Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Too much to read but I think it should be told aboot creationism from an objective standpoint

Just scan the article. You don't have to read it all. Useful in college.

I think both should be taught. Children should be exposed to all theories and allowed to decide which one they find more credible.

It should be like that for everything.

Heh. Finally, some proper legal action to eject the theory of evolution from the field of true science. I could go on and on about this, but I think I'll hold my tongue until the evolutionists vehemently rise up over this.

This is really bad in one way, and really good in another.

All the jesus freak teachers will be biased, and so will some of the non-believers. And that's just f*cked up.

Personally, I don't believe ANYTHING in creationism in any way, shape, or form, but do think that non-biased teaching of both would be okay. Just make sure they present all the evidence for both.

True science? What part of evolution isn't science?

sure the theory of evolution ain't perfect but it makes more sense to me than Creationism

This is simple.

Evolutioin meets the definition of Science.

Creaitonism only meets the definition of faith.

You CANNOT equate them, and they cannot be taught equally. One is a matter for science classes. The other is matter for religious education.

If you are trying to teach these simply as two interpretations of the same area, you are simply setting back the progress of humanity to a time without rationality.

It absolutley must not be done.

Intelligent design is, at this point, lacking in anything approaching suffiicent back-up to be taught alongside evolution theory in general. Save that kind of thing for Uni.

Go ahead and teach both.. people are gonna believe what they want regardless.

You cannot teach Creationism in a science lesson. It isn't science.

I was actually quite shocked at the replies to this.

Creationism and evolution cannot be compared to be the same thing. There is no evidence for creationism, it is based wholly on faith, and what about the people who do not believe that religion? Evolution is a scientific theory with loads of evidence for it. SCIENCE should be taught in science textbooks. Creationism does NOT fall in the realm of science by any stretch of the imagination. Keep creationism to being taught in a class about religion.

How could u possibly teach creationism in schools? What would a teacher say? "Ok well God created everything, we dont really know how or why but he did, honest". However it could create a really good debating topic amongst teenagers in schools, but at the same time could also divide a school.

I think if a pupil wishes to learn about creationism and religion then he/she should be able to. It should be a choice given to every pupil in every school, which it is in Scotland.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You cannot teach Creationism in a science lesson. It isn't science. Yeah that's true. Ok scratch that, don't teach both, unless the school has some sort of "bible study" or whatever.

It is wrong for teachers to leave out Creation and just say it is Eleavetion we were not created by no one just informed into monkeys to humans for no reason.
Science is stupid if we were taught like that.JM

Obviously you do not understand the first thing about the evolution theory.

Evolution isn't the only scientific theory to describe how life advanced though, there are several other evolution is just the most credible one. I remember we learned about like 4 different theories in my biology class, it's just the other theories were a little "out there."

The point is, there is only one reason that Creationism is not taught in science class. It is not because of some odd agenda by scientists to disallow free speech or cast down religious types. There is no conspiracy here.

It is simply because it does not meet the definition of Science. Start teaching non-science in science classes and you start to undermine the edifice of education.

Other alternatives that DO meet such a definition are perfectly valid to be taught, of course.

Originally posted by Jackie Malfoy
It is wrong for teachers to leave out Creation and just say it is Eleavetion we were not created by no one just informed into monkeys to humans for no reason.
Science is stupid if we were taught like that.JM

As usual, your post made no sense and showed that you didn't read anything in this thread and have no understanding of the topic.

Monkeys did NOT turn into humans! What is so hard about that to understand? Apes and humans have a common ancestor. At one point in history part of a population of this common ancestor became seperated from the rest of the species, and over a very long period of time evolved into what are now humans, while the rest evolved into all the various modern species of primates. PLEASE use some common sense before spouting random crap.

Creationism is not taught because it is not science, has no factual basis, and has nothing in the way of evidence to back it up. It is based purely in faith.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Evolution isn't the only scientific theory to describe how life advanced though, there are several other evolution is just the most credible one. I remember we learned about like 4 different theories in my biology class, it's just the other theories were a little "out there."

There are others, yes, evolution is just the most credible, well-known one. I remember reading about others too, but I can't remember what they are now.

I think the problem is that if we teach Christian Creationism what would stop us from teaching Islam, Hinduism or Jewish Creationism?


Or Star Wars Creationism?


"Failed the Force theory exam, you have Michael!"

I would say it is indeed the job of Religious Education classes to teach the varying mythologies of creation of the major world religions, without bias.

Again, that should be nothing to do with Science class.

Originally posted by Draco69
I think the problem is that if we teach Christian Creationism what would stop us from teaching Islam, Hinduism or Jewish Creationism?


Or Star Wars Creationism?


"Failed the Force theory exam, you have Michael!"

Exactly, I touched on that in my first post -- what about those who don't hold those particular religious beliefs?

Sorry, but no. Creationism has no place being taught in a science class.

I propose that, rather than corrupt science class with talk of creationism, create a religion class at public school. I had religion classes in catholic school my entire life. I also noticed that it was approached by both student and staff as an obligation that had to be fulfilled. That was, of course, except for teachers that were nuns. However, I see no problem with creating a totally seperate course for the study of faiths. But, the key word there is "faiths"...plural. A world religions course is much the same as a philosophy course. But it must be approached from an academic standpoint. The only problem is that an obvious bias will come from any teacher who is steeped in their own faith. For example, my senior year, my world religions teacher was a biased catholic and approached all other religions with an obvious resentment. In fact, she and I never got along. I almost failed that course because I would answer the questions on a test from my own point of view, rather than the catholic take on the situation. I also think that my proposed course should be an elective.

Although I accept it, evolution isn't a "fact" in the same way gravity and forces of motion are.... but yeah it has more scientific evidence than creationism. So yeah, keep evolution in the science books and creationism in religion class!

Religious Education is on the standard syllabus in UK schools, actually (and most European schools, I believe). Not Christian education, just education about religions in the world. That is where various creation mythologies are taught.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Religious Education is on the standard syllabus in UK schools, actually (and most European schools, I believe). Not Christian education, just education about religions in the world. That is where various creation mythologies are taught.

