Bush has entered the evolution/creationism debate

[2-0-Sixx]

My question is...

If creationism is taught in schools does it have to pertain specifically to the creation described in any religion? Or can it not just be the concept of creation in general?

The concept of creation, no matter how one puts it, is directly related to religion. Without specifically mentioning anything about the bible or Koran or whatever, how could the class be taught? “The universe is too complex therefore there must be a god.” What else is there to teach? Obviously there are no facts, no evidence, no research that the students can study, it’s absolutely absurd. If students want to learn about creation, perhaps they can take a class or two in college, but there is no room for creation in high schools or public schools.

 

[ColdBlooded]

Theory . . .

If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence.

 

[ColdBlooded]

You would seriously need a totally separate class to discuss creationism properly. The creation story is different (at least to some degree) in all major religions.

"They" just want it to be the Judeo-X-tian god created the earth in 6 days and then being the all powerful being with unlimited power that he/she/it is needed to rest ??

Forget about all other religions because they wouldn't get properly touched on.

That's what this is about really. Pushing X-tian god in public schools. Otherwise they'd be trying to get funding for theology classes, etc. Don't be fooled. And don’t be so short sighted / self-interested to just have your faith pushed in schools. Would you really want to be living in a theocracy? People in here bitch about the way things are in this country enough already.

 

[ThatBoyJd]

Actually some of ur theories can be proved so they're more then theories and the the others are soldi theories, the big bang thoery has no test at all to prove that that was right, if there's no GOD cuz there's no way thru science to prove him them there's no big bang theroy, so how were thangs suppose to be here to evolve? NEwayz I wont say things don't evolve but yeah I didn't come from no ape. Ne survival of the fittest N a lot of that evolution shit is, hmm... well over streched, it can be view, yeah a little bit here and there but not enough to prove NE thing. N come on where's the dinos, they sure were fit! NE also for NE 1 livin in paradise now that's kool cuz there's millions of people living in hell on earth

 

[2-0-Sixx]

 

[HERESY]

Evolutin has nothing to do with the creation of the universe.

Evolution has nothing to do with my question. Have scientist used testable methods to PROVE how the universe came to exist? If my use of "creation" caused you think that I implied a "god" creating the universe I apologize.

@916 you asked:

If creationism is taught in schools does it have to pertain specifically to the creation described in any religion?

No.

Or can it not just be the concept of creation in general

Thats what creationism is.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

Evolution has nothing to do with my question. Have scientist used testable methods to PROVE how the universe came to exist? If my use of "creation" caused you think that I implied a "god" creating the universe I apologize.

First, let me say that scientists didn’t all of a sudden say, “Hey, the big bang theory! That’s how the universe started!” Quite the opposite- it took years and years of advancements in mathematics and physics before the big bang theory (or the three or four other popular theories) came about, unlike creation which is fantasy, fiction, faith, religion… Not to mention, evidence for the big bang theory is gathered through observational data. None of this evidence however proves the Big Bang since scientific theories are not proven.

• The darkness of the night sky - Olbers' paradox.
• The Hubble Law - the linear distance vs redshift law. The data are now very good.
• Homogeneity - fair data showing that our location in the Universe is not special.
• Isotropy - very strong data showing that the sky looks the same in all directions to 1 part in 100,000.
• Time dilation in supernova light curves.
The observations listed above are consistent with the Big Bang or with the Steady State model, but many observations support the Big Bang over the Steady State:
• Radio source and quasar counts vs. flux. These show that the Universe has evolved.
• Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state.
• Variation of TCMB with redshift. This is a direct observation of the evolution of the Universe.
• Deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li abundances. These light isotopes are all well fit by predicted reactions occurring in the First Three Minutes.
Finally, the angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy that does exist at the several parts per million level is consistent with a dark matter dominated Big Bang model that went through the inflationary scenario.

SOURCE

So to answer your question, there is no way currently to prove the big bang theory or the other popular scientific theories on the origin of the universe. With that being said, there are however scientific and mathematic evidence that supports these theories, unlike creation which has absolutely ZERO scientific support.

Now, staying on topic, our lord and savior Bush said:

President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.

Clearly, the objective of these wack-wing extremists is to force creationism into the science class. Yes, that’s right SCIENCE. Evolution is science, creationism is not. The only reason creationism should be mentioned in science class is to illustrate to students why it isn't science.

