Evolutionary Education - Do we need more?

[SpiritWolf77]

his is a subject I'm rather passionate about and I hope to show others why, exactly, I am so passionate about it. Likewise, I am curious to know why disbelievers hold their opinions so strongly.

I believe evolution is a valid scientific theory with excessive evidence to back it up. I believe the debate about its validity is based more on personal emotion and fear rather than actual science, and I believe this debate needs to end soon if we are at all to hope to give future generations a decent scientific education.

I've become saddened to see how poorly it is taught in schools these days...and to learn how many people still feel it should not be taught in schools, or should be taught alongside other "theories" which are not scientific. I feel students should receive a proper scientific education in school, and religious opinions should be saved for the home or for personal reflection. Religious belief shouldn't be forced into education, especially not at the cost of dismissing valid science.

What are your views?

[Zoltan]

It's an interesting question, though I find it so distant in time, that I don't really think about which was the real root. Leastways "how" was the real root, because about God, as the ultimate source, I'm sure. Maybe it happened like it's thought in evolution theory. It would make sense after all. On the other hand there are a few mysterious cases, where scientists seem to find out that a certain artefacts don'T fit the official timeline, because they mustbe older than we'd think. So maybe we came to earth like how we are now. And what about those 'previous' types oh human-like beings? Maybe they were different species, resembling us, but they went extinct as our kind got the upper hand over them.

Wow, think about it, how cool it would be if we had one or two other homosapiens-like species rambling on Earth, who could communicate with us via speech. Although I think they became extinct due to their lower intelligence level, and because of the agressive behaviour of homosapiens.

One way or another, today it's not really matter to me how it was after the Start. Things start to be insteresting from the dawn of nations again. It's hard enough to trace even only those anyway.

[lion_roog]

Those who plan to disagree with something should first know exactly what they are disagreeing with.

Right now evolution is a valid scientific theory and should be taught as such; leaving it up to the individual to agree or disagree with the theory while being knowledgable on the theory itself. It seems rather useless and ignorant to disagree with something you know little about.

[Sadiki]

I don't know if I really have much to say on this... we have over half year dedicated on evolution and all that 7-9 grade ( in biology and geology ) and in High school you have to at least compleat Biology course 2 which handles only evolution and genetics. So in our schooling system I don't see how they could really teach it more.

[Simba_2004]

personally I believe it should be removed from the school systems, but that is my personal views. I haven't seen any evidence to prove evolution "real," But I have seen plenty of evidence proving evolution fiction and our school systems shouldn't be teaching fiction, only warps minds. God created humans and all the animals, my ancestors were not monkeys.

[Toushiro]

i agree that evolution is poorly taught in schools these days, but its not really the curriculum's fault that most teachers in high school or lower levels of classes just suck at their jobs. evolution is pretty much the only thing in biology that even remotely interests me and its only been really well-taught for me when i looked up stuff about it myself. public schools arent really teaching facilities anymore... theyre free babysitting. only about one in ten teachers actually do what teachers are supposed to do. evolution seems to be one of those subjects teachers struggle with a lot. maybe theyre too overly conscious about students who have strong religious beliefs and they just want to avoid conflict with them (teachers hate it when students challenge them on anything... trust me, i know since i did it all the time and still do as a college student). biology teachers who dont teach evolution probably avoid the subject because its more convenient for them to avoid it.

science education (in general and not just with biology and evolution) is suffering. my old high school was so underfunded that the only materials we had to experiment with in chemistry was water, salt and vinegar. its sad, but it cant be helped. the people dont want science being taught anymore. we had measures that tried to be passed in the last few local elections that would give more funding to science programs around the state but each time, the people voted "no" so the measure failed. just one more reason i dislike letting the majority make decisions *shakes head*.

biology classes should teach about evolution since its a theory within biology and quite a major one at that. i see no reason why it shouldnt be in the curriculum for biology but teachers tend to avoid it and theres not much that can be helped about that.

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by lion_roog
Those who plan to disagree with something should first know exactly what they are disagreeing with.
Precisely. I find the main problem that arises with so many people "disbelieving" it is that they don't know much about it at all. Most of these people that I've personally talked to think it's about the Big Bang. :/


Originally posted by SimbaTheMighty
I don't know if I really have much to say on this... we have over half year dedicated on evolution and all that 7-9 grade ( in biology and geology ) and in High school you have to at least compleat Biology course 2 which handles only evolution and genetics. So in our schooling system I don't see how they could really teach it more.
I think it's mostly a problem in the US. It's really glossed over in most undergraduate US schooling.


Originally posted by Simba_2004
personally I believe it should be removed from the school systems, but that is my personal views. I haven't seen any evidence to prove evolution "real," But I have seen plenty of evidence proving evolution fiction and our school systems shouldn't be teaching fiction, only warps minds. God created humans and all the animals, my ancestors were not monkeys.
Since you sound so convinced, care to explain the evidence which you feel proves it fiction? If you really are somehow more knowledgeable and correct about the subject than the majority of the scientific community and nearly everyone who has studied it in depth, then I assume you can back up your views with scientific fact and logic.

[HasiraKali]

I think the main problem with evolution is the vast majority of people don't know what it's really all about and what's trying to say. It's really a lot of misunderstandings about what exactly the theory is all about. I, personally, feel that it should be taught in schools as a valid scientific theory (which it is). It's up to the individual to decide what they want to believe.

This topic has caused some rather heated arguments in the past. I'll leave this thread open as long as everyone is being nice. :) Thanks y'all.

[Juniper]

I think evolution, and only evolution, should be taught in schools. It's currently the only scientific theory that explains today's biodiversity. Contrary to a common person's understanding of "Theory," a scientific theory needs decades upon decades of testing and retesting with no credible and applicable data disproving it to recieve such a designation. While there are other hypothesies that have been suggested to explain today's biodiversity, none have the evidence that evolution does. Likewise, I don't think religious concepts to explain biodiversity should be taught in biology classes because they are, by definition, not science. That doesn't mean that it's stupid to believe in them or even that they're not true. However, since religious beliefs of how life came to be are not based upon the scientific method, they are not science and should not be taught in a science class.

I personally think that God used evolution as a way to put animals, plants, and people on the planet. However, since only the evolution part is testable under the scientific method, I don't think it would be right to suggest in a science class that God was responsible for such processes.

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by HasiraKali
I think the main problem with evolution is the vast majority of people don't know what it's really all about and what's trying to say. It's really a lot of misunderstandings about what exactly the theory is all about.
Agreed. I honestly don't think I have ever met someone who doubted it who actually really understood what it was/had researched it thoroughly.

I think if someone's going to outright dismiss a theory which the majority of the scientific community states is true, then they'd better be sure they really understand what they're dismissing and have valid scientific reasons to back up their disbelief. And in my experience, the naysayers don't.

[Dyani]

One thing we need to remember. Evolution is a theory. Its not 100% truth. Its what most people believe is the truth. But just because the majority believe it, doesn't make it fact. Its like Christianity in that light.

Simba_2004 - You haven't seen *any evidence to prove evolution "real"* but I haven't seen any evidence to prove it otherwise, or to prove other theories correct, including religion, on the creation of life. With no ill intent meant, I see most religions as fiction but as an important benefical part of society. You believe Christianity's theory of the creation of life as truth, and some people agree with you. However, you think that teaching the thoery of evolution in schools should be banned. Not everyone thinks like you and so everyone should be given the chance to figure out on their own which they would like to believe in.


Edit - take the word "believe" loosely there, no quibbling about its greater meaning or other should twaddle. ^^

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Dyani
One thing we need to remember. Evolution is a theory. Its not 100% truth. Its what most people believe is the truth. But just because the majority believe it, doesn't make it fact.
"Theory" in science does not mean the same as "theory" in colloquial English. A scientific theory is "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." - Dictionary.

In short, a scientific theory is an explanation of a set of facts which are combined into an overarching concept. Theories explain how facts are put together. Theories are not "guesses" "hypotheses" or the next step down from a fact. Theories can be considered entirely factual and proven. Gravitational theory, for example. No one considers that "not 100% truth," right? Because Gravitational Theory doesn't mean "Best guess about how gravity works" it means "Explanation about how gravity works." The Theory of Evolution is the explanation of how evolution works. Not a guess or hypothesis. It is entirely scientifically proven. Theory, in a scientific sense, simply means "explanation" not "hypothesis." Hypotheses are called just that: hypotheses. If there was still reasonable doubt about how evolution functioned, it would be called a hypothesis, not a theory.

Anyone who wishes to argue otherwise ought to provide some scientific evidence to back their claim so we can discuss this on a rational level. I hope Simba_2004 will do so when he gets back to this thread.


Simba_2004 - You haven't seen *any evidence to prove evolution "real"* but I haven't seen any evidence to prove it otherwise, or to prove other theories correct, including religion, on the creation of life.
Again, confusing the colloquial use of theory with with the scientific use. The Theory of Evolution is not a theory in the same way a religious belief is a "theory" or opinion. I just want to be absolutely clear on this since it's probably the single most common misunderstanding about this subject.

[Dyani]

Ug... quibbling about a word again? O_o

Science is one great big guess. We take what is available to us and guess (with tests etc) how/why/when it happens. You cannot say that one theory is fact when somewhere on earth or in space, it completely rips that theory to shreds. Take the Gravitation theory one. Its been based on what happens on Earth alone. Anti-matter does not follow the rules of gravity. Cosmic rays hardly obey any known scientific rules made by us. Science is changing constantly. Once we belived the earth was flat. We now know/hope we know it is infact a flattened sphere shape. Its why they call theories theories. They are theories until proven to be facts, then they are known as facts.

All I'm trying to say is that one can't say either Evolution or Christianity is 100% proven fact. People believe in both, but its a choice. Its a decision the individual should be allowed to make.

Is quibbling with words really nessisary? Oo

[SpiritWolf77]

I'm not "quibbling about a word." I just wanted to clarify the meaning of scientific theory because a lot of people misinterpret it to mean "evolution is only speculation and does not have enough evidence supporting it to be considered proven yet."

I'm aware that our very observation is all open to interpretation, and even what we consider solid fact may not be, but the way you worded it made it sound like you think there's not enough substantial evidence supporting it, or that there's equal scientific evidence supporting it and Creationism.

[A-non-a-mus]

I don't mind evolution... but I don't think schools should enforce darwin's theory ... because that's a belief... unless the schools allow all studies beliefs they shouldn't hold their own views as truth...

(what I'm meaning is, some with say evolution means we came from monkeys... I don't believe that... and shouldn't have to face schools' exams saying otherwise, claiming it as 'evolution' ... then go ahead and ban every other teachings and beliefs... aside the boards' own)

[XxBlackXxParadeXx]

I belive/agree with evolution, and i think it should be teached.

