FairHooker11 Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 So... Random people on the street, gotcha. We are equating blind faith in a god and a fairy tale book to "faith" in scientists, data and research. these people were students and professers.... biologists, physicists, geologists - to name a few.... So just because we haven't seen one thing become another thing, evolution is no better than blind faith in creationism. Even though there is no evidence for creationism and mountains of it for evolution. yes -where are the evidences for the change in kind on a macro level? I would say evolution of bacteria is a good example. but it is still bacteria Evolution isn't really "a belief". Unless you "believe" in things like gravity. Also, if someone really still wants to believe in a god, evolution doesn't conflict with that. I am not sure why the whole "famous aethist bit" matters. Evolution doesn't mean there is no God.. ... why do I care who believes in god or not if this is a "debate" on religion and you are correct and entirely free to believe that, it is not a debate on religion as it appears to be a wholesale swap of evolution theory without checks and balances, in other words "gospel truth"? Lol ... Hitler killing Jews to evolution. Wtf yes the turn of the century produced literature that ultimately said the white european was highly "evolved" and all others, jews - blacks were subhuman.... Love the "let's just take the video of everyone that said dog". That'll make these atheists look terrible. Got em! didnt get that part though.... The "debate" of evolution vs creationism is not the same as god vs no god. "Evolution vs god" doesn't make sense. They can attack whatever they perceive as holes in evolution all they want. But I have STILL yet to read it hear ANY evidence FOR creationism. Not on here, not from Ken Ham, not from that video. Seriously, someone just try to fucking prove their side of the argument I think when you point out that science in experiments must be observable and repeatable, that is what I heard Ken Ham say..... scientific method right? I did not hear "attack" type questions as much as I could see a 180 degree change toward evolution science as exclusive thats all...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 12, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 The fossil record I would say is good evidence of change at a macro level. They were random people on the street. You cut out and edit what you want to make your point as best you can. I fhe talked to someone that completely crushed him it wouldnt be in the video. Any attempt to equate creationism to evolution and say they are both on equal footing scientifically or to say they are both sound reasoning is ridiculous. Those defending creationism can nit pick over some missing details or try to redefine words all they want, but it doesnt really change anything. I have STILL yet to hear ANY defense of creationism, any scientific backing. All I have heard are attempts to drag evolution down to creationisms level and people saying /see, they are both equal, so either works/ lol, no. Or I have heard people try to take shots at holes in the theory and what we understand... which has been addressed multiple times. But I have still not been give one god damn shred of scientific evidence to prove a man in the sky made everything in 6 days and the earth is only 6,000 years old... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 I'm late to the party, but I just really have to point out the ignorance of this post. If you understand the big bang theory, you understand that there is no explanation for what may have caused this event. There is as much credence to a divine creator as there is to the tooth fairy or little green men being behind it. Creationists claim that it must have been a divine being that set these events into motion. If so, what led to the formation of this deity? The creationist claims to know the identity of the prime mover, while one who understands the big bang theory claims to be ignorant. For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps#Usage_in_referring_to_a_type_of_argument Speaking of late to the party... i think you missed the joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 It's philosophically unsound because you're jumping to a conclusion without evidence. From the link above: Pot, meet kettle. Look, I'm not denying the evidence we have, all I'm doing is saying that regarding the aforementioned "gaps" - maybe we get there, maybe we don't. Until then, a divine entity (God) is ok with me (instead of saying "science is working on it"). Again, I'm not trying to force anything on anyone. I'm just saying that so many people like Woody* are so wrapped up in using the scientific method or evidence to support a theory (this is the right thing to do, btw) that they simply project this method through the gaps. This is something that logically can't be done. It's unexplainable. For example, lets take the formation of the English alphabet pretending we may or may not know there are a definitive 26 characters: We've used the scientific method/evidence/data and have "found" B, EFG, JK, M, OP, TUV. We know we're missing letters, we don't know where the letters go, and what they are yet. Therefore, until we are able to use the scientific method to fill in the gaps, we can't say that "science/evidence/etc proves the alphabet." Until it does. I think waaay too many people take this tack. *I'm not trying to single you out & slag you down here, woody- hopefully it doesn't come across that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 Also, could you clarify what you mean by this? The violent event that began the development of our solar system. I think a biologist might be better equipped to answer that question. I could give it a