Creation and Evolution are totally different subjects. It would be like saying we should give equal time to numerology as an alternative to math.

Or if you're gonna teach 2 + 2 = 4, then you should also have to teach my new competing theory, 2 + 2 = Steve Martin.

 

[HERESY]

So to answer your question, there is no way currently to prove the big bang theory or the other popular scientific theories on the origin of the universe.

No way to prove it yet it is being taught in class rooms as absolute.

Evolution is science, creationism is not. The only reason creationism should be mentioned in science class is to illustrate to students why it isn't science.

Creationism or Creational Science? Two different concepts that have often been used to describe something. Please clarify your version of CREATIONISM.

Now, staying on topic, our lord and savior Bush said

If you are implying that I have strayed from the topic you are incorrect. If your lord and savior Bush said:

schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.

My post and questions are valid and relevent to the topic.



SIDE NOTE: What gets about some people is how they can say the bible is in error, contradictions, full of crap, written by man etc; yet they proceed to endorse scientific views that basically have the same "faults". Thats another topic for another time.

 

[XxtraMannish]

Creation and Evolution are totally different subjects. It would be like saying we should give equal time to numerology as an alternative to math.

Or if you're gonna teach 2 + 2 = 4, then you should also have to teach my new competing theory, 2 + 2 = Steve Martin.

LOL "Whats 2 + 2?"
"JELLO!"

 

[2-0-Sixx]

No way to prove it yet it is being taught in class rooms as absolute.

First, let me say that scientists didn’t all of a sudden say, “Hey, the big bang theory! That’s how the universe started!” Quite the opposite- it took years and years of advancements in mathematics and physics before the big bang theory (or the three or four other popular theories) came about, unlike creation which is fantasy, fiction, faith, religion… Not to mention, evidence for the big bang theory is gathered through observational data. None of this evidence however proves the Big Bang since scientific theories are not proven.

So to answer your question, there is no way currently to prove the big bang theory or the other popular scientific theories on the origin of the universe. With that being said, there are however scientific and mathematic evidence that supports these theories, unlike creation which has absolutely ZERO scientific support.

Not to mention, the big bang theory and the other origin of the universe theories are NOT taught as the absolute. Evolution, on the other hand, is and should be since it is consider fact by the scientific community and the only ones who deny it are the religious wackos and the ignorant.

Creationism or Creational Science? Two different concepts that have often been used to describe something. Please clarify your version of CREATIONISM.

Creationism and Creation science both believe in a supreme being that created all life, correct? If so both are completely unacceptable in our schools considering both have absolutely zero evidence or support that backs up their claims.

If you are implying that I have strayed from the topic you are incorrect. If your lord and savior Bush said:

Explain to me how Evolution is related to the creation of the universe?

SIDE NOTE: What gets about some people is how they can say the bible is in error, contradictions, full of crap, written by man etc; yet they proceed to endorse scientific views that basically have the same "faults". Thats another topic for another time.

Huge difference comrade.

Science is based on SCIENCE- facts, physics, mathematics, etc. etc. etc.
Religion is the complete opposite, no facts, no logic, no science, no place in schools.

 

[HERESY]

First, let me say that scientists didn’t all of a sudden say, “Hey, the big bang theory! That’s how the universe started!” Quite the opposite- it took years and years of advancements in mathematics and physics before the big bang theory (or the three or four other popular theories) came about, unlike creation which is fantasy, fiction, faith, religion… Not to mention, evidence for the big bang theory is gathered through observational data. None of this evidence however proves the Big Bang since scientific theories are not proven.

So to answer your question, there is no way currently to prove the big bang theory or the other popular scientific theories on the origin of the universe. With that being said, there are however scientific and mathematic evidence that supports these theories, unlike creation which has absolutely ZERO scientific support.

I already read that.

there are however scientific and mathematic evidence that supports these theories, unlike creation which has absolutely ZERO scientific support.

I didn't ask for evidence to support the theories. Have scientist used testable methods to PROVE how the universe came to exist? NO? Case closed in regards to that. You have evidence to support it but nothing to prove it?

Not to mention, the big bang theory and the other origin of the universe theories are NOT taught as the absolute. Evolution, on the other hand, is and should be since it is consider fact by the scientific community and the only ones who deny it are the religious wackos and the ignorant.

