Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Creationism is based on God..........A bullshit theory based on a deity that is pure speculation.
-AC
Darwinism is based on a normal, average man..........
A bullshit theory based on a confused scientist that is pure speculation.
-GK
As should be obvious from this, derogatory comments about the opposition will get us nowhere.
And as you would notice if you actually spent any time reading the materials I posted earlier, you would realize he has quite a bit of science on his side, as well.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
.A bullshit theory based on a deity that is pure speculation.
-AC
This is the exact reason why I add my "jokes" to the things I post..these are the usual types of comments I get from the other side. I figure if they do it..I can as well..it's immature..I'll admit that..however..I'm not really trying to "win" an election..nor do I seek anyone's approval. I'm just merely trying to show them how their logic/argumentative style can just as easily be used against them.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Is everyone forgetting the crucial thing here? If not, then sorry.Science exists and evolution is a scientific theory.
Creationism is based on God..........
gotta agree.(could have put the rest more gently or even ommited it though...would have been more effective)
creationism is simply the study of scripture.
that is not science in any way.
people yell that evolution is a 'theory' as a means of discrediting it, but
refuse to understand the work that goes behind formulating a theory.
'god said so' is not a scientific theory (not to overly simplify, but thats basically it isnt it?)
also, a theory is not taught to be accepted as fact, but a possability. there are other forums for which to discuss creatio---- GOD. its called 'home' with mom and dad. or if they're too lazy then there is bible study.
the fact is 'creationism' was only created to serve as a pseudo-theory with the sole purpose of butting into the science class. science and religion do not belong in the same lesson. i urge all people of faith to take a moment and realise that though god may be infallable, those who translated for him were not. and that is all the bible is, a translation of a translation of a translation...etc over thousands of years.
who's to say they didnt misquote god?
sorry if i ramble
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Last meeting I attended said that we were all in agreement with regards to the definition of 'fact'.That being that it has to be undeniable.
So unless you're just really blind, I'll point it out for you: You have but one person agreeing with you.
-AC
So what's undeniable about the theory of Evolution Alpha?
Originally posted by Draco69
Hoping to avoid a bitter public showdown, defenders of the theory of evolution boycotted the first of four days of hearings Thursday over the science curriculum in Kansas, where members of the state Board of Education critical of the standard theory are considering changes to give more weight to creationist ideas.Mainstream science organizations spurned invitations to participate, dismissing the hearings in Topeka as an effort “to attack and undermine science,” in the view of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal Science.
As a result, the only witnesses heard Thursday were advocates of a philosophy called “intelligent design,” critics of evolution or both. Pedro Irigonegaray, a Topeka lawyer representing what he called mainstream science, dismissed the event as a “kangaroo court.”
Spreading across the nation
The hearings, which run through Saturday and resume May 12, resemble a trial, as three school board members hear arguments from champions of both sides. The panelists — all three of them conservative Republicans who have questioned evolution — will report to the full school board, which is expected to approve new science standards next month.Defenders of Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection acknowledged that their boycott leaves opponents of evolution unchallenged, but they said they hoped to defuse the publicity that a media-saturated argument over science and the Bible could stir up.
Nonetheless, a showdown is inevitable. Efforts to compel schools to teach or, at least, give equal time to the purported errors of evolution are under way in nearly two dozen states, led by two groups of activists united by their belief in a supreme being who set history in motion.
One group is made up of religious conservatives who espouse the traditional biblical account in which God created the world in six days. The Supreme Court, however, barred the teaching of creationism in a 1987 decision striking down a Louisiana law that said evolution could be taught only if “creation science” was also taught. So today, the movement has shifted to the campaign by intellectual thinkers, some of them scientists, who argue that life on the planet is too complex to have come about by without some sort of guiding intelligence.
That supposition is called “intelligent design.” Its leaders say that as a matter of science their principles are not religious, but mainstream scientists have labeled them Creationism Lite, and Christian activists have latched onto them as an alternative stick with which to whack Darwin.
Publishers call the tune
For mainstream scientists, the Kansas debate is just a skirmish. The real battles will come in the next few years as schools adopt new textbooks.Intelligent design campaigns are being pursued in California and Texas. Their school boards have long dictated the content of many of the nation’s textbooks because of the clout they have with publishers owing to their enormous student populations. Publishers routinely tailor their textbooks to the tastes of review boards in those states to avoid the devastating prospect that a multimillion-dollar new edition could be rejected.
“They call the tune, and the publishers dance,” Diane Ravitch, an assistant education secretary in the administration of former President George H.W. Bush, testified before Congress two years ago.
Ravitch’s testimony came as Texas was going through a wrenching review of its biology texts; those books were introduced into Texas classrooms this year. Mainstream scientists fought off major concessions on evolution this time, but the battle is being continued in the Legislature, where a bill is under consideration that would give the state Board of Education — which is dominated by Republican social conservatives — even more control over the content of texts.
In California, meanwhile, a case awaits in U.S. District Court filed by parents who claim that they were denied their civil rights when a school district near Sacramento rejected their proposal that schools should be required to teach the purported flaws of evolution.
While California’s textbook battles have usually been fought by groups pushing more traditionally liberal causes, such as gender equality and multicultural history, the lawsuit signals that the evolution dispute is likely to become a hot-button issue there, as well — just in time to begin picking up steam ahead of next year’s acceptance of bids for new science textbooks.