[Avalon]

I believe and agree with evolution, it explains how everything on this earth came to be as it is today. I believe it should be taught in school. Darwinism shouldn't be confused with evolution. Darwinism is based on the basics of Darwin's threories stateing that only the one with the best genes ect. survive.

This however isn't always the case, atleast not when this genetical diesease doesn't make life impossible x)

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by A-non-a-mus
I don't mind evolution... but I don't think schools should enforce darwin's theory ... because that's a belief... unless the schools allow all studies beliefs they shouldn't hold their own views as truth...

(what I'm meaning is, some with say evolution means we came from monkeys... I don't believe that... and shouldn't have to face schools' exams saying otherwise, claiming it as 'evolution' ... then go ahead and ban every other teachings and beliefs... aside the boards' own)
It's not a "belief." It's science supported by evidence. Do you think schools also shouldn't enforce gravitational theory because that's just a "belief?"

Do you know why evolution says we share common ancestors with apes (not monkeys)? If you know the scientific evidence behind it, then you shouldn't be calling it a "belief." If you don't know the scientific evidence behind it, then this is even more reason why it really needs to be better taught in schools, since so many people are ignorant of the subject, especially the scientific details.

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Avalon
I believe and agree with evolution, it explains how everything on this earth came to be as it is today. I believe it should be taught in school. Darwinism shouldn't be confused with evolution. Darwinism is based on the basics of Darwin's threories stateing that only the one with the best genes ect. survive.

This however isn't always the case, atleast not when this genetical diesease doesn't make life impossible x)
Actually, Darwin's theory is the basis evolution. His theory states that the "fittest" will survive, not the "best." "Fittest" in this context does not mean best, it means "most adapted to the environment."

Simply put: if an organism can live long enough to reproduce and pass on their genes, then those genes are the ones that will be maintained throughout the gene pool.

[Avalon]

@SpiritWolf77

I am sorry xD I guess I used the wrong wording there. :x

[SpiritWolf77]

Hehe, no worries. It all gets kinda complex at times, especially with wording which can be reinterpreted many different ways. It took me a lot of hobby reading on the subject to get a decent understanding of it. ;)

[Azerane]

All I read was the first post, so excuse me if I'm repeating what someone else has already said. I just need to say it before I forget.

As a theory, evolution is the most solid one we have, and we should stick to teaching it in schools. The only reason we should teach another theory is if it becomes more plausible than the theory of evolution, but nothing is. So evolution is what should be taught, no two questions about it.

As for including religious beliefs into it, no. I am a christian, but i don't think that should be incorporated into science when you're learning at school. You can mingle them together later. But as my senior year biology teacher told me "this is science, leave your religious beliefs at the door. It isn't about what you believe, it's about what you know." And you don't get and A in science class for talking about creation, you get an A in science class for talking about Evolution.

[Juniper]

Originally posted by Dyani


Is quibbling with words really nessisary? Oo

I'd say it is when the definition of the word is understood to have a opposite meaning between two groups of people. Many people assume a theory to be a wild guess, but the true meaning in science is a virtual fact. That's a very big difference, and if the definition isn't set straight, then several people can misunderstand eachother.

As an example, someone who says "It's just a theory," is actually giving reason to accept evolution as credible, though that may not be the point that he/she is trying to make. Thus, the word needs definition, and I hardly consider that quibbling over a word.

[A-non-a-mus]

Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
It's not a "belief." It's science supported by evidence. Do you think schools also shouldn't enforce gravitational theory because that's just a "belief?"

What the *hehe* did you just say that your belief is true because gravity is true?? ...

drops a pencil ... yup gravity...
drops another pencil ... wow! evolution! ...

Those two have nothing in common

Evolution IS a belief ... one that you believe in apparently, for there's as much evidence of that as there is of any belief. (and don't get me wrong, I'm talking about the 'millions of years' and 'where we evolved from' ... and not gravity) Another way we can say it's a belief, is that, no matter what we say it's not going to change your mind... In fact for us to say 'what you're believing in, no matter what insignificant evidence they think they have, is false.' would probably make you angered. All beliefs that are backed are like that.


Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
Do you know why evolution says we share common ancestors with apes (not monkeys)? If you know the scientific evidence behind it, then you shouldn't be calling it a "belief." If you don't know the scientific evidence behind it, then this is even more reason why it really needs to be better taught in schools, since so many people are ignorant of the subject, especially the scientific details.

Did you also take into account that they believe the same way, no matter how many times they were proving themselves wrong. All this is based on the works of humans... and it's not perfect.

It is a belief. Yours, and theirs.

Or, I can say the same thing back if you wanted:
"Do you know all that I believe? do you know all the evidence behind it? ... then you'd be believing the same as me. Since you don't this is a reason it should be taught in schools. As so many are ignorant of it's significance to all life."

In fact any belief I guarantee would want the masses to know more of... The same as you are doing now, except you feel the need to shove it down our throats as facts... when it's not, you just believe so.

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by A-non-a-mus
[B]What the *hehe* did you just say that your belief is true because gravity is true?? ...

drops a pencil ... yup gravity...
drops another pencil ... wow! evolution! ...

Those two have nothing in common

One thing they have in common is that there is a body of evidence that supports the two theories. I believe Spiritwolf was making a comparison in that regards.


Evolution IS a belief ... one that you believe in apparently, for there's as much evidence of that as there is of any belief. (and don't get me wrong, I'm talking about the 'millions of years' and 'where we evolved from' ... and not gravity) Another way we can say it's a belief, is that, no matter what we say it's not going to change your mind... In fact for us to say 'what you're believing in, no matter what insignificant evidence they think they have, is false.' would probably make you angered. All beliefs that are backed are like that.

Well, unlike other beliefs (such as in a god or gods), evolution has evidence of its existence whereas many other beliefs are based off of faith. Evolution is not based on faith. Scientist may not know everything there is to know about evolution, but they know enough that evolution is a scientific theory.




Or, I can say the same thing back if you wanted:
"Do you know all that I believe? do you know all the evidence behind it? ... then you'd be believing the same as me. Since you don't this is a reason it should be taught in schools. As so many are ignorant of it's significance to all life."


I don't think that is was Spiritwolf was saying. I think she was saying that as a scientific theory supported by evidence and all that, that evolution should be taught in science class as other theories are taught in science classes. It's about educating people on the facts of such theories. If you don't know what a theory is about, it would be ignorant to say you disagree with it.

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by A-non-a-mus
What the *hehe* did you just say that your belief is true because gravity is true?? ...

drops a pencil ... yup gravity...
drops another pencil ... wow! evolution! ...

Those two have nothing in common
As Roog said, my analogy was to point out that gravity is labeled as the same kind of scientific idea as evolution (a theory). It, just like evolution, is a well-supported explanation of how a part of our world works, yet you clearly don't have a problem with gravity being taught in schools. What makes evolution different to you? Why is it okay to teach some well-supported scientific theories in schools, but not others?


Evolution IS a belief ... one that you believe in apparently, for there's as much evidence of that as there is of any belief.
Really? Okay then, can you please provide me with scientific evidence that Creationism is true? That Ganesha creates and removes obstacles in a person's life? That 40 virgins await those who sacrifice themselves in the name of Allah? Those are all beliefs. Yet I doubt you can provide me with a single piece of scientific evidence that they are true. These things are believed on faith alone. Evolution, however, has massive amounts of scientific evidence backing it: genetics, the fossil record, actual observation, etc. So, please explain to me how evolution is only a belief, and has just as much evidence supporting it as any other belief.


Another way we can say it's a belief, is that, no matter what we say it's not going to change your mind... In fact for us to say 'what you're believing in, no matter what insignificant evidence they think they have, is false.' would probably make you angered. All beliefs that are backed are like that.
You're making quite a few assumptions about what goes on in my head and what I believe. Actually, if you could provide me with scientific evidence against evolution, that would change my mind. You have yet to do this, however.


Or, I can say the same thing back if you wanted:
"Do you know all that I believe? do you know all the evidence behind it? ... then you'd be believing the same as me. Since you don't this is a reason it should be taught in schools. As so many are ignorant of it's significance to all life."

I have read the Bible. I have thoroughly read Creationist articles and claims. So, yes, I am quite familiar with the supposed evidence behind Creationism. I notice you didn't answer my question. How thoroughly have you researched evolution? How much do you know about it? If you're so certain that it's only a belief and that I have no good evidence supporting this belief, why haven't you tried to show me your own evidence proving it false or tried to point out scientific errors in the theory?

If you are so confident about your position that I am simply trying to shove my unproven belief down the throats of others, then why don't you challenge that belief as opposed to just challenging me? So far, all you've done is made accusations about my own beliefs and motives. You have not provided me with a single argument as to why you feel evolution is scientifically unsound. I encourage you to do so if you want your opinion of my supposed evangelism to hold any weight.

[Juniper]

I think that it's important to realize that science and nature do not always follow what man wants to believe. If we silence evolution because it's unpopular, that doesn't make evolution quit working. Likewise, even if a religion is in direct conflict with evolution, one cannot remove such conflict by removing the education therein. Assuming such religion and evolution are both factual and incompatible, there would be no reconciliation between the two even if man decides to remain ignorant to the concept, as both would still exist. Thus, it's important to explore such conflict from all angles and see if, in fact, a conflict must exist. In the end, ignoring a fact does not make it go away, and teaching a falsity does not make it a fact. Truth, whatever that may be, remains the truth regardless of what one chooses to believe.

Granted, it's entirely possible that evolution is not the proper and factual explanation for today's biodiversity. If that is the case, then I am confident that it will fall by the way-side was time and information progresses. As of right now, however, it is the best explanation that science has to answer a tough question. This explanation has been supported by tremendous data from uncountable research endeavors spanning more than one hundred years -- research from world renowned scientists, university professors, and university students (Even myself at a university level). So far what we have seen points towards the validity of evolution, and if that changes, science will be ready to accomodate the next great theory. With the understanding that data should not be altered by the scientist's biases and beliefs, it would be inherently unscientific, and grossly inexcusable, to refuse to teach a theory of science in a science class on the grounds of religious conflict.

If nothing else, it's important to remember that science and religion are two different cups of tea. Science is meant to explain the physical, natural world with testable predictions resulting in observable data. Religion explains a supernatural and non-physical setting that is generally considered impossible to observe under most conditions (ie, being alive). Thus, these are two different fields that need not conflict, as one can not remain in its intended use and either prove or disprove the other. So we find evolution to be factual, that doesn't mean that God(s) didn't make it that way. Actually, I personally think that it's wrong to say that God cannot or did not use evolution as a tool, I mean, who are we to decide what God couldn't and didn't do?