I'm sorry bro but those things are taught as absolute. As far as evolution is concerned I believe that animals and people have changed over time due to climate, diet and NEED. I do not believe in "random" acts of evolution. Certain aspects of evolution can be considered absolute but evolution itself is a very broad term. IMHO we should narrow it down and be more precise.

Creationism and Creation science both believe in a supreme being that created all life, correct? If so both are completely unacceptable in our schools considering both have absolutely zero evidence or support that backs up their claims.

This is taken from skepdic.com:

Creationism is a religious metaphysical theory which claims that a supernatural being created the universe. Creation Science is a pseudoscientific theory which claims that (a) the stories in Genesis are accurate accounts of the origin of the universe and life on Earth, and (b) Genesis is incompatible with the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution. “Creation Science” is an oxymoron since science is concerned only with naturalistic explanations of empirical phenomena and does not concern itself with supernatural explanations of metaphysical phenomena.

Creationism is not necessarily connected to any particular religion. Millions of Christians and non-Christians believe there is a Creator of the universe and that scientific theories such as the theory of evolution do not conflict with belief in a Creator. However, those Christians calling themselves ‘creation scientists’ have co-opted the term ‘creationism’, making it difficult to refer to creationism without being understood as referring to Scientific Creationism. Thus, it is commonly assumed that creationists are Christians who believe that the account of the creation of the universe as presented in Genesis is literally true in its basic claims about Adam and Eve, the six days of creation, making day and night on the first day even though He didn’t make the sun and moon until the fourth day, making whales and other animals that live in the water or have feathers and fly on the fifth day, and making cattle and things that creep on the earth on the sixth day, etc.

Creation scientists claim that Genesis is the word of God and thus infallibly true. They also claim that Genesis contradicts the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution. Thus, those theories are false and scientists who advocate such theories are ignorant of the truth about the origins of the universe and life on Earth. They also claim that creationism is a scientific theory and should be taught in our science curriculum as a competitor to the theory of evolution.

Now do you understand why I asked what your version of creationism is?

Explain to me how Evolution is related to the creation of the universe?

What is your definition of evolution? Do you adhere to micro or macro?

Some scientist believe the universe started a certain way and has evolved into what it is now. If we are going to discuss the origins of life, it's only logical to attempt to explain the origins of the universe, how it operates and how it had an effect on the present.

schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.

We are talking about the creation of life (evolution or design) and in order to properly address it we must address the place life occupies and how that place came to be.

Science is based on SCIENCE- facts, physics, mathematics, etc. etc. etc.
Religion is the complete opposite, no facts, no logic, no science, no place in schools.

Yet science cannot prove how the universe was created, nor can it prove what happened before it was created. Science has been wrong before just like translators and preachers have been wrong, yet people take it as holy grail without doing any type of research.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

I already read that.

You should read it again because clearly you’re missing the point.

I didn't ask for evidence to support the theories. Have scientist used testable methods to PROVE how the universe came to exist? NO? Case closed in regards to that. You have evidence to support it but nothing to prove it?

No, not case closed, you’ve done nothing but demonstrate that science has not proven a theory correct and again, you’re forgetting the fact that scientific theories are based upon evidence, facts and data while ID/Creation is based on NOTHING. How can we teach kids something that holds absolutely no weight? Should be teach them about Big Foot too?

I'm sorry bro but those things are taught as absolute.

ab•so•lute - Complete and unconditional; final.

I’m sorry comrade but the big bang theory is not taught as the absolute or a law. It is clearly taught as a scientific theory, which again I remind you is whole lot different from a regular theory.

Science teachers do not say we know for certain that the big bang occurred; in science class students must (or should for that matter) be taught what a scientific theory is and that the big bang is a scientific theory and is not the only theory out there (again, there are about 3 or 4 other scientific theories to the origin of the universe, which are also taught in schools).

As far as evolution is concerned I believe that animals and people have changed over time due to climate, diet and NEED. I do not believe in "random" acts of evolution. Certain aspects of evolution can be considered absolute but evolution itself is a very broad term. IMHO we should narrow it down and be more precise.