Well, Europe is far ahead of the States from a social point of view.

I'd be hesitant to believe that; Europe is a varied place and these things always work in swings and roundabouts. Everyone can normally learn from everyone else, within reason.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I'd be hesitant to believe that; Europe is a varied place and these things always work in swings and roundabouts. Everyone can normally learn from everyone else, within reason.

Well, from my experience in Europe, there is a much more prevelent attitude of live and let live.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Well, Europe is far ahead of the States from a social point of view.

Capt Fantastic that is an ethnocentrism point of view. Like Ush said "Everyone can normally learn from everyone else, within reason."

Originally posted by Jackie Malfoy
It is wrong for teachers to leave out Creation and just say it is Eleavetion we were not created by no one just informed into monkeys to humans for no reason.
Science is stupid if we were taught like that.JM
You demonstrate in the most perfect way how ignorant, retarded and uneducated some people are in the field of evolution.

Apes are not our ancesters, we just share the same ancester from millions of years ago. Silver gave a pretty good short version of it.

I wonder what kind of monkey I was derived from?

I was hoping for that monkey in Aladdin

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I'd be hesitant to believe that; Europe is a varied place and these things always work in swings and roundabouts. Everyone can normally learn from everyone else, within reason. This is sorta an off subject question, but my friend said that in Europe you're not allowed to wear white for religious reasons. Is that true?

Originally posted by Draco69
I wonder what kind of monkey I was derived from?

I was hoping for that monkey in Aladdin
I would prefer the bonobo

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
This is sorta an off subject question, but my friend said that in Europe you're not allowed to wear white for religious reasons. Is that true? your friend is retarded

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
This is sorta an off subject question, but my friend said that in Europe you're not allowed to wear white for religious reasons. Is that true?

Originally posted by WindDancer
Capt Fantastic that is an ethnocentrism point of view. Like Ush said "Everyone can normally learn from everyone else, within reason."

America isn't very good at learning from others.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
This is sorta an off subject question, but my friend said that in Europe you're not allowed to wear white for religious reasons. Is that true?

That's a new one to me. Not that I'm from Europe.

Yeah I know that's what i said but she insisted it was true... she did a research paper on traveling through Europe and that was included in it.

Well im currentley wearing a white t-shirt at the moment, so i would be interested in the basis of these religious reasons

Originally posted by smoker4
Well im currentley wearing a white t-shirt at the moment, so i would be interested in the basis of these religious reasons

Me too...I live in Europe.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Yeah I know that's what i said but she insisted it was true... she did a research paper on traveling through Europe and that was included in it.
sorry but she should fail it

a few years ago it was still tradition in Spain for (most) girls to have their Communion in a white dress.
in some european countries it is also tradition to wear white on a funeral because it symbolises hope in a time of need
etc

Originally posted by Lana
As usual, your post made no sense and showed that you didn't read anything in this thread and have no understanding of the topic.

Monkeys did NOT turn into humans! What is so hard about that to understand? Apes and humans have a common ancestor. At one point in history part of a population of this common ancestor became seperated from the rest of the species, and over a very long period of time evolved into what are now humans, while the rest evolved into all the various modern species of primates. PLEASE use some common sense before spouting random crap.

Creationism is not taught because it is not science, has no factual basis, and has nothing in the way of evidence to back it up. It is based purely in faith.



There are others, yes, evolution is just the most credible, well-known one. I remember reading about others too, but I can't remember what they are now.


So where's the "missing link" that proves the THEORY...that's right..EVOLUTION IS A T-H-E-O-R-Y. Both theories have evidence to support them. Seeing as how neither Creationism nor Evolution has been completely PROVEN by scientific studies as of yet..I don't see the harm in teaching both. Besides, parents who wish to not have they're children learn about this THEORY..can easily just opt their children out of class when its being taught. Oh and in response to the question I asked..there has been no "transitional species" found that links man and Ape to a common ancestor..

Hahaha.

Creationists.

And for those saying "contribute to the thread." I am. Creationists are to be laughed at.

-AC

So where's the missing link Alpha?

They all died off, as the superior "humans" (us) made babies and carried on the species

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So where's the "missing link" that proves the THEORY...that's right..EVOLUTION IS A T-H-E-O-R-Y. Both theories have evidence to support them. Seeing as how neither Creationism nor Evolution has been completely PROVEN by scientific studies as of yet..I don't see the harm in teaching both. Besides, parents who wish to not have they're children learn about this THEORY..can easily just opt their children out of class when its being taught. Oh and in response to the question I asked..there has been no "transitional species" found that links man and Ape to a common ancestor..

WHAT?!?

Totally inaccurate, whobdamandog.

First of all, look up what a theory is. Science deals with theories to explain phenomenons. Theories are tested, scientific models that have withstood scientific assault on their integrity. Saying it is a theory does not, in any way, diminish its value. All these people who say 'it is ONLY a theory', as if a theory is 'only' anything, are simply expressing ignorance of the nature of theory.

Secondly, Creationism is NOT a theory. It is a belief only. It does not even remotely meet the criteria of being a theory. This is why it is not science.

you miss something whob... scientists never have hidden the fact that evolution is a theory! they KNOW it is!
compare that to creatism who do nothing but say "we are right, the proof is in the bible" and ergo don't change their views (it was only in 1993 they admitted Galileio was right!)...

I have yet to see evidence of creatism, and please if you feel obligated to list them leave retarded reasons as "I think of something so perfect which I call god. I, myself, am imperfect so I can't have created it ergo this perfect creature must have put it in me" out of it.

and of course you can't expect them to get every single damn fossil in the link between human and ancestor! you know how many steps there were? you know how difficult it is to get a body to preserve?

I'd like to hear how we went from a single to a double circulatory system.... pretty big step

I'd like to hear how some stayed that... it makes me feel unique

You evolutionist are shooting yourselves in the foot by not allowing creationism to be taught alongside evolution in schools.

When you compare/contrast the two theories there is clearly one winner as far as science, evidence and reason go.

Creationism doesn't hold water when compared to evolution.

Present all information, theories, evidence and let the student make up his/her own decisions.

