Eve, no garden of Eden and no world wide flood.  You don't have to believe in creationism to be a christian, and the great majority of christians are noit creationists.

Science is not "facts", science is a method of studying the natural world.  In science, no theory is ever proven 100%.  It is a fact that life evolves, changes, we have obseved this both in the lab and in the wild.  But it will always be the Theory of Evolution, just like it will always be the Theory of Gravity.  You should learn how science works before you go off on another rant.

And the Big Bang has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution, so why do you even mention it?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:27 PM on June 1, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You're wrong on your timeframes. Its long been known that around the times of Biblical writers, in mentioning the bloodlines of families (so-and-so-begat-so-and-so), that potentially hundreds or even thousands of years of generations may have been left aside. Many writers only included figures in genealogies who went on to do something vital in the writings, whereas those who weren't as important--or were unimportant completely--were left out.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 02:06 AM on June 14, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Is this directed at me?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:39 AM on June 14, 2003 | 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.