Evolution is fact. “Random acts of evolution” or “mutations” or “a change in the gene pool” do occur and have been observed to occur. IMNSHO your “spiritual” beliefs have stunted your understanding of evolution.

Now do you understand why I asked what your version of creationism is?

No I don’t because they are basically the same thing. One claims Genesis is the word of god while the other is a metaphysical theory that claims that a supernatural being created the universe.

Both are 100% unsupported. Perhaps the latter can be taught in a philosophy class or some shit, but definitely not in a science class.

What is your definition of evolution? Do you adhere to micro or macro?

Both.

What is Evolution?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population.
The English moth, Biston betularia, is a frequently cited example of observed evolution. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In this moth there are two color morphs, light and dark. H. B. D. Kettlewell found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. The frequency of the dark morph increased in the years following. By 1898, the 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type. Their frequency was less in rural areas. The moth population changed from mostly light colored moths to mostly dark colored moths. The moths' color was primarily determined by a single gene. [gene: a hereditary unit] So, the change in frequency of dark colored moths represented a change in the gene pool. [gene pool: the set all of genes in a population] This change was, by definition, evolution.
The increase in relative abundance of the dark type was due to natural selection. The late eighteen hundreds was the time of England's industrial revolution. Soot from factories darkened the birch trees the moths landed on. Against a sooty background, birds could see the lighter colored moths better and ate more of them. As a result, more dark moths survived until reproductive age and left offspring. The greater number of offspring left by dark moths is what caused their increase in frequency. This is an example of natural selection.
Populations evolve. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In order to understand evolution, it is necessary to view populations as a collection of individuals, each harboring a different set of traits. A single organism is never typical of an entire population unless there is no variation within that population. Individual organisms do not evolve, they retain the same genes throughout their life. When a population is evolving, the ratio of different genetic types is changing -- each individual organism within a population does not change. For example, in the previous example, the frequency of black moths increased; the moths did not turn from light to gray to dark in concert. The process of evolution can be summarized in three sentences: Genes mutate. [gene: a hereditary unit] Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.
Evolution can be divided into microevolution and macroevolution. The kind of evolution documented above is microevolution. Larger changes, such as when a new species is formed, are called macroevolution. Some biologists feel the mechanisms of macroevolution are different from those of microevolutionary change. Others think the distinction between the two is arbitrary -- macroevolution is cumulative microevolution.
The word evolution has a variety of meanings. The fact that all organisms are linked via descent to a common ancestor is often called evolution. The theory of how the first living organisms appeared is often called evolution. This should be called abiogenesis. And frequently, people use the word evolution when they really mean natural selection -- one of the many mechanisms of evolution.

Some scientist believe the universe started a certain way and has evolved into what it is now. If we are going to discuss the origins of life, it's only logical to attempt to explain the origins of the universe, how it operates and how it had an effect on the present.

No, that’s not exactly true comrade. Evolution, as described above, deals with the change of living organisms. Evolution is completely in a different ball park than the origin of the universe. When the science class moves on to the topic of the origin of the universe, they should be taught science, not philosophy.

If students want to learn about god, go to church or wait until college.

Or, perhaps we can also teach kids that a giant alien from a different universe named Zolfrendar created our universe. After all, that would explain the origin of our universe and quite frankly, it holds just as much weight.

We are talking about the creation of life (evolution or design) and in order to properly address it we must address the place life occupies and how that place came to be.

How can that be? Again, one is based on facts, data and science, the other is based on some idea or fairy tale or religion or whatever. What would be discussed in the class? Some believe the universe is too complex, therefore there is a creator.” What else is there to say? What evidence or documentation or studies could the student’s research? Where’s the data? I suppose in Science class after teaching hours and hours of scientific data, at the end the teacher can say, “But, others believe all this research to be nonsense. Many believe that something unknowable magically created the universe and life began.” And then the class erupts in laughter.

Yet science cannot prove how the universe was created, nor can it prove what happened before it was created.

Just because it cannot prove how the universe was created does not suggest a creator nor does it suggest we should teach ID. Again, one is based on evidence and is a scientific theory, the other is a theory at best, with absolutely no data.

As of right now, there is NO evidence that the universe was created, existance simply is existance. Until there is at least some kind of shred of evidence that suggests a creator or ID, it should remain out of schools.