Not 100% accurate, since it has man coming from a chimp, but totally appropriate for this site.

maybe, but then it shouldn't be taught in science, teach it in some kind of religion class

Originally posted by Tex
You evolutionist are shooting yourselves in the foot by not allowing creationism to be taught alongside evolution in schools.

When you compare/contrast the two theories there is clearly one winner as far as science, evidence and reason go.

Creationism doesn't hold water when compared to evolution.

Present all information, theories, evidence and let the student make up his/her own decisions.
1. creationism isn't a theory, one of the aspects of a theory is that when it fails to check, it gets changed. Creationism hasn't changed one letter since it first got thought of

2. there is NO room for creationism in a subject about science. Teach creationism if you must in a class about religion but don't mix them up

I believe in evolution. I live in a country where 80% of the people believe the earth as we know it today was created in 6 days.

We have to educate these people.

Teach creationism alongside evolution, it's easier to discredit that way.

Which creationism? There's like hundreds.

Most people accept the world is round, with very little proof, too...

I mean, have you ever actually witnessed it properly?

Originally posted by Tex
You evolutionist are shooting yourselves in the foot by not allowing creationism to be taught alongside evolution in schools.

When you compare/contrast the two theories there is clearly one winner as far as science, evidence and reason go.

Creationism doesn't hold water when compared to evolution.

Present all information, theories, evidence and let the student make up his/her own decisions.

Yes, present the information.

But not in Science class! Subjects should be taught where they belong.

You don't teach Literature in Gym or Mathematics in Literature.

Creationism should not be taught in Science.

That is only rational- to do otherwise is educational insanity.

Originally posted by Tex
I believe in evolution. I live in a country where 80% of the people believe the earth as we know it today was created in 6 days.

We have to educate these people.

Teach creationism alongside evolution, it's easier to discredit that way.
and you don't have a religion class?

No public school has a religion class. Unless its "World Religions".

Private schools on the other hand...

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yes, present the information.

But not in Science class! Subjects should be taught where they belong.

You don't teach Literature in Gym or Mathematics in Literature.

Creationism should not be taught in Science.

That is only rational- to do otherwise is educational insanity.

You people dont know the first thing about being diabolical bitches! diva

These Christians are tricky devils, you have to beat them at their own game. sly

Teaching creationism alongside evolution exposes its ridiculous and unscientific beliefs. Children will laugh at it and put buggers on the creationism chapter! kid

Give the Christians the rope they want and let them hang themselves with it!

Keeping it exclusively in religion class supplies it shelter and security! Let evolution and creationism battle in a fight to the death ! 2guns
...on the pages of a science book. geek

You people need to learn from moi! diva

Well, this isn't a debate about what curriculum subjects are taught, that is a matter of US policy.

But if Creationism is to be taught, it should be in such a class. A lack of such a class might be a problem, but in absolutely no way is it a reason to start teaching it somewhere where it does not belong.

Originally posted by Tex
You people dont know the first thing about being diabolical bitches! diva

These Christians are tricky devils, you have to beat them at their own game. sly

Teaching creationism alongside evolution exposes its ridiculous and unscientific beliefs. Children will laugh at it and put buggers on the creationism chapter! kid

Give the Christians the rope they want and let them hang themselves with it!

Keeping it exclusively in religion class supplies it shelter and security! Let evolution and creationism battle in a fight to the death ! 2guns
...on the pages of a science book. geek

You people need to learn from moi! diva

I totally disagree. Teaching it in science class gives it a crediility it does not deserve and will simply cause the opposite to what you intend.

It is educational lunacy and must never be allowed.

Originally posted by Draco69
No public school has a religion class. Unless its "World Religions".

Private schools on the other hand...
then if their parents have something against it, don't let them go to public schools

that from time to time isn't an option Yerss, private schools tend to be expensive

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I totally disagree. Teaching it in science class gives it a crediility it does not deserve and will simply cause the opposite to what you intend.

It is educational lunacy and must never be allowed.

You really think that it will appear credible when compared to evolution?

Yes. Absolutely. Put it in science class and you give it scientific credibility and people WILL see it as such.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yes. Absolutely. Put it in science class and you give it scientific credibility and people WILL see it as such.

It would do the complete opposite, you discredit it by showing that the theory of evolution is more credible. naughty

I fail to see your point, Tex

I think his point is that the students would find the theory of evolution to be MUCH more credible than Creationism, if they were taught in the same class.

"Let's see evolve from baser life forms or Garden of Eden"

it's a science class, not a fairytale-class

I think creationist works better in with History along. Maybe is best to say "God vs. History". I think is better. Creationist just doesn't blend in with Science.

and why would that fairytale work with history?

Certain "fairytales" mention geographical areas of the ancient world. Take Beowulf for example. Is a fairy tale and it has certain traces of history.

so because it has mentioned some geographical areas it's the truth?

Wow. I never thought that it swell up to these proportions in a matter of hours.

First: Creationism, while it should be taught, should mot be taught in Science class. Like someone said earlier, fairy tales shouldn't be taught in a class that is concerned with provable, scientic truths.

Second: Which is exactly the reason evolution should not be taught in science classes, either. Despite being called a theory, and being taught as fact for many, many years, evolutionism still suffers from the distinct drawback of not having one piece of verifiable proof.

Yes, I just said that. Show me just one piece of evidence that clearly shows evolution as fact. Just one.

I do not have the knowledge of scandinavian history to judge

what you're saying is that eventhough there is no record of such events, it should still be taught in a class where facts are given...

Originally posted by yerssot
I do not have the knowledge of scandinavian history to judge

what you're saying is that eventhough there is no record of such events, it should still be taught in a class where facts are given...

I personally think it should. But the class shouldn't centralized in those stories. I wish I could explain myself more clear. I have it in my head but I just can't communicated properly. Let's just say (for now) that it might be beneficial for students to be aware of these so-called fairy tales which could hold possible valuable information. You catching my drift?

then get into a religion class. Why push it in a history class? History is based on facts, something most of those stories still lack

Sometimes they have to be included (not push) into History. If you're studing the history of Hebrew culture you're bound to encounter King Solomon and the building of the Jewish temple in Jeruselum. See that is what I'm aiming at. There are certain (not all ) stories or legends that could provide valuable information about the history of a culture.

