God vs. Science: The Inclusion of Creationism in School Textbooks?

You can go on believeing that we were sneezed out of a giant ape-like thing, and fear thE coming of the giant tissue for all I care.
Its either your right, with your crazy ass...

see Tpt, that's why they win: you let them
so what if he counters every cold hard fact...

I missed out the points I do not know the answer to, simply because I am not grounded in science, and they relate to things I don't completely understand..

Victory..sweet victory...its obvious that you all are out of evidence to support your claims. But if you think about it..there was never really any to begin with. As it has been stated numerous times throughout this thread..FAITH is the only thing everyone's beliefs are really grounded upon..

Fin...

I'm glad I'm not living in the emerging theocracy that is the USA.

Religion in a science class.

Bonkers.

Morally retarded if you will.

I'm glad I live in an area where the idea of teaching creationism as science would be laughed at as absurd, so I was actually able to learn science instead of having someone elses religious beliefs shoved down my throat.

Whob, I'll refute your post later, as I have stuff to do now. But remember, YOU are making the positive statement in saying that creationism is right. We are saying it is wrong. Therefore, burden of proof is on you. And I ask this: Where is your proof that an intelligent being exists? Until you have this proof, you have NO argument.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Victory..sweet victory...its obvious that you all are out of evidence to support your claims. But if you think about it..there was never really any to begin with. As it has been stated numerous times throughout this thread..FAITH is the only thing everyone's beliefs are really grounded upon..

Fin...

Give my full quote! Don't rip it out of context like a retarded 9 year old that can't win a discussion.

I see you yet AGAIN have evaded the many requests of you giving actual proof of creationism, isn't that tirying you down yet? 😆😆😆

Originally posted by Lana
I'm glad I live in an area where the idea of teaching creationism as science would be laughed at as absurd, so I was actually able to learn science instead of having someone elses religious beliefs shoved down my throat.

You don't seem to realize it..but that's essentially what's happening when the concept of Humanism is being taught in schools...

Whob, I'll refute your post later, as I have stuff to do now. But remember, YOU are making the positive statement in saying that creationism is right. We are saying it is wrong. Therefore, burden of proof is on you. And I ask this: Where is your proof that an intelligent being exists? Until you have this proof, you have NO argument.

Debate logic is generally only used by those who can not rebut obvious facts that have been clearly presented before them. It can easily be applied to any type of argument. That being said..the burden of proof really relies on you...if you really want to get your point across. Provide evidence that proves my statements being wrong, whether they be written in the affirmative or negative...and I/others will believe what you are stating to be valid.

whob, we all did proved your statements were wrong, you just reply with "that's your faith, I have mine". What else do you want us to do? Doing the macarena to which you'll reply it's a Salsa to you?

Hey whob, I've got a question for you.

You've said numerous times that Macro evolution has never been proven through scientific means, and has never been observed.

Anyways, my question too you is do you believe that macro evolution can't occur?

I don't have a problem with creation and evolution being taught side by side...it would open up some debate and discussions. As for Macro and Micro...I do believe thats the way it is, just like our cells and DNA are micro what we as whole person is macro...The same can be true with the nature of the universe and God.

Originally posted by yerssot
whob, we all did proved your statements were wrong, you just reply with "that's your faith, I have mine". What else do you want us to do? Doing the macarena to which you'll reply it's a Salsa to you? [/B]

Yes...yes yersott..you definately proved me wrong..let me give a brief summary of all the conclusions we can come to based on yours and others arguments...🙄

Yes you proved that Buddhism is not a religion based on the fact that Dalai Lama said it wasn't..(BTW..the Dalai Lama understands that Buddhism is classified as a religion..)

You proved that "adaptation" happens in nature....Something no one on either side has debated...

You proved that the only way you were able to rebut the facts presented before was by applying debate logic....

You proved that no valid transitional fossils have been found that are widely accepted as being such by the scientific community...

And lest us not forget...you also proved that Macro Evolution...has not been observed, experimentally induced, nor has anything similar to it been recorded historical record...

I conceed...you've definately..one this debate...🙄

Originally posted by BackFire
Hey whob, I've got a question for you.

You've said numerous times that Macro evolution has never been proven through scientific means, and has never been observed.

Anyways, my question too you is do you believe that macro evolution can't occur?