Science has been wrong

No, that’s incorrect. Science has never been wrong; man has only been wrong interpreting data and coming to incorrect conclusions. This by no means suggests there is a god or a creator.

yet people take it as holy grail without doing any type of research.

People always should, and continue to do research. No one is saying they shouldn’t and no one is saying one shouldn’t be a critical thinker. However, teaching ID is setting kids up to be the complete opposite. Learn and accept weightless theories? Unsupported theories taught in science class? No comrade, that’s called dumbing down amerika.

 

[Rob S4]

I especially like the sentence 'if you don't believe in God something is wrong with you', and 'I didn't evolve from apes, thats a lie. God created me as my own unique person' and ofcourse, my personal favorite 'There is a God, you can't explain anything without him' - LMFAO, you're a fucking joker!!! I'm an athiest, I don't believe in God, and I don't see why I should. What evidence is there that he/she/it exists? None whatsoever. Regarding how life started, the statement 'God created life' is not testable and should not be taken seriously for one moment. Creationism is complete bullshit and was designed by arrogant anthropocentric fuckers who all think that they were created as 'their own unique person'. You're an animal, just like a monkey or a mouse or a cockroach. The only difference is that they don't try to deceive themselves into believing that they're something more.

If you believe in God, fine, but don't sit there and talk shit like 'If you don't believe in God something is wrong with you'. Dumb-arse.

Hey Hutch why dont you sit a couple of plays out, maybe not talk so much.

Fuck Agent 207 thats on Errythang (Use Proper English). You make no points to back up what you say. Only talk as if you have been through things no one else has, grow up little kid.

 

[HERESY]

You should read it again because clearly you’re missing the point.

No I'm not missing the point. You are.

No, not case closed,

No, case closed.

you’ve done nothing but demonstrate that science has not proven a theory correct and again, you’re forgetting the fact that scientific theories are based upon evidence, facts and data while ID/Creation is based on NOTHING.

If science has not proven the theory to be correct why teach it in schools? I can understand teaching something that has been validated but why teach something that is still a "work in progress" as factual finding?

How can we teach kids something that holds absolutely no weight?

It's been done before look at the big bang theory.

ab•so•lute - Complete and unconditional; final.

I’m sorry comrade but the big bang theory is not taught as the absolute or a law. It is clearly taught as a scientific theory, which again I remind you is whole lot different from a regular theory.

I'm sorry comrade but the big bang theory is taught as absolute or law. My science books from jr high and high school did not state big bang was a theory. Those books promoted it as FACT and did NOT go into other possibilities. One would find it strange that they promote a theory as fact but it happens.

Science teachers do not say we know for certain that the big bang occurred; in science class students must (or should for that matter) be taught what a scientific theory is and that the big bang is a scientific theory and is not the only theory out there (again, there are about 3 or 4 other scientific theories to the origin of the universe, which are also taught in schools).

Where I come from it was taught as law and no other opinions and theories were discussed.

Evolution is fact.

This can be debated but It's not my job to do so.

"Random acts of evolution” or “mutations” or “a change in the gene pool” do occur and have been observed to occur.

Once again I do not believe these changes to be "random". Imho I believe something that has yet to be identified is causing the change. Better yet scientist don't understand the pattern yet.

IMNSHO your “spiritual” beliefs have stunted your understanding of evolution.

I haven't promoted or discussed my beliefs in this thread. I'm not bringing up your athiesm and how it may have blinded you to ID. So I'll kindly sweep your insult under the rug but I suggest you limit those kinds of statements and stick to our current discussion.

No I don’t because they are basically the same thing. One claims Genesis is the word of god while the other is a metaphysical theory that claims that a supernatural being created the universe.

No, they are NOT basically the same thing. The only thing they have in common is the concept of a being who created the universe. Thats where the similarities STOP. Creation Science does not claim that genesis is the word of god it claims: that (a) the stories in Genesis are accurate accounts of the origin of the universe and life on Earth, and (b) Genesis is incompatible with the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

Both are 100% unsupported. Perhaps the latter can be taught in a philosophy class or some shit, but definitely not in a science class.

Well thats not what the skeptic site says and surely thats not what supporters of creation science believe. Antony Flew would most likely disagree with you and I'm sure you can find someone to disagree with him. I think a better position would be at this time they are unsupported but once again thats up for debate.

Both.

ok.