[Toushiro]

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y195/genis97426/Something_The_Lord_made_by_Dogss.gif

i really dont see how creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive. why only one or the other? :|

creationism is spiritual. evolution is physical. because of that, they can overlap. creationism is a spiritual thing so it should be taught at church and Sunday school, while evolution is a part of science and should be taught in science classes. creationism isnt science and evolution isnt spiritual :/

they both have their place in the world, but they do not contradict each other.

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Toushiro
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y195/genis97426/Something_The_Lord_made_by_Dogss.gif

i really dont see how creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive. why only one or the other? :|

creationism is spiritual. evolution is physical. because of that, they can overlap. creationism is a spiritual thing so it should be taught at church and Sunday school, while evolution is a part of science and should be taught in science classes. creationism isnt science and evolution isnt spiritual :/

they both have their place in the world, but they do not contradict each other.
Creationism, as the term is usually used, is the belief that the Creation account in Genesis is literal and true. This most definitely conflicts with evolution.

[A-non-a-mus]

Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
As Roog said, my analogy was to point out that gravity is labeled as the same kind of scientific idea as evolution (a theory). It, just like evolution, is a well-supported explanation of how a part of our world works, yet you clearly don't have a problem with gravity being taught in schools. What makes evolution different to you? Why is it okay to teach some well-supported scientific theories in schools, but not others?

Yes, but that's where it differs... The show that evolution being the study of things adapting and/or evolving is truth, the study in that how we came to be is where it seperates and becaomes simply what is 'believed' ... and no, that pile of garbage they labeled 'lucy' is not sufficent fossil evedence long as they keep making repeated large mistakes on a much easier paper like a Brontasaurus and Apatasaurus ..if they can make such a mistake on a full skeleton, who's to say they can't on tiny fragments? ... (oh and not to mention all the discoveries of supposed 'long extinct' spiesies that keep popping up.)


Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
Really? Okay then, can you please provide me with scientific evidence that Creationism is true? That Ganesha creates and removes obstacles in a person's life? That 40 virgins await those who sacrifice themselves in the name of Allah? Those are all beliefs. Yet I doubt you can provide me with a single piece of scientific evidence that they are true. These things are believed on faith alone. Evolution, however, has massive amounts of scientific evidence backing it: genetics, the fossil record, actual observation, etc. So, please explain to me how evolution is only a belief, and has just as much evidence supporting it as any other belief.

*stomps on the floor* see that, it's called earth... proof of creationism right there... see the ecosystem? .. more proof... see the stars, the planets? ... the sun... poof more proof... see your statistics? that's also proof :evilgrin: the air you breathe, the life around you, earth being in the exact location for life to be here... etc etc

and if you want physical evidence then what's that huge boat on top of mount Arrarat? ... what's that pile of sulfur where Sodom once was? What's those ancient scrolls they found in different places written by different people yet all bearing the same belief? ... and what's the record of kings? the walls of Jerico? (yes, they did find them having fallen down, and inwards against the pull of gravitation) What's also the ancient burial sites of those like Joseph? How about the writings of the plauges of Egypt? Or perhaps the evidence of the Hebrew grave sites located inside Egypt? the rise and falls of Babylon, or Findings of King Nebekanezzar (including Sodom calling himself Nebbekanezzar, and attempting to rebuild the walls)
Even Isriel and Jerusalem ... 60 years ago they believed the cities didn't exist but they do.

Shall I go on? cause I can... :evilgrin:


Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
You're making quite a few assumptions about what goes on in my head and what I believe. Actually, if you could provide me with scientific evidence against evolution, that would change my mind. You have yet to do this, however.

Oh and you think you're not? "If only you knew"
You've no right to think that I don't know plenty on scientology, then bark at me when I return that to you because you've absolutely no idea how much I know. I can tell you I do know lots on evolution and scientology, however, unlike you, I don't support that belief.


Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
I have read the Bible. I have thoroughly read Creationist articles and claims. So, yes, I am quite familiar with the supposed evidence behind Creationism. I notice you didn't answer my question. How thoroughly have you researched evolution? How much do you know about it? If you're so certain that it's only a belief and that I have no good evidence supporting this belief, why haven't you tried to show me your own evidence proving it false or tried to point out scientific errors in the theory?

I have read countless books and articles on evolution, I am quite familiar with what has been proven and what has been 'supposedly' proven. I know just because they can accurately know the study of gravity, does not make any difference in their claims of how life began, is here, or why. If you claim this is a belief, and that my belief has no evidence proving or disproving it to be true or false, why haven't you given any proof that it's false? Nor tried to point out errors in it?


Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
If you are so confident about your position that I am simply trying to shove my unproven belief down the throats of others, then why don't you challenge that belief as opposed to just challenging me? So far, all you've done is made accusations about my own beliefs and motives. You have not provided me with a single argument as to why you feel evolution is scientifically unsound. I encourage you to do so if you want your opinion of my supposed evangelism to hold any weight.

Yes, because of you attitude, and delibrately saying I was false because gravity exists. You, and you alone started my rebutal ... like a jehova's witness at my door... you challenged me, not I you, as I've said, I have no problem with evolution being taught in schools, but I do have a problem with the beliefs of evolution being taught while all proven against it is banned, due to a school board thinking one way.

You've not 'other than; because gravity exists means we need evolution in schools... you don't want them to stop teaching gravity do you" nonsense offered a single claim backing why you feel my thoughts are wrong in this. All you done is exactly what makes door-to-door religions so annoying... they do nothing but piss people off no matter how much you repeat yourself...

and then of course your "If only you knew what I know" BS is further going to just piss off your listeners. As the whole "My way's superior" attitude always does.

Try opening your mind to other people's thoughts rather than try to push them away with what you believe is truth or fiction.

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by A-non-a-mus
Yes, but that's where it differs... The show that evolution being the study of things adapting and/or evolving is truth, the study in that how we came to be is where it seperates and becaomes simply what is 'believed' ... and no, that pile of garbage they labeled 'lucy' is not sufficent fossil evedence long as they keep making repeated large mistakes on a much easier paper like a Brontasaurus and Apatasaurus ..if they can make such a mistake on a full skeleton, who's to say they can't on tiny fragments? ... (oh and not to mention all the discoveries of supposed 'long extinct' spiesies that keep popping up.)
You're assuming that the only fossil evidence for evolutionary history is Lucy? What about all of the others?


*stomps on the floor* see that, it's called earth... proof of creationism right there... see the ecosystem? .. more proof... see the stars, the planets? ... the sun... poof more proof... see your statistics? that's also proof :evilgrin: the air you breathe, the life around you, earth being in the exact location for life to be here... etc etc
I'm afraid that's not how science works. Essentially, you're saying, "I believe the Earth was created by God. The Earth exists. This proves that the Earth was created by God." That is not science. There's no logic behind that argument. The only thing the Earth's existence proves is that the Earth exists. You need more specific evidence to show that a God was specifically responsible for creating said Earth. Where is that evidence?


and if you want physical evidence then what's that huge boat on top of mount Arrarat? ...
You mean the supposed boat that people have reportedly seen but has never been proven or confirmed?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH500.html

Additionally, even if these rumors had been confirmed (which they haven't at all) all this would prove is that a giant boat somehow got atop mount Ararat. It would not be proof of God's existence or proof of Creationism. Until someone found evidence that specifically showed how the boat got there, it would be a mystery and would not be proof of anything.


what's that pile of sulfur where Sodom once was?
First off, historians are not entirely sure where Sodom stood. This subject is still in heated debate. So you cannot tell me that it has been confirmed that a "pile of sulfur" has been found where Sodom once stood since nobody knows for sure where Sodom once stood. Secondly, sulfur is extremely common. The Dead Sea, which is the area around which most of these claimed spots of Sodom are, is directly on top of a fault line. If this fault line has volcanic seeps, then there you have a perfectly reasonable natural explanation for high quantities of sulfur. To give you a good answer though, I would have to know precisely what area you are referring to and where/how the sulfur is actually found.

And anyway, unless you actually believe every place on Earth where sulfur is found (even though we're quite aware of how sulfur naturally develops) were places which God rained brimstone down upon, you haven't really proven anything. If you can show me evidence that God is specifically how the sulfur got there, then you have proof. But I doubt you can show me that.


What's those ancient scrolls they found in different places written by different people yet all bearing the same belief? ... and what's the record of kings?
You're going to have to be more specific. "Ancient scrolls found in different places" is pretty broad and I'm not sure what you're talking about.


the walls of Jerico? (yes, they did find them having fallen down, and inwards against the pull of gravitation)
First off...gravity pulls down...if they fell against the pull of gravity, they'd fall up, away from the Earth. Unless you're telling me they're suspended in air above the ground, I'm not sure what you mean by "against the pull of gravitation."

Second, archaeological evidence of the age of the destruction of the walls conflicts with the Biblical account of when they were destroyed. There's more information about the debate, complete with citations, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho#Walls_of_Jericho


What's also the ancient burial sites of those like Joseph? How about the writings of the plauges of Egypt? Or perhaps the evidence of the Hebrew grave sites located inside Egypt? the rise and falls of Babylon, or Findings of King Nebekanezzar (including Sodom calling himself Nebbekanezzar, and attempting to rebuild the walls)
Even Isriel and Jerusalem ... 60 years ago they believed the cities didn't exist but they do.

Again, none of the things you are listing are proof that God created the Earth and all life. I asked for evidence of Creationism...you've given me nothing of the sort. You've given me evidence that the Bible may reference some true historical events, places, and people, which was never something I doubted. All religions and mythologies reference real events, places, and people.

How is any of this evidence that God created the Earth and all the animals in 6 days according to their kind? None of these even has anything to do with biology...which is where you might want to start if you're going to debate about the history of <i>life</i>.


Oh and you think you're not? "If only you knew"
You've no right to think that I don't know plenty on scientology, then bark at me when I return that to you because you've absolutely no idea how much I know. I can tell you I do know lots on evolution and scientology, however, unlike you, I don't support that belief.
Ok, right now you have proven you don't really know much about evolution at all...considering you seem to think it's related to scientology. That or you have absolutely no idea what scientology is.
This is scientology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology
Has nothing to do with evolution, and is a belief system dismissed by the scientific community and the majority of society as utter nonsense. I most certainly do not believe in scientology.


I have read countless books and articles on evolution, I am quite familiar with what has been proven and what has been 'supposedly' proven. I know just because they can accurately know the study of gravity, does not make any difference in their claims of how life began, is here, or why. If you claim this is a belief, and that my belief has no evidence proving or disproving it to be true or false, why haven't you given any proof that it's false? Nor tried to point out errors in it?
If you have really studied evolution in depth, then why have none of your arguments contained any criticisms of the scientific concepts involved in evolution? Why are you still refusing to cite me examples of scientific problems you have with the theory?