First of all, there is a difference between Evolution and natural selection. Natural selection is the the impetus for evolution. There are several reasons why evolution makes more sense than creationism. The fossil record. If life was six thousand years old, there would be no fossil record. However, there are some christians that say they don't dispute the scientific idea that the earth is billions of years old. Okay, so some creationists accept that the fossil record is factual, but that it is simply more evidence of gods hand in our creation.

Evolution theorizes that all life descended from a few ancestors and that natural selection seperated those few into many different organisms and species. A basis for this idea is the priniple of homology. Homology says that both humans and dolphins have similar structure in their hands. However, a humans hands are used for one thing(many things actually) and a dolphins flippers are used for something completely different. So, environment effected the hands of two species with the same ancestor group and produced two different end results. Take the dolphins lungs for example, or those of a whale. What kind of god would create a species that lives in the water, but depends on air? That makes no sense, it isn't very intelligent or logical. Instead, evolution provides the answer. The ancestors of whales and dolphins at some point in time lived on land and had to breathe air. Another fact that supports this idea is that whales have hip bones. Why in the hell would a whale have hip bones? For the same reason that humans have tail bones. At some point in their history, whales had ...LEGS! In fact, one of Darwins earliest assumptions was that whales were the descendants of bears. Obviously not modern bears, but that the two had a comon ancestor. The fossil record goes on and on. The absence of a missing link is not proof that humans didn't evolve, rather that is the nature of the fossil record. Land based animals stand a very low chance of being fossilized, about a thousand times less than creatures that live in the ocean. That's because the chance of conditions being just right to create a fossil are much less on teh land than they are in the ocean...or even a river.

Consider the T-Rex: there are about a dozen complete specimens of the t-rex. Now, how many actual animals existed? Millions, I'm sure.
The age of dinosaurs. Let's think about that. There are no fossils of birds. How could that be? Because they did not exist as a species. archaeopteryx is a species of dinosaur. This species had feathers and teeth. There are later specimens of small rapter dinos found in mongolia that actually have fully featherd bodies, and four wings. Two sets of wings? Why would they have four wings, when two are enough for birds to fly? Because these dinosaurs didn't fly. They used their wings to glide as well as to provide them with a method of covering greater distances in one leap when they would chase prey on the ground. No dinosaur ever flew, by the time they started flying, they were birds.

So, the basic point is that life is much more messy than we like to think. If god was behind life, it wouldn't be so messy. There are dead ends in natural selection. Hip bones in whales, etc. Examples like this show how life is trial and error...not perfection in a bottle. That is also why evolution is a science, and creation is not.

both should be taught... it's good to have knowledge about other religions and what they believe in...

But Creationism Should ne in a history Class, or even a religion Class, (although I for one, would be pissed at having to take a religion class.)

You know, all these people who claim that there's evidence for creationism....I'd really like to see this so-called evidence some day. And by evidence, I do NOT mean a quote from the bible, I mean hard scientific evidence.

But no one will ever be able to show this evidence, now will they. Why? Because it doesn't exist. So no one can, in any stretch of their imagination, call it a theory.

If you want to believe in creationism, whatever. But do NOT call it a theory and say that there's evidence to back it up because it isn't one and there is no evidence for it. It is supported simply by faith.

Creationism does not belong in a science class. Keep it to a religion class, maybe history.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
First of all, there is a difference between Evolution and natural selection. Natural selection is the the impetus for evolution. There are several reasons why evolution makes more sense than creationism. The fossil record. If life was six thousand years old, there would be no fossil record. However, there are some christians that say they don't dispute the scientific idea that the earth is billions of years old. Okay, so some creationists accept that the fossil record is factual, but that it is simply more evidence of gods hand in our creation.

Evolution theorizes that all life descended from a few ancestors and that natural selection seperated those few into many different organisms and species. A basis for this idea is the priniple of homology. Homology says that both humans and dolphins have similar structure in their hands. However, a humans hands are used for one thing(many things actually) and a dolphins flippers are used for something completely different. So, environment effected the hands of two species with the same ancestor group and produced two different end results. Take the dolphins lungs for example, or those of a whale. What kind of god would create a species that lives in the water, but depends on air? That makes no sense, it isn't very intelligent or logical. Instead, evolution provides the answer. The ancestors of whales and dolphins at some point in time lived on land and had to breathe air. Another fact that supports this idea is that whales have hip bones. Why in the hell would a whale have hip bones? For the same reason that humans have tail bones. At some point in their history, whales had ...LEGS! In fact, one of Darwins earliest assumptions was that whales were the descendants of bears. Obviously not modern bears, but that the two had a comon ancestor. The fossil record goes on and on. The absence of a missing link is not proof that humans didn't evolve, rather that is the nature of the fossil record. Land based animals stand a very low chance of being fossilized, about a thousand times less than creatures that live in the ocean. That's because the chance of conditions being just right to create a fossil are much less on teh land than they are in the ocean...or even a river.

Consider the T-Rex: there are about a dozen complete specimens of the t-rex. Now, how many actual animals existed? Millions, I'm sure.
The age of dinosaurs. Let's think about that. There are no fossils of birds. How could that be? Because they did not exist as a species. archaeopteryx is a species of dinosaur. This species had feathers and teeth. There are later specimens of small rapter dinos found in mongolia that actually have fully featherd bodies, and four wings. Two sets of wings? Why would they have four wings, when two are enough for birds to fly? Because these dinosaurs didn't fly. They used their wings to glide as well as to provide them with a method of covering greater distances in one leap when they would chase prey on the ground. No dinosaur ever flew, by the time they started flying, they were birds.

So, the basic point is that life is much more messy than we like to think. If god was behind life, it wouldn't be so messy. There are dead ends in natural selection. Hip bones in whales, etc. Examples like this show how life is trial and error...not perfection in a bottle. That is also why evolution is a science, and creation is not.