No, that’s not exactly true comrade. Evolution, as described above, deals with the change of living organisms.

I understand what you posted and is part of the reason why I asked you about your take on micro or macro.

Evolution is completely in a different ball park than the origin of the universe.

See the above. Also:

If we are going to discuss the origins of life, it's only logical to attempt to explain the origins of the universe, how it operates and how it had an effect on the present.

If you are going to explain evolution (the change of organisms) it's only logical to explore the habitat of the organisms, how it came to be and how it may or may not have an influence on the changes that have occured. If species of animals died because the universe was still evolving, but others were able to adapt to the changes within how can you suggest that we don't discuss the origins? If scientist believe life on earth started as a RESULT of the big bang theory how can we not discuss the origins of the universe and it's relation to evolution?

When the science class moves on to the topic of the origin of the universe, they should be taught science, not philosophy.

They should be taught science that has been proven based on study? Or a theory?

If students want to learn about god, go to church or wait until college.

Or learn on your own.

Or, perhaps we can also teach kids that a giant alien from a different universe named Zolfrendar created our universe. After all, that would explain the origin of our universe and quite frankly, it holds just as much weight.

No, I wouldn't do that. The only thing that would do is identify zolfrender as creator but it still doesn't explain the universe zolfrendar came from or how he created this one.

How can that be? Again, one is based on facts, data and science, the other is based on some idea or fairy tale or religion or whatever. What would be discussed in the class? Some believe the universe is too complex, therefore there is a creator.” What else is there to say? What evidence or documentation or studies could the student’s research? Where’s the data? I suppose in Science class after teaching hours and hours of scientific data, at the end the teacher can say, “But, others believe all this research to be nonsense. Many believe that something unknowable magically created the universe and life began.” And then the class erupts in laughter.

With this statement you are simply addressing of the words that were in parenthesis. Can I get the same in depth response If I remove a word and add "and"?

We are talking about the creation of life and evolution. In order to properly address it we must address the place life occupies and how that place came to be.

Just because it cannot prove how the universe was created does not suggest a creator nor does it suggest we should teach ID.

I didn't imply a lack of proof suggested a creator nor did I imply ID should be taught in school. What I am saying is it should NOT be taught in a science class if it has not been validated by the rules of science and labeled FACT. Basically the same thing YOU are saying about creation science.

Again, one is based on evidence and is a scientific theory, the other is a theory at best, with absolutely no data.

So why teach it in class if the results are going to be same? What evidence can the students validate in the class room?

As of right now, there is NO evidence that the universe was created, existance simply is existance. Until there is at least some kind of shred of evidence that suggests a creator or ID, it should remain out of schools.

I believe this should be applied to several theories that have yet to be proven; Big Bang. If existance is simply existance why do you have a problem with a "god" who simply existed and has no origin? Better yet how can the universe have a start if what you claim is true? As for the universe being created thats up for debate but not on me to debate it in this thread.

No, that’s incorrect. Science has never been wrong; man has only been wrong interpreting data and coming to incorrect conclusions. This by no means suggests there is a god or a creator.

I understand what you mean about science not being wrong but what about the methods used to interpret data? Do you see a difference? I did not suggest that it did or didn't suggest there is a god or creator. Whya re you mentioning it?

People always should, and continue to do research. No one is saying they shouldn’t and no one is saying one shouldn’t be a critical thinker.

ok.

However, teaching ID is setting kids up to be the complete opposite. Learn and accept weightless theories? Unsupported theories taught in science class? No comrade, that’s called dumbing down amerika

Matter of opinion.



:hgk:

 

[Fridge]

I didnt evolve from apes thats a lie. God created me as my own unique person.

Denial is one of the most famous stages when coping with reality.

Whether or not God exists, you can't win arguments based on Christian Fact.

 

[Hutch]

There is no way to prove any scientific theory, you can only disprove it, and for that to happen it would no longer be a valid theory. Sciences goal is to search for absolute truths, but taking evolution as an example, all it would take is one small piece of evidence contradicting evolution to disprove the theory. We have not come across such evidence to date and the theory is strengthened with every day that we fail to find such evidence. Not one person that I've known or read about believes in the big bang theory as being absolute - it is simply the model which best fits our data. As we gather more data, our theories will change, some will be discarded completely, others will be revived, but until we find the absolute truth (if it's possible), we cannot say with any conviction that a theory is RIGHT, or FACT.