Why do you feel that the fossil, genetic, and observed evidence do not support the theory? What parts of the theory do you consider logically and scientifically unsound? I've asked this twice now, why will you not provide me with your contrary evidence if you're supposedly so well-read in the subject?


Yes, because of you attitude, and delibrately saying I was false because gravity exists.
I suspect you still don't understand my point about the gravity analogy. Especially considering you still have no answered my question. Why do you consider the Theory of Evolution a belief but accept that Gravitational Theory is science? What's the difference that makes you so dismissive of one but totally accepting of the other?

I have given you a massive category of evidence to attack. I have repeatedly said: the fossil record, genetic studies, and observational evidence all support evolution. I have asked you to point out what part of any of that you find inadequate and you can't seem to do so. I have provided you with evidence, you have not contradicted it, only attempted to insult me and insist that I am preaching my beliefs and being close-minded. I'd like to talk about the facts, if you don't mind, not what you think of me personally. Why won't you talk about the facts?

Do you need more specific evidence? I can provide that. Here are some examples of evidence for evolution:

-Canine domestication. We know for a fact that wolves are the ancestors of modern-day dogs.

-Diseases and pests which attack the body or crops. Medicines and pesticides have trouble keeping up with them because they reproduce extremely fast and in large numbers, and therefore have a tendency to evolve extremely fast. If you don't believe in evolution, why do you think doctors always warn you that the flu shot is only good for a year or that you need to finish all of your prescribed medication when you get sick, even after you feel better?

-The platypus. Why does the platypus have both mammalian and reptilian characteristics if evolution is only a false "belief?" The evolutionary explanation for the platypus is that it is a monotreme: descended from the earliest mammals which appear in the fossil record as mammals evolved from reptiles.

-Transitional fossils. Here's a list of some of the more well-known discoveries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
How do you explain those if you don't believe in evolution?

-Observed speciation. Scientists have witnessed the speciation (i.e. evolution of a species into a new, reproductively isolated species) of a number of quickly reproducing organisms. How do you maintain that evolution isn't true if its occurrence has been observed?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Those are just a few examples off the top of my head. Hopefully now that you have something to work with, you'll be more willing to actually discuss the merit and conclusions of facts. I do still encourage you to provide me with other scientific problems you have with the theory of evolution.

[Toushiro]

Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
Creationism, as the term is usually used, is the belief that the Creation account in Genesis is literal and true. This most definitely conflicts with evolution.

hmm... that was not what i was taught and my mom and grandpa are both very much Christian. even though my mom doesnt go to church anymore, she used to and my grandpa still does. they dont believe in a literal interpretation of any part of the Bible. theyve even told me that to take the Bible literally was dangerous because its mostly nonsense to take it literally. its a symbolic and spiritual text and should be interpreted as so. oh well, i guess they just dont have the "usual" Christian belief... :/

i never thought the literal version of Genesis made any sense. so randomly, one day, God decided that there would be light? then *poof* he made the earth? i remember reading somewhere the translation of the original Hebrew texts was "organized" rather than "created", which makes a lot more sense as it could imply mixtures of rock and space junk coming together to form the earth, rather than God just saying one day "i think ill make a planet out of nothing today!" and create a planet.


Originally posted by A-non-a-mus
earth being in the exact location for life to be here

wouldnt this actually support evolution? if our earth was anywhere else, then we wouldnt have life, but if God exists, he could probably put life anywhere he wanted to and make the environment good for us and take care of us and have absolute control. if God is so powerful, why does planet location matter? if the planet was set up to exist in this exact location in our solar system, why wouldnt God set up the environment to eventually "create" intelligent life such as human beings? and why not do it in the form of evolution? so the Bible says that God "organized" this and "created" that, but what it doesnt say is how he does it. the people who wrote the Bible may not have had the full understanding of the universe, planet and evolution so they were unable to write it in real detail, but they did the best they could. its because they didnt have the best understanding of the universe that the Bible shouldnt be taken literally, but does it make the Bible false? nope. God may be "perfect" but the humans who wrote the texts were not.

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Toushiro
hmm... that was not what i was taught and my mom and grandpa are both very much Christian. even though my mom doesnt go to church anymore, she used to and my grandpa still does. they dont believe in a literal interpretation of any part of the Bible. theyve even told me that to take the Bible literally was dangerous because its mostly nonsense to take it literally. its a symbolic and spiritual text and should be interpreted as so. oh well, i guess they just dont have the "usual" Christian belief... :/
They might want to be careful about calling themselves Creationists then, because that's usually what it's interpreted to mean:

Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a deity or deities (typically God), whose existence is presupposed.[1] In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to rejection of evolution. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis. - http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=creationism


wouldnt this actually support evolution? if our earth was anywhere else, then we wouldnt have life, but if God exists, he could probably put life anywhere he wanted to and make the environment good for us and take care of us and have absolute control.
Excellent point!

It is not a miracle that life arose in conditions which are suitable to said life. That's simple logic and natural selection at work. If life had somehow arisen where it really made no sense that it could exist, now that would be a miracle!

[Shadow]

as STM said on the first page its preety mutch exaktly the same here "sweden"

well i dont really see what the fuzz is all abut really :confused: just do as ya do here teatch both out and let the kids decide....

and i dont mean " this is how ya worship god" or "Ya grand fathers are monkyes" but as we do

i know preety mutch all the basics in most religions like sabats and prayers and what times hours and all

i know the basics abut the evolotion to...and if ya ask me they teatch more religion then revolotion...but seriesly it be soooooooooooo boring if they only talked abut one of them for straight 3 years :eww:

i mean no ones says to us " there is a god" they dont have a point of view nore can make statments like that nore can they say " Evolotion is the way" i mean even if the kids ask em "What ya belive in" He answers " I think religion/evolotion is the right "


i dont see what the fuzz is abut...folks are creating a problem thats not there..

simply the teatchers cant say" there is /there is not" a god to kids below the age of...what say...15...16?...

becouse i remember the religion classes in my days they where intresting learing and we lernt alot abut alot of religions how they prayed when they did holidays customes everything! but it was not planted in our heads " there is a god! "sense we where teatched evolotion at the same time...

and the only time god really came up was when it was connected to the subject lets say prayers he never derctkly said to us " there is a god"

i know in amarica though this is a heated subject but if i dont misstake things they akshely say " there is a god" to the kids...witch i think is plain wrong...same thing to say that there isent one...atleast on the lessions becouse if ya ask me thats brainwashing...our parents tell us to lissen to the teatchers so we do....

but as said...this can simply be soveld..

teatch both things equal alot and dont let the teatchers state "religion is correct " or "Evolotion is correct" let the kids decide on there own what they think is correct...

as said..creating a problem thats not there...

[A-non-a-mus]

Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
..........

All above you wrote I was expecting exactly what you said *heh* even trying to push 'what about all the others' when I mentioned "lucy" ... and the reason why is to further show my main point: It is a belief, yours. My own is a belief, mine. any one else who believes differently is also a belief..

No finding, no matter what is found will ever change that, only add something to further be proven or disproven... even when proven if proven will still do just as much good as if it weren't in the first place. Like the boat on the mountain... (and by the way there's video evidence showing it) even if it's in plain sight it does not prove there was a world-wide flood. It depends on belief. Some believe so, others believe not.

(oh, and what I meant with Jerhico was that the walls fell inwards, when by gravity they should have fallen outward)


Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
Again, none of the things you are listing are proof that God created the Earth and all life. I asked for evidence of Creationism...you've given me nothing of the sort. You've given me evidence that the Bible may reference some true historical events, places, and people, which was never something I doubted. All religions and mythologies reference real events, places, and people.

Exactly, they both are and are not proof that God exists, just as much as the fossil record are and are not proof of evolution. What's there is there, and what's left is belief.
There is purposely no evidence of God's existence, because otherwise there'd be no faith. Trust in what cannot be seen or proven is why they call it that.


Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
How is any of this evidence that God created the Earth and all the animals in 6 days according to their kind? None of these even has anything to do with biology...which is where you might want to start if you're going to debate about the history of <i>life</i>.

*heh* I notice you are trying to further go into your supposedly being the one victim rather than the challenger. It never was my intent to make any relation to biology nor history of life.

What I'm going on about is not to even prove my beliefs either. Simply my thoughts that if no belief should be taught in school then neither should the belief of evolution ... whereas the facts I have no problem with like I said.
The difference from belief and fact is simply what is around us and exists, (like bugs and gravity) can be factual, and can be studied.
However, what is not around today and cannot be proven, is only based on belief.




Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
Ok, right now you have proven you don't really know much about evolution at all...considering you seem to think it's related to scientology. That or you have absolutely no idea what scientology is.
This is scientology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology
Has nothing to do with evolution, and is a belief system dismissed by the scientific community and the majority of society as utter nonsense. I most certainly do not believe in scientology.

No, I have, you've just further sank yourself into the whole of what you believe. As well as your arrogance of it. I know exactly what Scientology is, and I know that you wouldn't believe it. It has no connection with the belief of evolution, and nor does the study of gravity have anything to do with evolution being taught in school.


Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
If you have really studied evolution in depth, then why have none of your arguments contained any criticisms of the scientific concepts involved in evolution? Why are you still refusing to cite me examples of scientific problems you have with the theory?

There you go again with your "if only you knew" BS

None of my arguments have contained any criticisms of the scientific concepts involved in evolution, simply because it has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is the belief of evolution is and ever only will be a belief, while you try to argument 'the belief of evolution is fact' or to further say 'whatever you believe is fact and everyone should listen to you. Why? Cause we have gravity!'


Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
Why do you feel that the fossil, genetic, and observed evidence do not support the theory? What parts of the theory do you consider logically and scientifically unsound? I've asked this twice now, why will you not provide me with your contrary evidence if you're supposedly so well-read in the subject?

Now you're asking for proof that I'm 'well read' on the study of evolution?

I'm suspecting you're not seeing what I've been writing. Back-read please. You'll see what I say has nothing to do with the need to prove what I know on evolution.

If you need proof that I have then I'm telling you now, "I do know, and have 'well-read' into evolution, both the truths and beliefs." and me being me, that is all the proof you need. All that's left is your belief of that statement.


Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
I suspect you still don't understand my point about the gravity analogy. Especially considering you still have no answered my question. Why do you consider the Theory of Evolution a belief but accept that Gravitational Theory is science? What's the difference that makes you so dismissive of one but totally accepting of the other?