Okay, for the dolphin skeletal systems: It makes sense to use one creation as a template, and then simply modify it for your purposes. I know that when drawing, I use a basic form, and then modify that form until I have a unique character that I like. Same deal.

And as far as your argument about the chaos required for lungs in a swimming creature... What about the natural selection you cited as the impetus for evolution? Wouldn't natural selection, running naturally, require this less convienient form to die off, allowing for the "fitter" species to grow larger and better?

How interesting that you bring up fossils... For I feel it important to note that not a single transitional form between two species have ever been found. I can allow your statement about the difficulty of the formation of fossils, but with the numbers required for natural selection to produce the (obviously smaller) number of animals now in existence, shouldn't there be at least a few hundred transitional fossils? I find it very difficult to believe that not a single transitional form ever managed to make a fossil, and only "fully different" forms did.

And even without the fossil record, let's examine the path evolution must take. For an example, I will use bats. Bats would have had to have come from some small, four legged mammal according to evolution. Bat wings are merely skin stretched between the "fingers" of the front legs. However, over this extended period in which the finger bones were lengthening and the skin spreading, there would have been at least one point in which the transitional creature would have been unable to run fast enough to catch prey, and yet still unable to fly. The result: The creatures trying to become bats die off, a la NATURAL SELECTION. How can evolution even be considered for scientific truth if it contradicts even itself?

Would you like for me to continue?

Non-Christians would rather not have to listen to that bull$#!+

Originally posted by MC Mike
This is really bad in one way, and really good in another.

All the jesus freak teachers will be biased, and so will some of the non-believers. And that's just f*cked up.

Personally, I don't believe ANYTHING in creationism in any way, shape, or form, but do think that non-biased teaching of both would be okay. Just make sure they present all the evidence for both.

If no one got the point of my post - Just make sure they present all the evidence for both. - there is no evidence for creationism.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
Okay, for the dolphin skeletal systems: It makes sense to use one creation as a template, and then simply modify it for your purposes. I know that when drawing, I use a basic form, and then modify that form until I have a unique character that I like. Same deal.

And as far as your argument about the chaos required for lungs in a swimming creature... What about the natural selection you cited as the impetus for evolution? Wouldn't natural selection, running naturally, require this less convienient form to die off, allowing for the "fitter" species to grow larger and better?

How interesting that you bring up fossils... For I feel it important to note that not a single transitional form between two species have ever been found. I can allow your statement about the difficulty of the formation of fossils, but with the numbers required for natural selection to produce the (obviously smaller) number of animals now in existence, shouldn't there be at least a few hundred transitional fossils? I find it very difficult to believe that not a single transitional form ever managed to make a fossil, and only "fully different" forms did.

And even without the fossil record, let's examine the path evolution must take. For an example, I will use bats. Bats would have had to have come from some small, four legged mammal according to evolution. Bat wings are merely skin stretched between the "fingers" of the front legs. However, over this extended period in which the finger bones were lengthening and the skin spreading, there would have been at least one point in which the transitional creature would have been unable to run fast enough to catch prey, and yet still unable to fly. The result: The creatures trying to become bats die off, a la NATURAL SELECTION. How can evolution even be considered for scientific truth if it contradicts even itself?

Would you like for me to continue?

First of all, do not approach this conversation as though you are making the rules for this discussion. I don't need you to "allow" anything I say. As soon as you are elected speaker of the house, then you can approach people from this perspective.

Secondly, do not expect me to prove the theory of evolution. I am not a scientist, neither are you I would imagine. In fact, one scientist had this to say about proving any theory in science:

"First let me say that I am not a biologist, but a chemist. So I do not have a very detailed answer to your question. I first want to say that scientists have a very special meaning for the word "proof." In fact, it is so difficult to "prove" a scientific theory that I can honestly say that there are NO pieces of scientific knowledge that have actually been "proved." Scientists come up with a theory, and then they test it in as many ways as they can, looking for evidence or information which will either prove the theory to be impossible, or maybe verify some of the theory's predictions, or change the theory a little."

As for a transitional species, there are many found in the dinosaur fossil record. These feathered dinosaurs fossils progress through the fossil record. Starting with feathers only on certain parts of the body, then to the arms and then the arm structure begins to change and then wings appear. In the case of Caudipteryx, there were four: two sets of layered wings. Now, if you're looking for a human skeleton that still has a tail and opposable thumbs on it's feet, I can't help you there. In the quest to find the missing link, DNA seems to be the the biggest factor in proving the relationship between extinct species and modern species.

Fortunately, many of the protosapien species that we've found still hold viable DNA. These extinct species share genetic patterns that more closely resemble modern humans than does the chimp, which is our closest living genetic relation. Now, if god created so many species and just modified their structure because he had found a suitable model, no.1 that kind of illustrates a lack of creativity and no.2 why would the wing structure of a bat be totally different than that of a bird which is toally different than a bug?(structure being shape and functionality in this case.) If this idea that god just got bored and kept reworking the same form, then why wouldn't this apply to all living things?


And, as I mentioned before, why would there be all these dead end aspects to evolution? Why does a whale have a hip bone?

"You know, all these people who claim that there's evidence for creationism....I'd really like to see this so-called evidence some day."

The only evidence these creationalists can throw around is that there is also no factual evidence for evolution, and somehow by default, if there is not factual proof of evolution, then creationism must be correct.

Hence this old mini-script:

Creationist: How was the Universe created?

Scientist: I'm not quite sure.

Creationist: Oh, God must have done it then.

Short and sweet, and totally accurate.

(auto quote)

exactly

Originally posted by BackFire
"You know, all these people who claim that there's evidence for creationism....I'd really like to see this so-called evidence some day."

The only evidence these creationalists can throw around is that there is also no factual evidence for evolution, and somehow by default, if there is not factual proof of evolution, then creationism must be correct.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Hence this old mini-script:

Creationist: How was the Universe created?

Scientist: I'm not quite sure.

Creationist: Oh, God must have done it then.

So very true....and I recently got in this argument with someone here.

And GOOD, I'm not the only person who understands that science does NOT prove things (in the sense that most people think of the word prove meaning), but uses substantial amounts of evidence to support a theory. I've explained this numerous times but people just simply don't seem to get it.