Atleast science is cutting a path towards truth, regardless how much it strays on the way. Claiming that God is responsible for anything, whether the creation of life, the universe or any other multitude of occurences, proves nothing.

Consider this hypothetical scenario - picture two mountain climbers at the base of a mountain. Both know that on the peak resides a flowering tree, but no-one knows the colour of the flower. The first man attempts to climb the mountain, striving to decipher the colour - at times he may see a glimpse of the tree and make predictions on what the colour is. Ofcourse, he may be too far away, or the light might be deceptive, making his predictions false, but he continues. He may never reach the top of the mountain and die before he knows what the colour is, but atleast he's tried and made inroads, providing a foundation of data for the next mountain climber to follow.

Meanwhile, the second man sits at the base of the mountain, never caring to put on his climbing boots. He believes, with absolute conviction, that the colour of the flower is purple. How he can come to this conclusion without any proof beats the shit out of me. He could just as easily have said that the colour of the flower is red, or orange, or blue, but without any proof his statement 'the colour is purple' cannot be taken seriously.

IMO, the same applies to the creationists view. It means nothing. I could devise a million competing theories which hold as much weight as 'God created life', or 'God created the universe' or whatever else you claim God had his hand in. I just cannot take any of it seriously, and for the life of me I can't understand why anyone else does. Then again, to each his own. If you get more out of life by believing in God, then good on you.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

Good analogy Hutch.

If science has not proven the theory to be correct why teach it in schools?

Again, you’re completely missing the point of what exactly a scientific theory is compared to just a regular theory.

From the first page:

A scientific theory or law represents a hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

On the 2nd page, ColdBlooded stated:

If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence.

Again, a scientific theory is based on evidence. Evidence that can be independently verified through objective means and by anyone who chooses to do so. Creationism fails to be a theory because there is no evidence, no data to be analyzed, etc.

It's been done before look at the big bang theory.

So you’re telling me the Big Bang theory holds no weight? There is no evidence that supports the theory? Please comrade, be real, there is a HUGE difference between the Big Bang (which I remind you is a scientific theory) and creation/id.

I'm sorry comrade but the big bang theory is taught as absolute or law.

It is taught as a scientific theory.

My science books from jr high and high school did not state big bang was a theory.

[…]

Where I come from it was taught as law and no other opinions and theories were discussed.

I seriously doubt that, I’m sure it’s stated that it is a scientific theory, if it doesn’t, not much I can say about that. I know when I was in school I learned about the Big Bang theory and other theories and understood the what a scientific theory was. Perhaps your school was unique, I dunno.

Once again I do not believe these changes to be "random". Imho I believe something that has yet to be identified is causing the change. Better yet scientist don't understand the pattern yet.

So you believe in something unknowable that is responsible for these changes? Some outside force, something that is not natural? Honestly, it doesn’t really matter what you believe because you cant explain it and there is no evidence for this unknown outside force.

I haven't promoted or discussed my beliefs in this thread. I'm not bringing up your athiesm and how it may have blinded you to ID. So I'll kindly sweep your insult under the rug but I suggest you limit those kinds of statements and stick to our current discussion.

It wasn’t an insult comrade, re-read the statement. I simply stated my opinion that you lack a good understanding of what evolution is and that is probably related to your spiritual beliefs. No insult, just my opinion.

My apologies if I sounded like an ass (I wrote that reply yesterday at work and unfortunately I was frustrated due to the many annoying dumb asses I work with).

No, they are NOT basically the same thing. The only thing they have in common is the concept of a being who created the universe.

That’s all you have to say right there. Both believe in some unknowable creator.

Well thats not what the skeptic site says and surely thats not what supporters of creation science believe.

Can you please point out the evidence for creation/ID?

I think a better position would be at this time they are unsupported but once again thats up for debate.

And again, my simple point is we should not teach unsupported claims to children.

If we are going to discuss the origins of life, it's only logical to attempt to explain the origins of the universe, how it operates and how it had an effect on the present.

Sure, I can agree with this as long as what we’re discussing has some kind of weight as far as evidence and facts go. In other words, it needs to be a scientific theory; something that has withstood the test of time, i.e has been tested through experiments, large amounts of data has been collected and analyzed, etc.