I suspect you still don't understand why I say that the gravity analogy was a dumb idea.

Here's what I do not agree in with the belief of evolution and schools, and regarding gravity:
Gravity is real, that's common sense. The study of gravity is real, that's also common sense. The numbers and statistics found through the study of gravity should definatly be taught in classes. Why? Because gravity is still around, it can be looked at how it is, and studied, and gravity is fact. Evolution, I have no qualms of them being taught in school, the show of how bugs can gain immunity to certain pestacides, the study of animals adapting to their enviroment through evolving. Why? Because it's there today, it can be studied, and looked at. They can observe and document their findings. However, this part of evolution is very LITTLE taught in classes. They do not study what's around them and how things will adapt to their environment or built immunities through evolution. Instead, when they go to teach evolution, they do NOT go to facts, but beliefs. Instead of learning what's in front of them they're forced to learn what's believed. The things they have no proof of nor can they prove. Why? Because it's not there in front of them, there is no apes turing into humans around them, they can't observe this nor can they find proof of this. Thus being it is only believed by some to exist. Which is what I do not agree on. I think they should learn only the truth, not the beliefs thrown in because they fail to separate what can be called fact and what is belief.

Gravity is a fact, one that doesn't mean, nor even close to meaning, that the belief of apes and humans must be true.


Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
I have given you a massive category of evidence to attack. I have repeatedly said: the fossil record, genetic studies, and observational evidence all support evolution. I have asked you to point out what part of any of that you find inadequate and you can't seem to do so. I have provided you with evidence, you have not contradicted it, only attempted to insult me and insist that I am preaching my beliefs and being close-minded. I'd like to talk about the facts, if you don't mind, not what you think of me personally. Why won't you talk about the facts?

Insult you? You come at me, practically calling me an idiot for my belief, and you say I insult you?

Why do you look at me like I have a vendetta against you?
I think that's called predetermination, of course if you get in your head that I'm out to get you/insult you or something, it's obvious you'd not look at what I say and just assume I'm talking about you...

I'd recommend getting that out of your head before, not after.


Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
Do you need more specific evidence? I can provide that. Here are some examples of evidence for evolution:

-Canine domestication. We know for a fact that wolves are the ancestors of modern-day dogs.

Wolves and dogs are still around for observation, even domesticated wolves are... that can be taught in schools I don't care


Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
-Diseases and pests which attack the body or crops. Medicines and pesticides have trouble keeping up with them because they reproduce extremely fast and in large numbers, and therefore have a tendency to evolve extremely fast. If you don't believe in evolution, why do you think doctors always warn you that the flu shot is only good for a year or that you need to finish all of your prescribed medication when you get sick, even after you feel better?

That's still around today... that can be accurately examined and documented today... Those findings should be taught in schools too. It's a part of evolution that can be learnt as non-belief.


Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
-The platypus. Why does the platypus have both mammalian and reptilian characteristics if evolution is only a false "belief?" The evolutionary explanation for the platypus is that it is a monotreme: descended from the earliest mammals which appear in the fossil record as mammals evolved from reptiles.

Platypus is a strange creature, seemingly the topic of study on many a desk. No one really knows why it's as it is... but that doesn't change the fact that it is... Now the facts of platypus are there, but so is the question of why? ... Some feel the need to answer that question. They've not yet found a possible answer... So they label it as 'could be' that it is a monotreme. Yet, that's still up there... that can be disproven... there's way too many factors to this phenomena called the platypus...

So that means 'that it is a monotreme' is a belief 'that it is a monotreme.' That should not be taught as 'fact' in schools... instead they should simply encourage the study. Yet they really don't seem to care about that...


Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
-Transitional fossils. Here's a list of some of the more well-known discoveries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
How do you explain those if you don't believe in evolution?

Well, for one, the fossil record is so entirely bugged with thousands of beliefs ranging from that pig's tooth they believed for a while to be the missing link down to the brantasauras and apatasauras ... even their dating machine, that's made 75% of the times to be mistaken, which is why it keeps changing... and re-changing to cover for past studies and new discoveries. Studies of dinosaur bones and findings are much better, as they have a full skeleton to back claims. Yet why do they still document fragments as an entire storyline of supposed facts and beliefs, only to be disproven later by discovering more or something better? ... Why do they pass off as 'fact' things like the 'brontasauras'? things that they cannot be entirely sure of? ... in cases like the head being wrong, it makes all who wrote previous 'facts' out to sound like idiots, due to one mistake. There's no human who is perfect. They all make mistakes, so what they should do is really find the facts rather than make-up the facts. The study of fossils is and should always be taken with that in mind. It's too hard to seperate lies from truth. (and after all, many many fossils were found in desperation of funds being dropped... they just HAD to find something... anything that'd keep the funds. Sad that so many findings and writings are only there because of greed and money.)


Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
-Observed speciation. Scientists have witnessed the speciation (i.e. evolution of a species into a new, reproductively isolated species) of a number of quickly reproducing organisms. How do you maintain that evolution isn't true if its occurrence has been observed?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

This occurance of Evolution is still with us and can be observed, proven realy and documented. It can be labeled fact ans it's been seen/ran tests on/and give actual accounts to it's happening. So yes, this should be taught in classes.


Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
Those are just a few examples off the top of my head. Hopefully now that you have something to work with, you'll be more willing to actually discuss the merit and conclusions of facts. I do still encourage you to provide me with other scientific problems you have with the theory of evolution.

There's that arrogant attitude of yours again. Even the one of your 'self-oppointed' superiority thing. Thinking that all you say must be true, not accounting that some of what you say is merely your own belief. (you should note that when I mention my beliefs I label them my beliefs and not as '"fact to all whom oppose me")

You seem to have not taken into account that all you've said is what I knew already. Yet you are so eager to call them 'facts' and some are, but with them you have to take into the account what you and some others simply believe.

Also of course things not being taken into account... like what you did when I mention Jerico ... I said 'against the flow of gravity' and you instantly came to the conclution that 'it floated upwards.' Not taking into account that it may have been on a slope, or the walls were weight the other direction or some other conclution to believe that it should have fallen outwards, but instead fallen inwards... and of course I would be a fool to ask you to take what I say as truth too, as it could have happened due to any number of things, like a support being loose on the inside, causing it to collapse or something. I dunno... If you need a desperate answer to that, I'd recommend studying it though, rather than take my words, or the words of anyone as fact.

Things of the past cannot be studied... not even more recent pasts... like, and I'm choosing one that recently was popular to save word space: the titanic ship for example... when it first sank they had witnesses... they still didn't believe it could have broken in two despite claims that it had broken... they even went to blame the crewmen operating life boats for them being not filled completely... This was up until of course it's discovery upon which they said 'yes it did break' ... They went beyond just that though... in fact did you know they were labeling as 'fact' exactly how the boat sank down to the nearest minute? ... and exactly how things were? ... "how they can do this without being there" is a question never asked or come to mind. It was simply accepted that they had sources to make this possible... and of course to answer the question of "how" That just needed to be answered. Now though recently they discovered a third part... and from it they say it most definatly had sanken way way faster than they precieved last time... Now if this was true, what of the other 'facts' ... why were they even called 'facts' if they were not sure of them? The only real facts that can be seen are those that can be seen. Otherwise all you've got are stories and beliefs. Just like the difference between evolution and evolution.

That is why I don't mind evolution being taught in class, but I do mind the belief of evolution being taught in class.

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by A-non-a-mus
All above you wrote I was expecting exactly what you said *heh* even trying to push 'what about all the others' when I mentioned "lucy" ... and the reason why is to further show my main point: It is a belief, yours. My own is a belief, mine. any one else who believes differently is also a belief..
Going to ignore your haughty attitude here and discuss the actual science. So, what about all of the other fossil findings? There have been numerous fossils discovered which have both human and ape characteristics. How do you explain this?


No finding, no matter what is found will ever change that, only add something to further be proven or disproven... even when proven if proven will still do just as much good as if it weren't in the first place. Like the boat on the mountain... (and by the way there's video evidence showing it) even if it's in plain sight it does not prove there was a world-wide flood. It depends on belief. Some believe so, others believe not.
Care to link to that video?
Also, no, you're not understanding how the scientific process works and what conclusions can be drawn from what evidence. A boat on a mountain shows that a boat somehow got on a mountain. It does not prove that there was a worldwide flood because there are dozens of other explanations for how it might have gotten up there, assuming it even is an intact boat, and no such thing has ever been found. Only scraps of wood and blurry images that supposedly look like boats but are all in different places.
However, fossils showing features of two distinct species, based on the knowledge that animals do evolve and that evolution can provide morphological changes, can be reasonably concluded as being transitional between those two species.


Exactly, they both are and are not proof that God exists, just as much as the fossil record are and are not proof of evolution. What's there is there, and what's left is belief.
There is purposely no evidence of God's existence, because otherwise there'd be no faith. Trust in what cannot be seen or proven is why they call it that.
Something cannot be proof and not proof that something exists at the same time. That doesn't make any logical sense.


*heh* I notice you are trying to further go into your supposedly being the one victim rather than the challenger. It never was my intent to make any relation to biology nor history of life.
I'm not trying to be the victim. I'm trying to discuss evolution, which you seem to really not want to do. You're avoiding discussing the actual science, and instead trying to create an elaborate theory that I'm trying to push my beliefs on everyone without ever bothering to explain why you think evolution is just a belief.
And if you had no intention of discussing biology or the history of life, why are you even bothering to discuss this at all? If you want to discuss evolution, you need to talk about biology. You need to talk about science.


What I'm going on about is not to even prove my beliefs either. Simply my thoughts that if no belief should be taught in school then neither should the belief of evolution ... whereas the facts I have no problem with like I said.
The difference from belief and fact is simply what is around us and exists, (like bugs and gravity) can be factual, and can be studied.
However, what is not around today and cannot be proven, is only based on belief.
You still have not explained why you think evolution is only a belief. Especially since it is still around today and can be studied.
Also, plenty of science is based on study of artifacts from the past. Do you think all those fields are also just belief? So you disregard all of archaeology, paleontology, and geology, as just belief and not real science? Should schools stop teaching about dinosaurs because that's "just a belief?"


No, I have, you've just further sank yourself into the whole of what you believe. As well as your arrogance of it. I know exactly what Scientology is, and I know that you wouldn't believe it. It has no connection with the belief of evolution, and nor does the study of gravity have anything to do with evolution being taught in school.
If you knew what Scientology was, and knew it had nothing to do with evolution, why did you even bring it up? How is it at all remotely relevant to this discussion?