go, if you'd like. Have at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 13, 2014 Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 Look, I'm not denying the evidence we have, all I'm doing is saying that regarding the aforementioned "gaps" - maybe we get there, maybe we don't. Until then, a divine entity (God) is ok with me (instead of saying "science is working on it"). Gotcha, hard to read when you're joking or not, especially on this next sentence: Every time I've ever exploded 1 big thing, the result perfect spheres - each sphere unique in it's composition and make-up, sharing nothing in common with each other, other than their proximity. I'm not really sure if you're talking about hydrogen atoms or stars, but your description is a bit off. If you're talking about early H and He atoms, they are indistinguishable from each other if they are the same isotope. If you're talking about stars, you're incorrect because they have plenty in common with each other, as they're composed of the same elements and their existence is explained by the four fundamental forces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrownsKidd Posted February 14, 2014 Report Share Posted February 14, 2014 Here is my perspective from a religious person. First, for me, I find our universe to be absolutely fascinating. The size of our own Galaxy is mind blowing and then fit that inside the entire universe, where does one even start. Even still, the universe exists within very tight physics and laws. So for me I can't believe that chance has anything to do with it. I know how small the earth is compared to even the milky way, and for some, they would count that as insignificant, but I see it as being something significant. And this thought process has nothing to do with religion. There has to be a reason for the intricacies that we call life and our universe and to say that this universe was begat from nothing, no designer, that I can't believe. However, when it comes to people like Ken Ham I am disgruntled by those who assume to speak for all of Religion or Christianity. Ken Ham is, IMO, wasting time, effort and dollars arguing about something that not even all Christians believe in. I for one do not believe in a literal 6 day creation and do believe that the earth is very old. There are many theories that exist and attempt to try and harmonize creation and science. What I would rather see is someone like Ken spend him efforts on is defending the Gospel of Christ. Belief in creationism is not what "saves" a man/woman, it's Christ. If you defend Christ and his existence and defend who He says He was, then in theory you are also defending the belief in God, therefore defending the belief that there is a being much higher than we can fathom. When you defend Christ, there is no need to defend creationism. What we then would do is try and harmonize the Bible with science. This is why Christ commanded to go an make disciples, not scientists. I applaud Ken Ham, but his efforts are poorly targeted. I like what Degrasse says "The Bible teaches how to get to Heaven, not how the Heavens go." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 16, 2014 Report Share Posted February 16, 2014 'Cuz, like, we have, a like, theory or something. But it was made up by some like, really smart guys I think. At least they went to school or somewhere. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 24, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2014 http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/missouri-anti-evolution-law-parental-notification For the sake of the school children in Missouri I hope that law doesn't pass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 24, 2014 Report Share Posted February 24, 2014 I think the push to only teach evolution, is a liberal slap in the face at parents who take their kids to church and are Christians. There is many, many tons of science stuff to learn, without making battle over Christian belief about God, and the science that pertains to how we came about on this planet. I'm more for a discussion about one student saying "I think we evolved from apes" and another student saying "I don't....I believe God created the universe, and all life, and people in his image" and another says "not what I believe...you can't prove God's existence or that he created us, but there is science out there that strongly shows the possibility of us evolving from apes" and another student says "well, I don't get that, because why are there apes now? Why didn't they all "evolve" ???" Then the class laughs, and the educator gives out homework, and the students ask the educator what he/she thinks, and he/she explains whatever he/she thinks. But all this "the teacher insists that our evolution from lower forms of life is fact, and your parents and your church are freakin lying sumbeech right wing conservative scum" kind of attitude has got to go. Shouldn't have to be legislated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted February 24, 2014 Report Share Posted February 24, 2014 Sorry cal, I have to wholeheartedly disagree with you (shocking, I know). I don't think there's any room in a *science* classroom for any discussion of creationism, or any other religious concepts that have no base in actual science. By all means, discuss them in a religious studies class, along with the various other creation stories from other religions, but to try to teach biblical creationism as scientific fact, or even one of a number of scientific proposals of how life came to be would just be wrong. Of course, if little Timmy puts his hand up and asks those questions that evolution scientists can't yet answer then by all means have a conversation about the possible theories, but creationism just shouldn't be in the science lab. If you even tried to suggest that it