Also, I don't think the people who claim that there's little evidence for evolution as a theory really understand the scientific method and how it works -- for a hypothesis to become a theory, they must find a TON of evidence to support it. It's not a case of "that sounds good, let's make it a theory". Yet another thing I've explained many many times but people never seem to understand -- or want to understand.

Anybody notice that creationists look really unevolved?

Hmm.

-AC

thank you for making me laugh out loud and make a bunch of people stare at me like I'm insane.

Originally posted by WindDancer
Sometimes they have to be included (not push) into History. If you're studing the history of Hebrew culture you're bound to encounter King Solomon and the building of the Jewish temple in Jeruselum. See that is what I'm aiming at. There are certain (not all ) stories or legends that could provide valuable information about the history of a culture.
that's why you can take a literature class...
works well at uni's here

well I think creationism should not be added in the books in SCIENCE
but I think it should be taught in school..

Originally posted by IceWithin
well I think creationism should not be added in the books in SCIENCE
but I think it should be taught in school..

In a history or religion class.

Originally posted by Lana
In a history or religion class.

yup

Originally posted by Lana
In a history or religion class.
oh yeah! screw up the history class, why don't ya? like they don't suffer under popularity already!

Originally posted by yerssot
oh yeah! screw up the history class, why don't ya? like they don't suffer under popularity already!
I love history class

Originally posted by yerssot
oh yeah! screw up the history class, why don't ya? like they don't suffer under popularity already!

well, you learn ABOUT religions in a history class, so you'd think that major points of that religion's beliefs would be covered. I didn't mean for it to be actually taught in history class, but more taught about. Like "This is what this religion believed at this point in time."

but in a traditional history class you don't learn about evolution or how the world evolved, so why should it be there?

and why does (christian) creatism gets so much priviledges? why don't the ideas of ancient egypt or african tribes for example be taught? they have the same rights, no?

Originally posted by IceWithin
I love history class
you're a freak

and who says it? *points*

Originally posted by yerssot
but in a traditional history class you don't learn about evolution or how the world evolved, so why should it be there?

and why does (christian) creatism gets so much priviledges? why don't the ideas of ancient egypt or african tribes for example be taught? they have the same rights, no?


you're a freak

cry
Im not a freak, I'm just... sophisticated smoke

you're just a neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerd

Originally posted by yerssot
you're just a neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerd

excuse me, what are you studying again?

Originally posted by yerssot
but in a traditional history class you don't learn about evolution or how the world evolved, so why should it be there?

and why does (christian) creatism gets so much priviledges? why don't the ideas of ancient egypt or african tribes for example be taught? they have the same rights, no?


you're a freak

Because evolution goes in science class

Well, I've taken many history classes, and in each one we learned about various aspects of the religion of whatever we were studying. Like when I took one about East Asia we learned the basis of Buddhism, Shintoism, and Hinduism. It depends on the class you're taking, I guess.

Originally posted by Lana
Because evolution goes in science class

Well, I've taken many history classes, and in each one we learned about various aspects of the religion of whatever we were studying. Like when I took one about East Asia we learned the basis of Buddhism, Shintoism, and Hinduism. It depends on the class you're taking, I guess.

Im taking south american and european history classes at the mo

Originally posted by yerssot
that's why you can take a literature class...
works well at uni's here

Is optional I like that too.

Now that I have gather my thoughts more properly let me say this. I think that certain studies in mythology (or as you call them fairy tales) are helpful for certain fields of history. Archeologist and Anthropologist for example are require to read and study certain myths and legends to enrich their knowledge of different cultures. Without the knowledge or data of archeologist there wouldn't be any history to tell.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Totally inaccurate, whobdamandog.

First of all, look up what a theory is. Science deals with theories to explain phenomenons. Theories are tested, scientific models that have withstood scientific assault on their integrity. Saying it is a theory does not, in any way, diminish its value. All these people who say 'it is ONLY a theory', as if a theory is 'only' anything, are simply expressing ignorance of the nature of theory.

Secondly, Creationism is NOT a theory. It is a belief only. It does not even remotely meet the criteria of being a theory. This is why it is not science.

Sorry for the late response. Well you got one definition of a theory correct...let's look at Webster's definition of theory to get a few others shall we..?


a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory" 2: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices" 3: a belief that can guide behavior; "the architect has a theory that more is less"; "they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales"


Creationism is a THEORY. Pure and simple. What you probably were trying to state was that you believed that "Creationism" can not be classified as a "SCIENTIFIC THEORY" That is your OPINION..which you are welcome too have, however, just because you have a certain OPINION about something, it doesn't necessarily make it fact..now does it?

With that being clarified.."Intelligent Design" should be taught along side the THEORY of Evolution in school. Both THEORIES have substanstiated evidence to support them. And with both THEORIES..you have to have a certain amount of FAITH if you choose to believe in them..lol. Scientists who support Evolution have FAITH that the "missing link" does exist. Creationists have a certain degree of FAITH that an intelligent creator exists. Seeing as how neither have been proven to be "Scientific Law" as of yet, I believe it's only fair to teach both of these THEORIES in a public school setting. And as I stated before, anyone who has a problem with their child learning either THEORY has the right under the law to pull their child from class or from the school entirely.

So where's your evidence for creationism that you just stated exists? Seriously. I'd like to see what you can come up with.

i just wanna say that we were not doing anything about religion during history classes.
we had some mythology at polish classes (it is caled so, but it is literature for real)
and something during philosophy classes

I would also like to state that in the US, because of seperation of church and state, creationism (which is a religious belief) shouldn't be taught ANYWAY....

Here's a few...

http://speakout.com/activism/opinions/3116-1.html

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4264/ID.html

http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/idtheorymenu.htm

Now show me the missing link..

Originally posted by WindDancer
Is optional I like that too.