There you go again with your "if only you knew" BS
I find it hilarious that you're spending so much time calling me arrogant and close-minded, when I have made every effort to try to explain things calmly and discuss actual factual points with you, and offered time and time again for you to explain what scientific problems you have with the theory. If I were arrogant and close-minded and only interested in shoving my beliefs down the throats of others, I wouldn't want to hear a word you had to say in opposition to my view. Yet I am encouraging you to share your view. So please kindly stop making assumptions about my motives and about what I've studied and start actually discussing the topic at hand. The fact that you are so insistent that evolution is just a belief, but have refused to provide me your problems with the science behind it is really hurting your argument and doing damage to your claims that you understand the theory very well.


None of my arguments have contained any criticisms of the scientific concepts involved in evolution, simply because it has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
You came in here to discuss why you don't think evolution should be taught in schools. I think it should because it's valid science. If you want to argue that point, you need to explain why it's not valid science. If you have nothing to say on the subject, then why are you even bothering to discuss this in the first place?


What I'm saying is the belief of evolution is and ever only will be a belief, while you try to argument 'the belief of evolution is fact' or to further say 'whatever you believe is fact and everyone should listen to you. Why? Cause we have gravity!'
Either you're not even really reading my posts, or you're insecure about debating with me so you feel the need to strawman my argument into something stupid and easily dismissable...because that's exactly what you just did. I never once said "evolution is a fact because we have gravity." I have explained that analogy over and over again, another person clearly understood it and tried explaining it to you with their own words, so if you still don't get it, I'm sorry, I don't know how to make it any more clear. If you did understand it, then you know that I am not claiming evolution must be true because we have gravity and it is therefore a poor and desperate debate tactic on your part to say so. Nor did I EVER say "Everything I believe is fact so everyone should listen to me!" It's not a good idea to twist your opponent's words or outright make up things I supposedly said when you're involved in a typed debate when anyone can easily go back and read what I actually said. If you can't debate this maturely then this isn't going to go anywhere.


Now you're asking for proof that I'm 'well read' on the study of evolution?
Yes. I am. Because I honestly don't believe it. You have yet to discuss anything relating to the actual science of the theory which is causing me to doubt that your problems with it actually have anything to do with the science at all. I suspect you're simply afraid it might mean your religion has holes and therefore will continue to insist that it is false without bothering to study it. Want to prove me wrong? Start talking about the actual science. Start actually discussing evolution. I'm no mod obviously, but aren't threads on this forum supposed to stay on-topic? If you're going to discuss things in this thread, shouldn't you actually try discussing evolution? Since that's what this thread is about? You cannot argue that evolution should not be taught in schools without actually discussing evolution. If you don't want to talk about evolution, then maybe you shouldn't be debating in this thread, since that's what this thread is about.


Continued below because I passed the word limit...

[SpiritWolf77]

I suspect you still don't understand why I say that the gravity analogy was a dumb idea.

Here's what I do not agree in with the belief of evolution and schools, and regarding gravity:
Gravity is real, that's common sense. The study of gravity is real, that's also common sense. The numbers and statistics found through the study of gravity should definatly be taught in classes. Why? Because gravity is still around, it can be looked at how it is, and studied, and gravity is fact. Evolution, I have no qualms of them being taught in school, the show of how bugs can gain immunity to certain pestacides, the study of animals adapting to their enviroment through evolving. Why? Because it's there today, it can be studied, and looked at. They can observe and document their findings. However, this part of evolution is very LITTLE taught in classes. They do not study what's around them and how things will adapt to their environment or built immunities through evolution. Instead, when they go to teach evolution, they do NOT go to facts, but beliefs. Instead of learning what's in front of them they're forced to learn what's believed. The things they have no proof of nor can they prove. Why? Because it's not there in front of them, there is no apes turing into humans around them, they can't observe this nor can they find proof of this. Thus being it is only believed by some to exist. Which is what I do not agree on. I think they should learn only the truth, not the beliefs thrown in because they fail to separate what can be called fact and what is belief.

Gravity is a fact, one that doesn't mean, nor even close to meaning, that the belief of apes and humans must be true.
No, you still don't understand my analogy. You believe gravity is real and a fact because you know it has been studied, and has evidence to back it up, right? Well the same applies to evolution. We have observation, experimentation, fossil, and genetic evidence to support evolution as true. Evolution has been observed. Speciation has been observed. Evolution's ability to produce dramatic morphological changes has been observed. We've seen all of this at work. You yourself have admitted that. And knowing that it happens today, and studying the fossil and genetic evidence, it's a solid reasonable sound conclusion that it also happened in the past. We have dozens of transitional fossils. We have genetic evidence showing how closely certain species are related. We have all of that evidence. I'm asking why you consider that evidence to be irrelevant when you accept evidence for other sciences. Even other sciences of the past, I assume (unless you honestly do believe geology, archeology, and paleontology are all bunk). Why do you single out evolution as being a "belief" when it too has all this evidence behind it? Why do you believe the evidence for the other sciences, but not for evolution? What about the evidence do you consider problematic?


Insult you? You come at me, practically calling me an idiot for my belief, and you say I insult you?
Please point out to me where I called you an idiot, or even alluded to it. You have been spending this entire debate attacking my motives, rather than my argument, which is frankly rather annoying and poor debating protocol.


Why do you look at me like I have a vendetta against you?
I think that's called predetermination, of course if you get in your head that I'm out to get you/insult you or something, it's obvious you'd not look at what I say and just assume I'm talking about you...
I do not think you have a vendetta against me. I think you don't want to discuss the science of evolution (you've said as much yourself), and are therefore trying to avoid it every way possible, even if that means attacking me instead of the scientific evidence.


Wolves and dogs are still around for observation, even domesticated wolves are... that can be taught in schools I don't care

That's still around today... that can be accurately examined and documented today... Those findings should be taught in schools too. It's a part of evolution that can be learnt as non-belief.
So tell me, do you think evolution only started at a certain point in the history of life? If we see that it happens today, and have found evidence that it happened in the past, why do you refuse to accept that it also probably happened in the past? When do you think evolution "started" happening?


Platypus is a strange creature, seemingly the topic of study on many a desk. No one really knows why it's as it is... but that doesn't change the fact that it is... Now the facts of platypus are there, but so is the question of why? ... Some feel the need to answer that question. They've not yet found a possible answer... So they label it as 'could be' that it is a monotreme. Yet, that's still up there... that can be disproven... there's way too many factors to this phenomena called the platypus...

So that means 'that it is a monotreme' is a belief 'that it is a monotreme.' That should not be taught as 'fact' in schools... instead they should simply encourage the study. Yet they really don't seem to care about that...
It is incorrect to say "no one really knows why it's as it is." Scientists do know. The greatest minds in the field of biology have come up with explanations for why it's the way it is: evolution. Just because you don't know, doesn't mean the scientific community, or those who have studied the findings of the scientific community, don't know either. Also, scientists do not label it as "it could be a monotreme." It IS a monotreme. Scientists invented taxonomic classification. Taxonomy is a system of labels that we, as a species, invented to make things easier for us because we love to classify and categorize things. They're not actually real barriers that exist in nature. So if scientists label something as a monotreme, it is a monotreme. The echidna is also a monotreme...because that's what we decided to call the category of mammals which have reptilian reproductive systems. But regardless of what we call it, that doesn't change the FACT that it has a reptilian reproductive system. Which is even more evidence for evolution. And if you accept that evolution can and does happen, then why do you not think this is an example of it?


Well, for one, the fossil record is so entirely bugged with thousands of beliefs ranging from that pig's tooth they believed for a while to be the missing link down to the brantasauras and apatasauras ... even their dating machine, that's made 75% of the times to be mistaken,
"So entirely bugged." Right. Actually, there have been a few select mistakes (not much more than what you've listed, actually...not even close to "thousands of beliefs") which have been corrected which are not even remotely frequent or massive enough to dismiss all fossil evidence as unreliable. I think you would do well to read more about the pig tooth, by the way: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC002.html

As for the "dating machine." I'm assuming you're referring to carbon dating? 1-Carbon dating is not the only dating method used. 2-Multiple dating methods are used where available to cross-confirm results. 3-Scientists know the limitations of carbon dating and only use it where it's appropriate. 4-When used properly, as scientists do, it produces accurate results. It is not "mistaken 75% of the time." I'm not sure where you found that information (AiG by any chance?), but it's incorrect. Scientists would not continue to use such an unreliable dating method if that were true.


which is why it keeps changing... and re-changing to cover for past studies and new discoveries. Studies of dinosaur bones and findings are much better, as they have a full skeleton to back claims.
Uhh...they have full skeletons of a number of transitional fossils too you know.


Yet why do they still document fragments as an entire storyline of supposed facts and beliefs, only to be disproven later by discovering more or something better? ... Why do they pass off as 'fact' things like the 'brontasauras'? things that they cannot be entirely sure of? ... in cases like the head being wrong, it makes all who wrote previous 'facts' out to sound like idiots, due to one mistake. There's no human who is perfect. They all make mistakes, so what they should do is really find the facts rather than make-up the facts. The study of fossils is and should always be taken with that in mind. It's too hard to separate lies from truth. (and after all, many many fossils were found in desperation of funds being dropped... they just HAD to find something... anything that'd keep the funds. Sad that so many findings and writings are only there because of greed and money.)
Let me explain something about how science works. Science is about taking the evidence we have and drawing the best conclusions possible based on that evidence. It is true that there will be times when they make mistakes and need to correct or change past theories or assumptions. That's the great thing about science, it reacts well to new evidence and corrects itself as quickly as possible. Good scientists admit doubts when they have them. If there is a theory which the majority of the scientific community supports (like evolution) this is because they feel the evidence is strong. They do not have doubts. They believe this is the best conclusion they can reach based on the available evidence. And unless you want to live your life being skeptical about every scientific claim (in which case you'd have to argue that nothing should be taught in science class because it could all be wrong), then the best we can do is react properly to what evidence we have. If you have some reasonable scientific doubt about a theory, then it's good to be skeptical of it. But if you don't, you have no scientific reason to be skeptical of it and any skepticism must be the result of other biases, such as worries about conflicts with religious belief. But such biases do not qualify as sound scientific reasoning and is not a good reason to have something removed from the science classroom. And so far you have not offered me any reasonable scientific doubts about the theory.

Also, you are incredibly mistaken about money and greed driving the majority of the scientific community to lie. Here is why:
Occasionally a scientist will be desperate for a moment in the spotlight and fake results for their own gain...because obviously there are corrupt people in every profession. But for what you're saying to be true, there would have to be an unusually high percentage of corrupt people in the scientific community. There is no reason for scientists to be any less moral than any other group. In fact, the opposite is true. These few morally corrupt individuals are usually found out extremely quickly since scientists are required to provide extensive proof of their results and conclusions. A faked result won't hold up to much scrutiny for long. And as soon as this person was found out, they'd be instantly disgraced. They'd lose their job and their respect. The scientific community is good at weeding out irresponsible and dishonest individuals because of the nature of what scientists do.