Actually yes it has occured. This is my belief, Something greater than myself, took a bunch nothing..and made it into something. That's Macro Evolution. Why this intelligent creator did this, I don't completely understand, and I probably never will in this lifetime. There are some things in this life that the human mind can clearly not comprehend, and its obvious it was not designed to comprehend them. However, despite all this, I strongly believe I was created for a purpose, even though I don't quite understand what that purpose is yet..

That's not what I meant.

By Macro evolution I meant the scientific definition of the phrase, something evolving slowly into a different species altogether (I.E. reptiles evolving into birds, etc).

Do you believe that can't occur?

It has not occured before. And I don't believe that it can.

Alright.

Now, Micro evolution has occured before (it has been observed). So, my final question to you is this - What biological or logical barriers prevent Micro evolution from becoming Macro evolution?

Originally posted by BackFire
Alright.

Now, Micro evolution has occured before (it has been observed). So, my final question to you is this - What biological or logical barriers prevent Micro evolution from becoming Macro evolution?

How about I answer your question...with a couple of questions. If I give you a nickel, is it possible for you to invest it, and make a million dollars off of it?

If the answer is no then you can stop at the first question..if the answer is yes, then follow up with that question by answering these two..

Would it be logical to assume that the nickel will automatically make you a million dollars?

What are the odds that you'll take that nickel and turn it into a million dollars?

Heh, nice try.

Unfortunately the whole answer a question with a question is irrelevent in this case..

A nickel has nothing to do with evolution, it isn't alive. It is a piece of metal. Thus, the comparison is fallacious. Money doesn't "evolve" when you get more of it. You simply "get more of it". A nickel doesn't just become a million dollars by physically changing its form or DNA.

Also, turning a nickel into a million dollars has to do more with your skill and knowledge in investments then pure chance.

Just like macro evolution occuring would have to do with more then simply chance. It would be through necessity. The creatures that evolved did so because of their own instinct and need to survive. It wasn't just "blind chance" as creationalists often claim.

So, is it safe to assume that you have no straight forward or valid answer to my question? Yes or no will do.

Also, on an unrelated note. I've been attempting to find unbiased websites on this topic (I.E. websites that don't favor creationism over evolution or vice verca). However, from what I can tell, none exist. All of them either claim one side over the other is right or wrong and give reasons for their claim (some valid, some invalid).

Though, there are a good number of websites that give rebuttles for the common arguments that creationists use, most of which have been predictably used in this thread.

So, here are some webpages that attempt to debunk many of the creationist arguments.

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutevolution/

http://www.talkorigins.org/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Take them for what you will, though they are a good read.

Originally posted by BackFire
Heh, nice try.

Unfortunately the whole answer a question with a question is irrelevent in this case..

A nickel has nothing to do with evolution, it isn't alive. It is a piece of metal. Thus, the comparison is fallacious. Money doesn't "evolve" when you get more of it. You simply "get more of it". A nickel doesn't just become a million dollars by physically changing its form or DNA.
Also, turning a nickel into a million dollars has to do more with your skill and knowledge in investments then pure chance.

I believe you misunderstood. The metaphor that represented "evolution" was income, not money in a physical sense. "Investment" was used metaphorically in place of the concept of "Probability"(Chance). Since all of these terms can be used as abstract concepts, the comparison is not fallacious.

Evolve essentially means "change". One's income can evolve into wealth, however, there are a lot of environmental, economic, and financial factors that need to take place in order for this to happen.
Taking all these factors into consideration, one could logically surmise the assumption of a nickel investment would automatically lead to some form of wealth..would be a very poor one.

Just like macro evolution occuring would have to do with more then simply chance. The creatures that evolved did so because of their own instinct and need to survive. It wasn't just "blind chance" as creationalists often claim.

Like an income of a nickel being able to produce wealth, the odds of one species of plant/animal evolving into another are very slim...in fact they are almost non - existant. One could even say, that someone with "extra-ordinary" intelligence, would have to be manipulating said odds in order for either situation to happen...

So, is it safe to assume that you have no straight forward or valid answer to my question? Yes or no will do.

I believe if you read my responses above..you'll get your answer. 😉

I believe you misunderstood. The metaphor that represented "evolution" was income, not money in a physical sense. "Investment" was used metaphorically in place of the concept of "Probability"(Chance). Since all of these terms can be used as abstract concepts, the comparison is not fallacious.

Evolve essentially means "change". One's income can evolve into wealth, however, there are a lot of environmental, economic, and financial factors that need to take place in order for this to happen.
Taking all these factors into consideration, one could logically surmise the assumption of a nickel investment would automatically lead to some form of wealth..would be a very poor one.

