It wasn't near the end of his life that he confessed that, I don't think... Throughout his life he was terrified that he would probably go to hell for disagreeing with the Bible. And the other thing is, a theory is a big deal. It isn't "just a theory." Yes, it is a theory, but a theory isn't some random idea that floated into a scientist's head one afternoon. A theory is something that is backed by evidence and is either produceable or observable. In other words, you can either reproduce whatever experiment spawned the theory, or go out and observe evidence of it.
clicky, quit making all your ridiculous assumptions about evolution and making a fool of yourself by implying that god's creation of the world is supported by scientific evidence. Everyone here can see you no nothing about creationism or evolution. Also, those who say that god created the world and then left it to develop on it's own are clearly not thinking straight: such a statement is only made by religious people who realise the FACT and irrefutability of Evoluion, but still want to include god in the picture - why would god create the world and then leave the rest to random chance? the only god that would do such a thing is one that is not proud of what he created initially and then subsequently said: "oh, well, it was a failed attempt, let me abandone it and leave the rest to chance. A real creator would create something perfect and final in his own image to be proud of.
Would you all agree that both evolution and creationism should be taught in the schools so people could make up their own minds?
Instead of just the one view, evolution.
Wouldn't it be better for schools to teach people HOW to think for themselves, instead of WHAT to think???????????
How about, quit acting so childish. Look, you have your opinion on naturalism, you have your faith in that and that is your choice. I have a differeing opinion, nobody needs to get insulted over that. I have at times been a little to harsh with you and though seemingly warranted, ill avoid doing that in the future. I can get into the intracacies and talk about probability and so on but you wont want to hear it anyway. So ill save myself the time.
Lastly, I said that it was congruent with not proven therein.
I don't know about your school, but mine certainly did not force us to believe in evolution. And part of thinking for yourself is finding things out for yourself, not waiting for a school to teach it to you.
True, free thinking is finding things out for yourself. Free thinking is having all the facts, before making a decision. But most school curriculum is slanted towards evolution. No, not slanted, just is.
And for most people, they could care less about finding out anything for themselves.
"Would you all agree that both evolution and creationism should be taught in the schools so people could make up their own minds?
Instead of just the one view, evolution."
No, I can't agree to that, because when you go to a science class, you expect to be taught about science. Creationism is not science--there is absolutely no evidence backing it up that has not already been refuted. Evolution, on the other hand, is a solid theory that has yet to be disproved.
"Wouldn't it be better for schools to teach people HOW to think for themselves, instead of WHAT to think???????????"
Wouldn't it be better for churches to teach people how to think for themselves, instead of what to think?
Clickclick...
"I can get into the intracacies and talk about probability and so on but you wont want to hear it anyway. So ill save myself the time."
You are simply making a fool of yourself by continually claiming that you have actual scientific proof that Creation should be considered as seriously as evolution, and continually either refusing to or failing to give that proof. If you are so adamant that you could prove Philosophicus wrong, why haven't you?
You are simply making a fool of yourself by continually claiming that you have actual scientific proof that Creation should be considered as seriously as evolution, and continually either refusing to or failing to give that proof. If you are so adamant that you could prove Philosophicus wrong, why haven't you?
For one, much to your dismay im sure, Im not particularly interested in how I appear you kid. Scientific proof that creation should be considered? I dont recall saying that as such. Though I did say it was congruent with science. Now tell me this, as im somewhat curious. What IYO would consistute that?
Solid theory for evolution? Like probability? The fossil record?
Spontaneous generation? The prebiotic soup? Irreducibly complex systems? Biochemical evidence etc?
Oh thats right. Spontaneous generation is "scientific" but a creator creating is "unreasonable" and "unsupported". Gotcha.
Funny that you said, "the theory of evolution has yet to be disproved". I hope you give a litle more thought to that one.
Its funny that when naturalists come up with unsubstantiated theories, it is considered by them to be science. Were a creationist to do it, naturalists would have a fit.
__________________
Last edited by clickclick on Feb 12th, 2005 at 01:16 AM
I'm the one that said that in the evolution thread
Number one: No, creationism should NOT be taught in schools...don't you people know of a little something known as seperation of church and state? Since creationism is solely a religious concept it therefore has no place within a school.
Hmmm....creationism has scientific evidence? Clickclick, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and provide this evidence? And don't say "look it up yourself" because you're making the positive statement and therefore the burden of proof rests solely on your shoulders. So either present this evidence you claim exists, or shut up.