It is really not at all in a scientist's best interest to lie, jump to conclusions, or falsify their results. It is in their best interests to be as scrutinous of their own results as possible. And actually, a scientist who disproves a commonly-accepted theory gains even more recognition than someone who continues to provide evidence supporting what is already accepted. Disproving evolution would result in a lot of fame and fortune for the scientist who made that discovery. It would also make the Creationist community, which currently makes up the majority of the US public, extremely happy. So if scientists were really all out for their best interests, they'd be scrambling left and right to try to disprove evolution. Yet that's not what we see. Instead, we see the scientific community sticking steadfast to the theory of evolution. This has to mean two things: 1-They genuinely believe there is substantial evidence supporting these theories. 2-They are not, in mass numbers, out for their personal gain to the degree where they would falsify or ignore evidence.


There's that arrogant attitude of yours again. Even the one of your 'self-oppointed' superiority thing. Thinking that all you say must be true, not accounting that some of what you say is merely your own belief. (you should note that when I mention my beliefs I label them my beliefs and not as '"fact to all whom oppose me")
I'm sorry, how was my encouraging you to share your qualms with the science behind evolution at all arrogant? I think you're doing a lot of projecting on me here. Earlier you cautioned me not to let my assumptions about your motives cloud my judgment, yet that is precisely what you're doing here. You're assuming I'm in this debate for my own ego so even when I say something encouraging you to share your opinion and stay on topic, you assume I'm trying to feed my ego? I'm trying my best to make this discussion as impersonal as possible. And I would like to continue to do so. Can you please stop trying to attack me every five seconds and actually discuss the information at hand? If you can't do this, then this debate is going to turn into petty insulting and finger-pointing and get totally off-topic. I'd like this thread not to be closed, but if you keep turning it into a discussion about whether or not I'm an arrogant egomaniac as opposed to a discussion that is actually about evolution, I suspect that will probably happen.


Also of course things not being taken into account... like what you did when I mention Jerico ... I said 'against the flow of gravity' and you instantly came to the conclution that 'it floated upwards.' Not taking into account that it may have been on a slope, or the walls were weight the other direction or some other conclution to believe that it should have fallen outwards, but instead fallen inwards... and of course I would be a fool to ask you to take what I say as truth too, as it could have happened due to any number of things, like a support being loose on the inside, causing it to collapse or something. I dunno... If you need a desperate answer to that, I'd recommend studying it though, rather than take my words, or the words of anyone as fact.
That would be falling against the slope of the hill, not against the flow of gravity. There are, as you yourself admitted, a dozen rational logical natural explanations for why those walls would collapse inwards. None of them being in conflict with how gravity operates. This happens all the time in landslides, for example. Walls collapsing against the slope of a hill is not automatically a mind-boggling miracle. Saying "against the flow of gravity" made it sound like you were saying the fall somehow defied the laws of gravity.

[HasiraKali]

Alrighty y'all. This is drifting a little bit off topic. There have been some insults going back and forth as ways of arguement and that's not gonna fly. Please keep to the topic at hand. Thanks guys. :)

[A-non-a-mus]

Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
No, you still don't understand my analogy.

Like just about all you've said, you jump to conclusions and walk away thinking that will suffice. I understand you analogy. You don't seem to understand why I say that 'analogy' makes no sense.


Originally posted by A-non-a-mus
I don't mind evolution... but I don't think schools should enforce darwin's theory ... because that's a belief... unless the schools allow all studies beliefs they shouldn't hold their own views as truth...

(what I'm meaning is, some with say evolution means we came from monkeys... I don't believe that... and shouldn't have to face schools' exams saying otherwise, claiming it as 'evolution' ... then go ahead and ban every other teachings and beliefs... aside the boards' own)

This was what my first post was... simply saying I don't mind the facts but do mind the beliefs being taught as if they were facts.


Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
It's not a "belief." It's science supported by evidence. Do you think schools also shouldn't enforce gravitational theory because that's just a "belief?"

This is your response... obviously you believe them to be facts and so say so which is 'forcing your beliefs on others,' in this case, me. Also this is VERY insulting to claim as well.

Secondly if you approach any member of any belief group I guarantee they'll say that their views are fact and yours are not. The exact same way you have done here.


Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
Do you know why evolution says we share common ancestors with apes (not monkeys)? If you know the scientific evidence behind it, then you shouldn't be calling it a "belief."

Also this statement here is in the same exact way one in line with a certain belief would prove their belief to be true without bothering to want to go into any more detail.


Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
If you don't know the scientific evidence behind it, then this is even more reason why it really needs to be better taught in schools, since so many people are ignorant of the subject, especially the scientific details.

Now this, is the arrogant approach to it. It's the "I want my views better taught, so more will believe it" way to go. Just like how they banned all other beliefs from school I believe they should also ban the "Belief" of evolution and focus on the "Non-beliefs" of evolution.

.....

Onto your two page reply, I notice not once do you back yourself, other than to just comment on me, claiming I don't back myself ... (which suggests you didn't read or understand all that I replied on and my views on it) ...

Also I notice you're claiming I'm doing the things YOU are doing. like not answering questions while you ignore all of my own.

You keep talking of me, while you should be focused on the topic (which by the way, and I've said this several times already is NOT nor has anything do with the science or study or listing of evolution... the topic is, your view on whether or not you believe evolution should be more taught in classes, or if you think it's taught enough.
I believe evolution is too little taught and the belief of evolution is too much taught.)

And also, on some of you reputals (to continue off-topic but you claim is on topic for some reason) One group of belief is of course going to say they've weeded out the lies, greed and other beliefs in the scientist community, but that's a lie... there's far too much of that in the world and will never be effectively weeded out sad to say ... I know there's a great amount of scientists that are very good at what they do and honestly do it... but also there's the opposite... which you'll find in every belief group... Plus disproving a 'popular belief' is not as simple as finding something to disprove it with... as they themselves may or may not have it, but usually the popular belief wins out in the end regardless.

The fossil records are full of holes. That is fact and they've said so themselves. The dinosaurs are, though still apart of the fossil record, but have much less holes as obviously dinosaurs are much easier to study. Doesn't mean all the rest are though. That's why new and greater ways to study them are still being saught out.

Noah's ark, as you've asked for a website can be found here: click here (http://www.arksearch.com/) there's a link to the videos in the 'photos' section and they even have a section where I quote them:

Catastrophism versus uniformitarianism, the debate rages on. If you are an evolutionist, come on in and see some amazing things which do NOT support the Theory of Evolution. If you are a creationist, learn and enjoy these things which have been discovered.


Also, though, just like I said earlier, on beliefs, this is one of them, and like I also said you'll notice the difference on how they label truth or lie is based on their views, like your own. (and the same with the website you provided is fallen in the same belief-view way)

Edit: Oh, ant the platypus research is still going on, it's not going to be labeled 'solved' because you say so.

[SpiritWolf77]

I'm not dragging this further off-topic, since the mods have requested that. If you want to provide me with SPECIFIC examples of issues you have with the science of evolutionary theory, I will discuss that.

I also encourage you to read some of the articles on this site. Unless you honestly feel you are more knowledgeable and smarter than the greatest scientific minds on our planet, you might want to think about just why they consider evolution sound science and just why they don't consider creationist arguments against it to be good rebuttal. I have some good reading on the subject.

This site is well-sourced, for the record. It lists the scientific articles and journals it references if you're suspicious about the information listed. You can always go find the original sources if you'd like.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

You also might want to read Darwin, Dawkins, and a few other authors well-versed on the subject if you haven't already.

[SpiritWolf77]

Why is it that any time this discussion gets more detailed, people stop responding to it?

Does that say something about the current scientific understanding of human (especially American) society?

I just find it interesting that once I start getting into the scientific details, the evidence that really matters, the Creationists and ID proponents stop responding.

Why is this?

[HasiraKali]

When I took evolution at uni, my professor mentioned this. My professor (who was also very religious and very snarky) would say that they were having to look through the Bible and their science fiction novels to find a comeback to the scientific evidence. :lol: It's awful, and I'm not saying that's what's actually happening, but just sharing.

[Sadiki]

Well I personally can't really join the conversation too much as I haven't been studying in a country that doesn't teach evolutionary the way it should.

Thought I do have one memory from 6th grade when I had over religious teacher who didn't want to teach most of subjects that had anything bad to say about christianity such as "Natural science" or History. She also replaced some of the math and finnish classes with religion as she thought it was more important us to know about The God and Jesus than evolution or any other theories. But that teacher did against the teaching program by doing that as there is laws here clearly stating what they should teach in each class from 1st to 9th and if the teacher doesn't know enough of the subject they are either trained in courses or need to hire a special teacher to teach it.

[Xinithian]

This just in: extraordinary site for evolutionists vs. creationists!

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/List_of_creationist_arguments

Just look at how many arguments there are!

[Shadow]

il say as i said last time on this kind of thread


teatch both let the kids deside what to belive...aka your creating a problem that dont excist "these things" just do as we swedish do

teatch evolution and when ya teatch out a religion ya tell them how they belive everything happen...gah...creating a problem thats not there...let just the kids deside and teatch both...christ >.>

[SpiritWolf77]

Why should both be taught in science class when only one is scientific?

This is like saying we should teach both astrology and astronomy in science class.

I fail to see how I'm creating a problem that's not even there, but maybe you guys don't have this problem in Sweden. Here in the US some religious groups are trying to get evolutionary education outright banned from schools, and trying to force schools to teach religious beliefs in science classes (i.e. Creationism).

I didn't create the problem, they did. I'm just commenting on my frustrations with it.

[Shadow]

spiritwolf i didnt say "you as a person" created the problem i meant amarica and ofcurse both shouldent be taught in a science class when i say both i mean this.

Science class: teatch the science we know

Religion class: teatch the religion we know.

thats what i mean then let folks what to belive thats how we do in sweden

where not trying to eliminate the other "as you state some are in america" and i say it ones again i didnt say you created the problem am saying the amarican folks did.

it has sutsh a simple solution to all this that it almost makes me laugh.. just teatch both in diffrent classes and then let the students deside what to belive...

as i said Amarica/ "realgius groups or what not" is creating a problem that isent there..

[Xinithian]

Originally posted by shadow
spiritwolf i didnt say "you as a person" created the problem i meant amarica and ofcurse both shouldent be taught in a science class when i say both i mean this.