They should be taught science that has been proven based on study? Or a theory?

Science that is supported such as a scientific theory.

Or learn on your own.

Agreed.

No, I wouldn't do that. The only thing that would do is identify zolfrender as creator but it still doesn't explain the universe zolfrendar came from or how he created this one.

Ok, if we called Zolfrender the creator of this universe who was in fact created by Nelftron from universe 76-B-9er who was created by a giant finger in the universe 6669 who was created by a giant ass that has existed for infinity. The giant ass started the chain of life and there was nothing before the giant ass.

We are talking about the creation of life and evolution. In order to properly address it we must address the place life occupies and how that place came to be.

Sure, we can discuss how the earth was formed, how our solar system and galaxy were formed and we can attempt to explain the beginning of our universe based on scientific theory. After all, this is a science class we’re talking about.

Science is defined as the following:

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

What I am saying is it should NOT be taught in a science class if it has not been validated by the rules of science and labeled FACT.

Then over half the science class would be taken out if that were the case HERESY. As ColdBlooded pointed out many things are considered a theory that simply cannot be proven. Once again, it’s very important that we all understand the difference between a scientific theory and a theory that is unsupported and cannot be tested/verified.

If existance is simply existance why do you have a problem with a "god" who simply existed and has no origin?

Because there is no evidence for a god but there is evidence of our existence. You see what I’m saying comrade? How can I come to the conclusion, or at least accept the possibility of a creator when, as of today, there is absolutely no evidence?

I understand what you mean about science not being wrong but what about the methods used to interpret data? Do you see a difference?

If a method is proven to interpret data incorrectly, it can no longer be a valid method of verifying data. I do see what you’re saying but with science, theories are open to all. Think of science like an open source product or something like that. The information is available for all people and scientists to conduct their own tests and to verify their conclusions, which is what constantly occurs in the science community, schools, and universities. Data is analyzed and reanalyzed over and over again. If someone or a group of people challenge a theory and find conflicting evidence which shows the theory is incorrect, this is then reviewed and if proven the theory is no longer a scientific theory. As far as the big bang, it has withstood the test of time and as far as I know, no real conflicting evidence has been found.

Matter of opinion.

Yes it is a matter of opinion. IMO teaching kids “theories” that are unsupported does not help develop their critical thinking skills. Telling kids that “Something unknown somehow created the universe” does not do anything for the kid, if anything it’s a insult to their intelligence.

Also, something that I have not touched on which I probably should have since it’s really the main issue regarding this topic is that this has really nothing to do with science/creation. This is an attempt by the Bush Administration to once again side with the religious right whose goal is to shove down “Christian values” down the throats of our children. They don’t simply want a vague definition of creation to be taught in schools, they want the Christian version in our schools and text books. That’s what this is really about.

 

[Stealth]

Just a little clarificiation:

Gravity is a law, not a theory.

When a theory is proven to be true, it becomes a law. A law and a theory are two different things. A theory is unproven, despite the fact that it is made with a great deal of back ground information.

A law is the undeniable truth.

 

[AGENT707]

Hey Hutch why dont you sit a couple of plays out, maybe not talk so much.

Fuck Agent 207 thats on Errythang (Use Proper English). You make no points to back up what you say. Only talk as if you have been through things no one else has, grow up little kid.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

ur a fuckin clown....(use proper english)....R U FUCKING KIDDING ME?????????

ur actually gonna start bithcing about that??....thats pretty goddamn pathetic.....seriously....tellin me to grow up?...u sound like a BITCH...."haha u spell things funny"....LOL!!!!

ur a fuckin joke....."Mr. english teacher"

hahahahahaha.....dude needs a tissue.....

then ur butthurt cuz u got scared and ran to church then u think everybody should believe in god....dawg, ive almost died TWICE....and thats the last place ull find me.....especially with all those child molesters...u may like that shit....but im coo off it....or should i say "cool", i dont want to piss off the english teacher....

and its 707 u BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-YAAAAAAAAAAAAAATCH
(thats BITCH if were getting technical)

 

[Rob S4]

^^^Your cornball, you dont neeed to lie about dying twice because I doubt it even happend. Quit making up shit and sit back and chill goofball. So 207 shut up and sit down no one asked you to talk.