Now that I have gather my thoughts more properly let me say this. I think that certain studies in mythology (or as you call them fairy tales) are helpful for certain fields of history. Archeologist and Anthropologist for example are require to read and study certain myths and legends to enrich their knowledge of different cultures. Without the knowledge or data of archeologist there wouldn't be any history to tell.
unless you're at uni, doing a specific direction of history, why should you learn those things?
with the same reasoning, you should learn the myths (as you call them) of EVERY culture there ever was, they have equal rights in this.
And only learn them in a literature class, not in a class that might let people to believe they actually hold any truth...

Originally posted by Lana
I would also like to state that in the US, because of seperation of church and state, creationism (which is a religious belief) shouldn't be taught ANYWAY....


You have no idea what your talking about. Read some of those links. Intelligent Design/Creationism isn't anymore a "religious" belief than evolution...

I absolutely agree that the universe is a "intelligent design", since its too well....designed. However I don't agree with the Christian Creationism that the activists are obviously trying to impose.

As Einstein said, for every clock there is a clockmaker.

I read those links...and I didn't see any evidence FOR creationism/intelligent design, only various things they picked out to use against evolution.

on a note... a geocities-site is already having credibility these days?

Originally posted by yerssot
on a note... a geocities-site is already having credibility these days?

Haha, I was thinking that as well. Apparently people don't know how to find credible sources anymore either.

Wow Lana..you must be a very quick reader..especially since most of those sites had hundreds of links to other sites..anyway..you've been given evidence. Now show me the missing link...lol...

Originally posted by Lana
I read those links...and I didn't see any evidence FOR creationism/intelligent design, only various things they picked out to use against evolution.

but the creationism theory doesn't say the evolution didn't occur
it only says that there was a 'force' (can't find better word) that has started this process.

Does anyone share my view on "intelligent design?"

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Wow Lana..you must be a very quick reader..especially since most of those sites had hundreds of links to other sites..anyway..you've been given evidence. Now show me the missing link...lol...

I am a very quick reader, and very good at sorting out bullshit from something worth reading.

As for the "missing link", it is a term that many scientists (particularly evolutionary biologists) dislike using, because it implies that things occured in a straight, linear line.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6522090/
http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Feb/26417.htm
http://www.mrc.ac.uk/index/public-interest/public-news_centre/public-news_list/public-news_27_january_2005.htm
http://www.newsandevents.utoronto.ca/bios/askus4.htm
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton2.html
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SU/whale.html

Since many people don't seem to realize how exactly evolution works, here is an image from one of the links I've provided that illustrates that it is not, in fact, a straight line, but more like a web.
http://www.newsandevents.utoronto.ca/bios/askusimages/phylogeny.jpg

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Wow Lana..you must be a very quick reader..especially since most of those sites had hundreds of links to other sites..anyway..you've been given evidence. Now show me the missing link...lol...
which part of "missing" forms a difficulty to understand?

furthermore, they can backtrace the human origin back to almost 7 million years ago... creationism can't even go back 4000 years in time

Originally posted by yerssot
which part of "missing" forms a difficulty to understand?

furthermore, they can backtrace the human origin back to almost 7 million years ago... creationism can't even go back 4000 years in time

Don't you know? Science must have every single damn answer to be credible. Otherwise, it happened because of some outside force

talk about a leap of faith in believing science

btw, whob, do you believe in DNA?

Reading the rebuttals of my post, I have come to a curious conclusion as to the relation between evolutionism and creationism.

The main impression I got from the replies to my post is that science is entirely guesswork, and not a single idea can be proven. Despite the fact that things thrown into the air come back down to the earth, gravity cannot be proven. Despite the fact that eating food keeps us alive, that we get nutrients from absorbing said food cannot be proven. Despite the fact that plants in sunlight grow better than plants in darkness, photosynthesis cannot be proven.

And apparently, evolution can be believed on no evidence whatsoever, while evolutionists practically ask to see God face-to-face before admitting that POSSIBLY, just MAYBE, creationism isn't just a fairytale for idiots and children.

I ask for evidence in favor of evolution, at the same time giving very good, scientific evidence against it. In reply, my request is sidestepped under the guise of quotes from unnamed evolutionists, and my own evidence disregarded as a fool's fancy. I'm willing to accept evidence for evolution, but as is often the case when arguing against evolution, I have yet to see any.

Why the double standard? Why are my beliefs given no credit, while you naturally assume that yours are the absolute concrete truth?

Originally posted by Clovie
but the creationism theory doesn't say the evolution didn't occur
it only says that there was a 'force' (can't find better word) that has started this process.

Straight creationism states that everything was created by god in one week. Which directly contradicts evolution and frankly, is complete crap in my opinion.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
Reading the rebuttals of my post, I have come to a curious conclusion as to the relation between evolutionism and creationism.

The main impression I got from the replies to my post is that science is entirely guesswork, and not a single idea can be proven. Despite the fact that things thrown into the air come back down to the earth, gravity cannot be proven. Despite the fact that eating food keeps us alive, that we get nutrients from absorbing said food cannot be proven. Despite the fact that plants in sunlight grow better than plants in darkness, photosynthesis cannot be proven.

And apparently, evolution can be believed on no evidence whatsoever, while evolutionists practically ask to see God face-to-face before admitting that POSSIBLY, just MAYBE, creationism isn't just a fairytale for idiots and children.

I ask for evidence in favor of evolution, at the same time giving very good, scientific evidence against it. In reply, my request is sidestepped under the guise of quotes from unnamed evolutionists, and my own evidence disregarded as a fool's fancy. I'm willing to accept evidence for evolution, but as is often the case when arguing against evolution, I have yet to see any.

Why the double standard? Why are my beliefs given no credit, while you naturally assume that yours are the absolute concrete truth?

Read the links I've just posted.

No, science does not prove that things happen, in the way that most people think of when they think of the word "proof". What it does is find substantial amounts of evidence in favor of a hypothesis. When enough is found, that hypothesis becomes a theory. After a certain point, if there is enough evidence for a theory that there is no other way for it to happen/work, then it becomes a scientific law. Hence the law of gravity. There is mass amounts of evidence for gravity's existence. But no scientist will ever say it to be proven true, because that's not how science works.

As for evolution, there is a large amount of evidence in favor for it, otherwise it wouldn't be a theory.