Science class: teatch the science we know

Religion class: teatch the religion we know.

thats what i mean then let folks what to belive thats how we do in sweden

where not trying to eliminate the other "as you state some are in america" and i say it ones again i didnt say you created the problem am saying the amarican folks did.

it has sutsh a simple solution to all this that it almost makes me laugh.. just teatch both in diffrent classes and then let the students deside what to belive...

as i said Amarica/ "realgius groups or what not" is creating a problem that isent there.. But, if you educate people on Creationism, you must educate them on every theory, from Native American folklore to Hinduism, etc. That's where the Flying Spaghetti Monster comes in. Basically, you can create a ridiculous theory of how the world came to be and label it as religion. You don't need scientific and supported theories to create a religion. Therefore, why should we teach something that has no scientific proof in a Science class?

For example, if I had a religion that believes that all car accidents without any witnesses or survivors were caused by aliens, you would think that it's crazy because we have physicists that can nearly exactly explain what happened to make those cars crash. So why should we teach religion with evolution? You don't think that nearly all scientists support evolution for no good reason, do you? These people devote their lives into research, and suddenly we're going to believe that some person has just enough merit because they read it in a book which was written thousands of years ago? That would be like me being a coach for a professional sports team because ultimately, strategies are all theories anyways, and according to those that support Creationism, theories are all equal since none has been definitely proven.

[Elly]

I think the voids and gaps need to be filled in Evolution. As far as the educational standpoint; probably so. I don't have the need to say much in this thread, but I do agree (in my opinion) you should keep religion and science where it doesn't intertwine.

Wherever that may be...

[SpiritWolf77]

What voids and gaps?

[Sadiki]

Religion classes are important for understanding today's world, that's my opinion, as well as Science is. So yes Religion has to be taught, but not in science class as it has nothing to do with science.

Saying:
"God created the world" sounds such as ridiculous for no religious person as " world was created along the universe in big boom " sounds to someone who really believes in God.

[Shadow]

Originally posted by Xinithian
But, if you educate people on Creationism, you must educate them on every theory, from Native American folklore to Hinduism, etc. That's where the Flying Spaghetti Monster comes in. Basically, you can create a ridiculous theory of how the world came to be and label it as religion. You don't need scientific and supported theories to create a religion. Therefore, why should we teach something that has no scientific proof in a Science class?

For example, if I had a religion that believes that all car accidents without any witnesses or survivors were caused by aliens, you would think that it's crazy because we have physicists that can nearly exactly explain what happened to make those cars crash. So why should we teach religion with evolution? You don't think that nearly all scientists support evolution for no good reason, do you? These people devote their lives into research, and suddenly we're going to believe that some person has just enough merit because they read it in a book which was written thousands of years ago? That would be like me being a coach for a professional sports team because ultimately, strategies are all theories anyways, and according to those that support Creationism, theories are all equal since none has been definitely proven.


well there you go "theories are all equal" so then teatching religion and sicance should be equal ? dont ya think?

as STM said i think its important to teatch religion aswel.

( why should we teach something that has no scientific proof in a Science class?))

say whatever you want but Creationism is being studied in morden day and is being scientificly brught forth...they study learn look at old bones with scars on looking at earth with scars on etc getting forth that the earth was created with a big bang (or so they say)

that is "acording to me" way more realistic and earth close then a book basecly saying" a dude named god just randomly appeard one day and felt like creating earth and thus adam and eve.

but frankly i couldent give less damn abut how the earth was created i just live in it :bleen:

back on topic i think its intresting how these kinds of things come up becouse you see in sweden we dont have anything close to this..

"teatch religion" (athists whine) ahh crap teatch creation "christans whine" Ahwww the hell with it teatch both and on duty teatcher have nothing to say abut it and let the students deside :cheese:

and as ya said why teatch out stuff that aint fully scientisit proof?...well hear me out.

i dont belive a got damn thing abut god and stuff like that..however my ears are pearked on realigun class why? becouse i find it intresting i find it fun to look at it on other folks point of view "or laugh and not beliveing how diffrently they think from me " (nothing bad ment there)

however if i would just think its all aloud of crap i wouldnt lissen that mutch would i? never the less care .

same goes for the creation and related to monkeys thingy if am a hardcore beliver it just goes in to the ear and out of the other..i think folks are afried, parents the most" from both sides" :bleen: that if they teatch both things...there kid might go Athist..or realigus..and i think that scares em...

but we dont have any problems like that in sweden here realigus teatching and monkeys related to humans go side by side holding there hands :D



ya see when we get tests abut realigon it says like this" witch one of these belives in god"

Christans:

Muslims:

Monkeys: okay kidding xP

Munks:

Athist:

now then il answer that christans belive in god Muslims in Allah "etc etc"


ya never get the question" do god excist?" you just learn alot abut the religion and then place what they belive...then you can place yourself in one of those chategories if ya wish

[HasiraKali]

Religion isn't really a theory though as there's no physical evidence to back it up. You can say the Bible is physical evidence, but most theologians will tell you it's not supposed to be taken literally.

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by HasiraKali
Religion isn't really a theory though as there's no physical evidence to back it up. You can say the Bible is physical evidence, but most theologians will tell you it's not supposed to be taken literally.

Scientifically, the bible is physical evidence that someone, or someones, has written a book. A best seller at that, they should be proud...:D

[Xinithian]

Originally posted by shadow
well there you go "theories are all equal" so then teatching religion and sicance should be equal ? dont ya think?

as STM said i think its important to teatch religion aswel.

( why should we teach something that has no scientific proof in a Science class?))

say whatever you want but Creationism is being studied in morden day and is being scientificly brught forth...they study learn look at old bones with scars on looking at earth with scars on etc getting forth that the earth was created with a big bang (or so they say)

that is "acording to me" way more realistic and earth close then a book basecly saying" a dude named god just randomly appeard one day and felt like creating earth and thus adam and eve.

but frankly i couldent give less damn abut how the earth was created i just live in it :bleen:

back on topic i think its intresting how these kinds of things come up becouse you see in sweden we dont have anything close to this..

"teatch religion" (athists whine) ahh crap teatch creation "christans whine" Ahwww the hell with it teatch both and on duty teatcher have nothing to say abut it and let the students deside :cheese:

and as ya said why teatch out stuff that aint fully scientisit proof?...well hear me out.

i dont belive a got damn thing abut god and stuff like that..however my ears are pearked on realigun class why? becouse i find it intresting i find it fun to look at it on other folks point of view "or laugh and not beliveing how diffrently they think from me " (nothing bad ment there)

however if i would just think its all aloud of crap i wouldnt lissen that mutch would i? never the less care .

same goes for the creation and related to monkeys thingy if am a hardcore beliver it just goes in to the ear and out of the other..i think folks are afried, parents the most" from both sides" :bleen: that if they teatch both things...there kid might go Athist..or realigus..and i think that scares em...

but we dont have any problems like that in sweden here realigus teatching and monkeys related to humans go side by side holding there hands :D



ya see when we get tests abut realigon it says like this" witch one of these belives in god"

Christans:

Muslims:

Monkeys: okay kidding xP

Munks:

Athist:

now then il answer that christans belive in god Muslims in Allah "etc etc"


ya never get the question" do god excist?" you just learn alot abut the religion and then place what they belive...then you can place yourself in one of those chategories if ya wish What I mean by theories is that although all of them are theories, some are much more plausible than others. For example, I could claim that aliens orchestrated the assassination of John F Kennedy, and call it a theory. Now obviously, most people would call me crazy because there has been no real evidence that aliens actually exist. However, you can't disprove the existence of aliens. The same goes for Creationism: there's no real evidence that God exists, but you can't disprove god. So are they really equal to more logically based theories?

I haven't seen any scientifically verified proof/evidence of creationism. What Creationist proof were you talking about?

Now, a religious class is a totally separate thing from science class. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a religious class. What I'm saying is that mixing religious class with science class is bad.

[Shadow]

Originally posted by Xinithian


Now, a religious class is a totally separate thing from science class. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a religious class. What I'm saying is that mixing religious class with science class is bad.

ackk but thats exaktly what am saying! ya cant teatch religuon in a science class thats why where teatching them sepretly iv been saying that all along havent i?:confused:

and ofcurse ya cant teatch realigus belifes in sicence thats ridecelus :eww:

[Xinithian]

Originally posted by shadow
ackk but thats exaktly what am saying! ya cant teatch religuon in a science class thats why where teatching them sepretly iv been saying that all along havent i?:confused:

and ofcurse ya cant teatch realigus belifes in sicence thats ridecelus :eww: As ridiculous as it sounds, Creationists are trying to integrate religion in science classes here in America. In fact, not only are they trying to integrate religion into science classes, but religious organizations are lobbying to ONLY teach abstinence in public schools, without teaching about condoms, etc. Now do you see why we're so upset? :evilgrin:

[LunarCat]

I really don't have much to add....I side with SpiritWolf and Xini on this one. Evolution should be taught, and creationism kept out of a science class. However, the evolutionary theory shouldn't be forced upon anyone whose religious beliefs contradict it. These students should learn what the evolutionary theory is so they know what the other opinion is and they should choose for themselves. And just as evolutionary theory shouldn't be forced upon someone, neither should creationism.

People should learn all they can, and see both sides of the argument and make a decision for themselves.

In my experience, i've always been taught evolution in science class. the teachers simply mentioned that you don't have to agree with it if it is against your own personal beliefs. I can't remember exactly, but i'm pretty sure evolution was included on our tests and exams. When I was younger I was taught creationism(NOT in school, but by family/church). But it doesn't seem plausible to me now.
(informational note: I attend an independent school)

[Shadow]

Originally posted by Xinithian
Now do you see why we're so upset? :evilgrin:

hey i know why your upset i did from the begining i just didnt know that it was akshely that bad man i feel sorry for you guys:eww:

[HasiraKali]

It's not bad everywhere. I was taught the basic concepts of evolution all through school. I even took a class on JUST evolution at my very Catholic university taught by a very Catholic professor. Some people/organizations are ok with teaching both sides of the argument. In my class, we had to read out text which was of course all theory and scientific evidence, and then go and read the counter-claims by the ID/Creation movement so we could see where both sides were coming from. I never bought the Creation stuff, even when I was a kid.

I remember one debate we got in about a museum in Houston I believe that was forced to pull a film that vaguely mentioned evolution because some church groups got up in a tizzy. I was the only one that agreed with their decision and that's only because I know where they're coming from. At work, we're not allowed to talk about animals "evolving". We are allowed to talk about them "adapting over time" which is exactly the same thing and we've never had any complaints from using that terminology. I think the word itself has developed a bad connotation in recent years. It's funny how people are ok with one phrase, but not with one word that basically means the same thing.