Evidence of evolution: the Galapagos finces that Darwin studied, and how bacteria mutate and become resistant to various antibiotics are the two most commonly presented examples of evolution. While evolution is generally something that takes place over thousands of years, the latter is something that we can actually see happen. There are plenty more, though; such as how a certain species of moth is usually brown and very rarely are there white moths -- the recessive genotype (white) is very visible against a tree while the dominant and heterozygous genotype (brown) is not; the white moths, being more visible, are more likely to be eaten by birds and therefore are selected against. There are many many more examples but I'd need to look them up as I don't remember a lot of the details (it's been a year since my AP Bio class).
But to say that there is scientific evidence for creationism and to say that evolution is refuted by science is laughable and shows clear ignorance.
No offense, but did you people pass 10th grade biology? I myself have done extensive research on both sides of the argument... I've looked through a number of the major "creation science" sites, and even written to one of them. The response I got was a drawn-out, nitpicky letter that didn't even come close to answering my original question, which I posed in a polite way. I found not one shred of evidence for Creation that was not either ridiculous or refuted by a thousand other sites. If you want me to cite examples, say the word, and I will gladly do so. So, after all my research, I concluded basically one thing: it was a complete waste of time and my opinion on evolution had not changed one bit. Please don't assume I'm some moron who goes around parading my spur of the moment ideas as fact.
You did just what I claimed you had, in at least two places in this thread. Here:
"I can get into the intracacies and talk about probability and so on but you wont want to hear it anyway."
And here:
"I could go on and given many reasons why creationsm works where naturalism doesnt, many that I havent even cited previously. I dont believe evolutionism has anything legitimate to show in support of itself either because the things that are being uncovered, refute it."
"Oh thats right. Spontaneous generation is 'scientific' but a creator creating is 'unreasonable' and 'unsupported'. Gotcha."
"Spontaneous generation," as you so aptly put it, does not in fact need be included in the study of evolution. Evolution is about the 4.6 billion years after life first appeared, not necessarily how it was created. How it first appeared is anybody's guess... Who knows, maybe it was created by some supernatural power at first. All I'm saying is that the idea earth is 6000 years old and was created in exactly the state it is now is a load of bull. The amount of evidence backing that up is enormous... To name the two most commonly used ones:
-We can see light from stars millions of light years away. This would obviously be impossible if the universe were under a few billion years old.
-We have found various artifacts that were carbon dated and found to be older than the supposed age of the Christian universe.
Now, as for evolution itself, the amount of evidence is just as great... And I honestly don't know how it's possible that you haven't heard any of this in the past. Creationists often claim that life is too "perfect" to have been created by anything other than an intelligent mind. The fact is, life is far from perfect.
For example, hundreds of studies have found that every living organism will always reproduce past the maximum load its environment can support. When this happens, a number of individuals from that species will simply die off until the population is within the amount the availible resources can support. The species will be more healthy as a whole, and will reproduce again, and the same thing happens over and over.
I could go on and on about life's various imperfections, and perhaps I will later, but I'm getting tired.
Before I go, I have to mention the thing that sparked the idea of evolution in the first place--Darwin's famous Galapagos finches. When Darwin was a naturalist aboard the HMS Beagle, which made stops in the Galapagos islands, he collected a number of specimens of what he thought to be different species of birds. However, when he got back to England, he was informed that all of the birds he had collected were types of finches. Back in the day, people knew that species sometimes changed due to variations in climate. What puzzled Darwin was the fact that all of the islands he had visited were identical in climate. There was no apparent reason for the birds to be so different from one another. Why would God put different finches on identical islands? He reasoned that perhaps organisms adapted over many generations to new situations--not just climate, but factors such as availible food and predators as well. That was the spark that got him thinking about natural selection...
But, like I said, it's past my bedtime and I must be leaving you all. Good day.
Gender: Male Location: Dreaming...Or am I living...
*applause*
That was *snif* Brilliant.....
( I should post my AP bio notes sometime. My teacher basicly says that any person who looks at nature and is somewhat scientific, they look at it through evolutionary "goggles" and of you don't believe in evolution you are wrong and can go to hell.)
For one, I didnt say you were a moron or anything of the sort. Anyway, Spontaneous generation is part of the theory of evolution, which is why it must be included. My actual objection is with naturalism and the theory that they put forth. Spontaneous generation or abiogenesis, you can call it what you will. Its the same thing.
I havent heard anybody claim that life was perfect either, I think complex is a more appropriate word.
KMC Community Forums
Feb 11th, 2005 04:04 AM
I hope you give a litle more thought to that one.