Nah, I got it just fine. The problem is it is errenous in the way that it is insinuated.

For the comparison to be proper, you'd have to assume quite a few things about it, having to do with the investment, the investor and the market at the time of the investment.

1. Whether or not the investor was able to turn a nickel into a million dollars has to do with a lot more then simply "probability". It has to do with his training, his experience, and his knowledge of the at the time of his investment.

2. The fact that the terms are abstract simply take away from the merrit of the comparison, seeing as the terms used could mean something different to you then they do to me. It means you could be thinking that you're comparing one thing, and I could be thinking that you mean something completely different because the terms could have multiple meanings.

3. Again, money can't evolve. If you have a certain amount of income, gaining more isn't a "change". It's still the same money, it just becomes more of the same money. Instead of having one nickel, you have many nickels. It's still the same money.

4. You didn't mention the biggest factor, the desire and need to make the money. If someone desires money, if they work at it, they can get it. If they start out without much income, if they work at it, and learn, they can make themselves much money. It is rare, but it has happened, just is the case of macro evolution. Not every species ever existant evolved, a small ratio has, that doesn't mean it's impossible.

Like an income of a nickel being able to produce wealth, the odds of one species of plant/animal evolving into another are very slim...in fact they are almost non - existant. One could even say, that someone with "extra-ordinary" intelligence, would have to be manipulating said odds in order for either situation to happen...

How do you know this? We haven't been keep historical data long enough to witness a change of a species, seeing as this takes thousands and thousands of years. We have, however, seen some form of evolution, or change, within a species. So who's to say that in another 3 or 4 thousand years, some species may be totally different then they are now. We've seen evolution, it has occured, we just haven't been around long enough to witness a full blown change in species.

I believe if you read my responses above..you'll get your answer.

So basically your answer is - With the right training, frame of mind and basic need to survive or "increase your wealth" it is possible to change a nickel to a million dollars, or for species to evovle into other species eventually. Am I wrong? If so, feel free to drop the cryptic fallacious "question with a question" bullshit and just come right out and say what you really mean.

Originally posted by BackFire
Nah, I got it just fine. The problem is it is errenous in the way that it is insinuated.

If I had not explained the meaning of each anology to you, then one could state it as being erroneous. However, because it has been explained and understood by both of us what each metaphor represents, the comparison stands as a valid one.

Again, money can't evolve. If you have a certain amount of income, gaining more isn't a "change". It's still the same money, it just becomes more of the same money. Instead of having one nickel, you have many nickels. It's still the same money.

If I make 40,000 dollars a year, and the next year I get a 20% raise..my income a "changes", since it is no longer the same as it was before.

Moving on...thank you for essentially proving my point. You mentioned a list of factors, which are essentially dependent upon another group of factors, which are essentially dependent open another group of factors, etc, etc,etc..

All this is of course as you mentioned is dependant upon one assuming....

...quite a few things about it, having to do with the investment, the investor and the market at the time of the investment.

It has to do with his training, his experience, and his knowledge of the at the time of his investment.

the desire and need to make the money. If someone desires money, if they work at it, they can get it.

Keep in mind, wear assuming all conditions above to be perfect, in order for the individual to even have a slim chance of producing wealth from the nickel...

How do you know this? We haven't been keep historical data long enough to witness a change of a species, seeing as this takes thousands and thousands of years.

That's a very big assumption. There is no definitive evidence to support that claim. Recorded history goes back to about 6000 years. One could assume that as being more than enough time for one to observe some form of Macro Evolution. The historical record, however, has shown us that anything resembling this process, has yet to have been observed.

We have, however, seen some form of evolution, or change, within a species.

Again no one is debating the adaptation..but it is not the same as the concept of Macro - Evolution.

So basically your answer is - With the right training, frame of mind and basic need to survive or "increase your wealth" it is possible to change a nickel to a million dollars, or for species to evovle into other species eventually.

My answer is that faith-based beliefs that rely on tenuous assumptions, not backed by scientific data or reasoning, and followed/practiced/revered by a select group of people as representing truth..should be classified as a religion.

Fin.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Victory..sweet victory...its obvious that you all are out of evidence to support your claims. But if you think about it..there was never really any to begin with. As it has been stated numerous times throughout this thread..FAITH is the only thing everyone's beliefs are really grounded upon..

Fin...

Mother****! You just ignored the rest of my post, like I said you would!

Did you even read it? Do you understand that I am in High School? And it's obvious to me that you are wrong!