Frankly, anyone who thinks there's no evidence for evolution needs to open a science textbook.

a scientific theory involves research, testing, observation, calculation...etc.

creationism involves nothing more than "well, the bible said so".
how is it justifiable to pollute science with faith? sure, TECHNICALLY creationism can be called a 'theory' but not a SCIENTIFIC theory.

i wonder, would the world be a better place if every bible on the planet just spontaneously combusted?

its not a compromise to include it, but a submission to idiocy and yet one more step back to the dark ages.

So if evolution is so "logical and obvious" does it follow the laws of science?

Originally posted by Lana
Straight creationism states that everything was created by god in one week. Which directly contradicts evolution and frankly, is complete crap in my opinion. but even the church is not agreeing with it

Creationism man, we can get into rights and wrongs, if's and but's all day. But really what it comes down to is....

How the f*ck can you seriously say God created everything in a week? Seriously, how? How in your right mind can you consider it to be true? Capt Fantastic touched on it, but what about dinosaur fossils?

Absolutely ridiculous.

-AC

Originally posted by Lana
Straight creationism states that everything was created by god in one week. Which directly contradicts evolution and frankly, is complete crap in my opinion.

Not necessarily. The Church and many bibles say that the "Seven days" of Genesis fame has a high possibility of simply being part of oral tradition, built up over the hundreds of years before anything was written down.

I personally don't believe the seven days to be literal, but I don't see how evolution can stand scientific scrutiny.

Originally posted by Clovie
but even the church is not agreeing with it

Just because the church finally woke up doesn't mean there aren't still people out there that believe that.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
So if evolution is so "logical and obvious" does it follow the laws of science?

Who the hell said ANYTHING is 'logical and obvious'? That's the thing about science. Stuff isn't handed to you on a silver platter. You have to actually go out and research in order to find answers. Sometimes they won't make sense right away. But that's the thing! If it DOESN'T make sense, you research some more! Maybe you missed something. It doesn't work that if you don't find one specific thing it's wrong. Science is always changing, always researching evidence to support theories and ideas. And if something appears to not work? Then they adjust the theory and keep researching.

Originally posted by Lana
Don't you know? Science must have every single damn answer to be credible. Otherwise, it happened because of some outside force

That's the same rational 'evolutionists' use to shoot down 'creationist' arguments...I love turning your own arguments against you..

Oh yeah..where's the missing link in the "non-linear" line that shows a distinct transition between "APE" and "Man"..oh forget it..let me answer the question for you..THERE ISN'T ONE...LOL..end of debate.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
Not necessarily. The Church and many bibles say that the "Seven days" of Genesis fame has a high possibility of simply being part of oral tradition, built up over the hundreds of years before anything was written down.

I personally don't believe the seven days to be literal, but I don't see how evolution can stand scientific scrutiny.

Evolution HAS been standing scientific scrutiny since the idea was first formulated, why do you think that there's so much evidence supporting it? Like I said, a hypothesis does NOT become a theory unless there is substantial evidence to support it.

I must ask -- do you have any knowledge of the scientific method?

I believe several people have said that evolution "is the most logical theory we currently have." Somewhere before page four.

Yet I don't see logic in it. And again, why the double standard? If one can believe evolution even if it "doesn't make sense right away" why is that same way of thinking not applied to creationism?

Originally posted by General Kaliero
I believe several people have said that evolution "is the most logical theory we currently have." Somewhere before page four.

Yet I don't see logic in it. And again, why the double standard? If one can believe evolution even if it "doesn't make sense right away" why is that same way of thinking not applied to creationism?

Because of the amount of evidence there is for it, it IS the most logical theory. If it doesn't make sense, then read up on it some more. Plain and simple.

Originally posted by Lana
Evolution HAS been standing scientific scrutiny since the idea was first formulated, why do you think that there's so much evidence supporting it? Like I said, a hypothesis does NOT become a theory unless there is substantial evidence to support it.

I must ask -- do you have any knowledge of the scientific method?

Yes, actually, I do. Someone (Darwin) comes up with a hypothesis (evolution) and tests it to see if it is plausible (a step not particularly reliable, depending on the scientist). Then, if it stands his tests, he turns the hypothesis over to other scientists, who test it for themselves to see if it is plausible (a step I've heard a lot about, but not seen any references that support it). If the hypothesis stands their tests as well, and enough people agree that it's plausible, it becomes a theory.

However, I've seen plenty of evidence to the contrary. Such as the fact that evolution often seems to contradict itself. It also seems to contradict the second law of thermodynamics.

And unknown to many evolutionists, a momentous if not historic conference, consisting of one hundred and sixty of the world's most distinguished evolutionists, took place in Chicago during October, 1980. At that meeting a unanimous admission was made to the fact that the previous 120 years of fossil recovery had failed to provide one irrefutable case of an intermediate fossil. In other words, it was conceded that the long held Darwinian belief that evolution had occurred through infinitesimal small changes over immense periods of time was unlikely - to say the least!

And that was reported in Newsweek on the third of November of that same year.

Hey Lana..


Where's the missing link in the "non-linear" line that shows a distinct transition between "APE" and "Man?

Hey Whobdamandog,

Where's this evidence that shows creationism as a credible and provable believe?

-AC

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Hey Lana..


Where's the missing link in the "non-linear" line that shows a distinct transition between "APE" and "Man?

Originally posted by yerssot
which part of "missing" forms a difficulty to understand?

furthermore, they can backtrace the human origin back to almost 7 million years ago... creationism can't even go back 4000 years in time

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Hey Whobdamandog,

Where's this evidence that shows creationism as a credible and provable believe?

-AC

evidence: Evolution has no evidence

Oh and I suppose, to them, God creating everyone and everything in a week is barricaded with evidence then?

Dinosaur fossils. Anyone? Creationists only. Type with your thumbs, or lack thereof, if you wish.

-AC

I think we're drifting away from topic by hammering each other with "prove me this or prove me that". Let's shift back at the question at hand. The Inclusion of Creationism in School Textbooks? To that I answer....yes! Just for academic purposes. Should it be mandatory for schools to do it? No, it should be optional.