When you 'copy and paste' from another side - credit source.
Originally posted by General Kaliero
As should be obvious from this, derogatory comments about the opposition will get us nowhere.
True..I'll agree with that
And as you would notice if you actually spent any time reading the materials I posted earlier, you would realize he has quite a bit of science on his side, as well.
I've read all the material that everyone has posted my friend.
As far as science goes....nothing has been proven as being the "law" on either side of this debate. I agree with you however that both sides should be more respectful of each others OPINIONS...regardless if they do not believe in them.
Originally posted by General Kaliero
Darwinism is based on a normal, average man..........A bullshit theory based on a confused scientist that is pure speculation.
-GK
Hahahaha.
Coz that's what I do isn't it?
Darwin existed, his theories are supported more, as you can see throughout this thread, by science than creationism.
God isn't provable, so if he doesn't exist, neither does creationism. There's more to suggest that there isn't than to suggest there is.
Whobman: What's undeniable about the theory of evolution? I never said it was undeniable did I? You said you'd been presenting facts. You couldn't have been.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Hahahaha.Coz that's what I do isn't it?
Darwin existed, his theories are supported more, as you can see throughout this thread, by science than creationism.
-AC
Just because a popular theory is supported..it doesn't necessarily make that theory "factual."
If you had completely read some of the previous posts..you would have clearly seen that there's one central peice of "evidence" missing from the theory of Evolution..read the quote below..
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Let me post this one more time..I believe this is the most pertinent part of the article that the General posted."Apparently, Darwin's theory had become indefensible to them, citing particularly the absence of intermediate fossils as the conflicting fact."
Intermediate meaning "missing link" fossils..or fossils showing a transition between two different species. The "missing links" have not been found my friends. Anyone who tells you they have is either..
a) ignorant
b) lying
c) both a & b
The "fact" that no "transitionary fossils" or "missing links" have been found completely discredits the theory of Evolution Alpha. With that being said, anything else found that is stated to be evidence supporting Darwins' theory is just speculation and conjecture.
Originally posted by PVS
also, a theory is not taught to be accepted as fact, but a possability. there are other forums for which to discuss creatio---- GOD. its called 'home' with mom and dad. or if they're too lazy then there is bible study.
Not to be rude..but no one really has the right to dictate what can and can not be discussed in this forumn. Everything that I've stated in here has directly realted to the topic at hand.
science and religion do not belong in the same lesson.
This is where I'm going to have to concur..
definition of religion
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Darwinism can be characterized by a set of beliefs much like Christianity..which is based on many "unproven" principles.
The fact that Evolutionist's have some degree of "faith" in these principals..even though many of them remain "unproven", leads me to believe that it is just as much a speculatory theory as Creationism...
Originally posted by General Kaliero
heh. Contraception is sinful. However ,that's entirely off topic.Is it just me, or has my evidence against evolution been glossed over and ignored yet again?
Not at all. In fact, much of what you found supports evolution. It has long, no doubt since this 1980 conference, been held that macroevolution does not result from microevolution. In a way, the evidence you found helps to defend the core belief that Darwin established. Darwin was just wrong about how long natural selection took to influence a species. Genetic mutations occur sudenly. This is supported by the fact that new species arise in the fossil record in very brief periods. These new species being found in the more recent layers of the strata. This also provides insight into why life hasn't died out on teh planet entirely. Sudden changes in a species environment, climatic changes, dimisnished food sources, natural disater...all of these things have happened to every species in the world through out history. If it weren't for spontaneous mutation in certain species, life would have become extinct a long time ago. If these changes took too long, then the species would die out. But, since these changes happen over th ecourse of several special generations, the species lives on...but in a more appropirately acclimated manner. This is why we no longer have dinosaurs. Instead we have humans.
Another element that no creationist has ever addressed, at least to my knowledge, is the triassic/jurassic boundry. There were three ages of dinosaurs: the Triassic, then the Jurassic and then the Cretaceous. At the end of the Triassic period there was a huge event that wiped out a majority of life on earth. This extintion event is thought to have been greater in magnitude that the KT event at teh end of the Cretaceous. Before this event, dinosaurs were way down on the food chain. There were much larger reptiles(remember, there is a difference between reptiles and dinosaurs) splayed legged animals that ate dinosaurs for breakfast. After this event, dinosaurs very quickly spread across the planet and began to evolve into hundreds, thousands of species...quickly becoming the dominate species on the planet. Of course, after the age of the dinosaurs, mammels crawled out from under th efeet of dinosaurs and evolved into us.
ok, a few things since there have been a few pages posted since I last was here:
the next one that says creationism should be taught in a history class gets a black eye signed by yours truely 😠 History is about cold hard facts (lets not get into history at uni where you can choice social and economic history and have to see connections and such), creationism is about beliefs so teach it in a religion class or if you must at a literature class together with the hundreds of other myths about creating the world
second of all, don't go all "oooh! we got those nasty evolutionists down! yeah! victory dance!" and all. Why? because when a mod asks us to keep it to the topic: if creationism should be in school textbooks, we listen. Those are the rules, we follow them. If you want to continue this, there are already 2 or 3 threads purely about evolution here, just bump them and you're fine till the end of your time online for a discussion, but don't think for a microsecond you have "won" anything.
last... Clovie... there is nothing logic about the church. As said already, it took them till 1993 to accept that Galileio was right about his theory