should be in other developed countries you'd basically be laughed at by everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 24, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2014 We didn't evolve from apes. Man and ape evolved from a common ancestor. I agree completely with Chris. If you want your kid to learn creationism, do him the disservice of sending him to Sunday school or a private religious school. But in the public school science room, you teach science. We have been over this many times, and from no one ever answering my question it seems as if there is no scientific evidence to support creationism. We aren't teaching evolution of creationism because of some attack on Christianity. It is being taught because it has the science to back it up. "But all this "the teacher insists that our evolution from lower forms of life is fact, and your parents and your church are freakin lying sumbeech right wing conservative scum" kind of attitude has got to go." That attitude mainly exists in your head and it is persisted by the right wing media sources you frequent. That kind of view frightens/angers you and these media sources know that. They play to that to get viewers. Just like in the other thread where you think Obama lib nazis are walking around forcing you to love gay people... it just isn't happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 24, 2014 Report Share Posted February 24, 2014 I don't think there's any room in a *science* classroom for any discussion of creationism, or any other religious concepts that have no base in actual science. Chris ************************************************ So, limiting the questions by students in a discussion is okay, as long as it supports what you deem to be the only opinion allowed? The instructor is not to quelch the religious beliefs of students. Why the desperate need to teach evolution anyways? Until you can prove it absolutely, it is theory based on science. If a student says they don't buy it, and says they believe God created us....this is a discussion. In a way, sometimes science is like the Bible. It can be interpreted different ways, and conflicting conclusions drawn. Both conclusions are probably not correct.....That is the human condition. Woodypeckerhead will probably grow up to be a nazi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 24, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2014 I don't think there's any room in a *science* classroom for any discussion of creationism, or any other religious concepts that have no base in actual science. Chris ************************************************ So, limiting the questions by students in a discussion is okay, as long as it supports what you deem to be the only opinion allowed? The instructor is not to quelch the religious beliefs of students. Why the desperate need to teach evolution anyways? Until you can prove it absolutely, it is theory based on science. If a student says they don't buy it, and says they believe God created us....this is a discussion. In a way, sometimes science is like the Bible. It can be interpreted different ways, and conflicting conclusions drawn. Both conclusions are probably not correct.....That is the human condition. Woodypeckerhead will probably grow up to be a nazi. Again, where do these teacher's exist that are publicly ridiculing students for believing in creationism? Where are they suppressing the religious beliefs of a student? How are questions being limited? It is a science class room. The teacher should not be taking time to delve into creationism and dealing with that mess. That is what sunday school and the church is for. What do you mean by "prove it absolutely"? Are you waiting for humans to be around for millions of years so we can track the evolution of some species? That is ridiculous. We have been over this countless times. We have gone over what a scientific theory is. You seem to have not retained any of that. Sure, if a student wants to reject all the scientific evidence and choose to believe in a thousands of year old story then they are welcome to it. But that is no "discussion" for a public school science class room. Science being the key word here. If you want creationism to be taught in schools start with getting one shred of scientific evidence to back it up. Science is not like the Bible. Sure, different interpretations for an experiment or set of date. But you know what is done after that point? MORE experiments are run and MORE data is collected. More scientists look over everything and they add their peer revision. This process, known as the scientific method, leads us to these conclusions. In that sense it is completely different from the Bible. How could someone say there is a need to prove evolution "absolutely" (someone that doesn't understand the current evidence for it) but then just take an old story book's word for it? This seems to be the other side on this issue, the people fighting to teach creationism. I have yet to hear someone give me any scientific evidence to support creationism, and I think deep down they know there isn't any. Because of this, they try to drag down evolution to that level and then state "See, we don't know for sure so let's teach both". It is incredibly predictable and ignorant. It ignores the mountain of evidence for evolution, and tries to jam God into the small gaps that remain. There also seems to be the belief that not teaching creationism, that telling it off for what it is, is some attack on Christianity and your religious rights. That also is not true. If you want to teach your kids this, go ahead. It sucks for them but you are allowed to do it. But it is not meant to be in a PUBLIC school SCIENCE classroom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted February 24, 2014 Report Share Posted February 24, 2014 I think we should throw out science in school all together to save religious kids from having to think. They do too much of that and religion may disappear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 There is plenty of science to teach without going after evolution. Chem, phys, physical sci, ... make evolution class a separate option. Not required. Why not? Unless the ulterior motive is to undermine the spiritual teachings in families? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 So we shouldn't teach evolution in our public science classrooms because it may disagree with what some families unfortunately teach their children? If that is your litmus test for what to teach in school then there are a lot of things we might be taking out. The point is there is a mountain of evidence for it, it is a fact amongst the scientific community, we are going to teach it in science classrooms. If you really care to mess your kid up even more take him to a private christian school. Take him to Sunday school. Whatever. Sure, there is a lot to teach in science without evolution. Except evolution is a major scientific component of that. And if it disagrees with your old story book that is no reason to stop teaching it. And no, there is no god damn ulterior motive to undermine those poor, poor spiritual families. First the attack on Christmas and now this! How will they survive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 I think you evolved from a dodo bird into a woodypeckjerhead. The rest of us are human. You know, with intelligence. No, I can't think of anything else to be taken out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 Excellent article about studies done: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v13/n2/teaching Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Teaching-evolution-as-theory-not-fact-2665452.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 Answering Genesis . org....... you must be doing this on purpose now... What was "excellent" about these studies? What "point" do you think they make for your argument? Gallup also found that agreement with creationism was inversely related to both education and age—the more educated and the younger the respondent, the less likely they were to believe that God created the first humans. The likely reason is that younger persons are better educated and more influenced by new secular ideas in the society around them I love that. The more educated you get the less likely you are to believe in creationism, a personal god, etc... but it is totally only because you have been poisoned by the secular education system and their "science" and "reasoning". Hhahahahahaha Really, what point do you think that article makes? Look at the date on some of these survey. 1973. 1976. Etc. Seriously, run down a list of their references. The most recent is from 1997.... I would LOVE to hear what the hell point you think you just made. More than likely you know you have nothing to back your side up. The creationist side has been beat to hell in this thread since page one. You just posted some little shot about some woodypeckhead bullshit like normal and then a link to a fucking religious website that proves nothing. You are running on fumes now, your argument is dead. Accept that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 There's a "Pew Research" study from 2009 on wikipedia; these figures are taken from the source: Statistically significant points from here: - 97% of scientists believe in evolution of some kind - 87% of scientists believe in natural selection evolution - 8% believe in an theistic evolution - 2% believe in creationism - it doesn't specify the 'type' of scientists, or the qualifications they have. Perhaps it just means anyone with a scientific background. - Shockingly, if you go to church you're more likely to believe in creationism. - Interestingly, 'White mainline' christians are more likely to believe in evolution than creationism. Evangelicals...less so. - The younger you are, the more likely you are to believe evolution - The more educated you are, the more likely you are to believe evolution I'm sure there are a load more studies out there, and this is quite bad at giving sources - where did they ask? Who did they ask? There's also a rather entertaining MMGW survey on there, suggesting that only 4% of democrats believe that the earth is not getting warmer, compared to 24% of republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 I really hate the term "believe in evolution." Evolution isn't something you believe in. You either understand the theory or you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 Evolution does not disprove God. Nor does the big bang. Evolution and religion exist on two different planes. No matter which point you choose to approach it from, its a pointless debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 I really hate the term "believe in evolution." Evolution isn't something you believe in. You either understand the theory or you don't. OK, yes, to me believing in evolution is like believing in gravity. But to others it's not. Perhaps a better way to put it would be 'accept evolution as the explanation of how mankind came to be' - but I'm lazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 No one is trying to disprove god Why is the debate pointless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 Evolution and religion exist on two different planes. I wish more people believed this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 Everything biological evolves. I don't think that it is even open for debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 Oh, you are on the side of "of course evolution is correct, why are we even debating this?" I got you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.