argexpat
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 460
- Reaction score
- 8
- Location
- I was there, now I'm here
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
argexpat said:Saying evolution is a theory is like saying gravity is a theory.
argexpat said:That life evolves over time is an undeniable, observable fact.
argexpat said:...insisting that evolution is a theory is silly pedantry. And it gives ammunition to the anti-intellectual forces of ignorance who agitate for teaching “creationism” along side evolution, thus establishing a bogus comity with it.
Alas, that is part of the argument for evolution. Darwin never said we came from an ape - but an "ape like creature". It is truely speculative, hence it is an argument.Again, I have seen no evidence showing that evolution has any more credibility that intelligent design. The arguments typically associated with it are not based on evidence, but on speculation. No record of evolution exists prior to the middle of the 19th century.
Absolutely. When it comes to the debate on this issue I've come to the conclusion that I know I don't know. But I held the possiblity of God's days and our days not being the same, in away way shape or form, for some time now. I'm not sure as men we can understand God or what time is to God. When it comes to issues of this nature- faith is the key. You can look at all the evidence and still be wrong. Some years ago I came across a TV show called "The Creation Network" I was quite intrigued. It used to be on Dish Network every Sat. morning. I watched several of these shows and thought they were really on to something. They quoted several DNA and carbon dating labs and had what looked like a lot of clear evidence. However when I went to check things out the labs and sites they quoted often had disclaimers right on their web sites that often read something like "we were contacted by the Creation Network, we dated this item for them, we told them this item was 4 million years old, yet they boardcast on their show that we said it was possible it was only 4,000 years old, we never said that." So does that prove creation never happen? No- it proves that the people doing that show probably want it to be true so bad they'll say anything. Doesn't mean it didn't happen. Maybe we just don't understand what all the facts actually mean. God works in mysterious ways, right?vauge said:I am not sure, I think that evolution and creation could be a mix.
A day to God is as a thousand years. Litterally, or figurtively?
Could the people back in the time fathom what one thousand was?
Well I don't think we should be teaching creationism in the classroom. I think that would be a violation of church and state. If you start teaching that do you then also teach the Buddhist view of world orgin?bryanf said:That's the position I hold on the issue. There is not conclusive evidence one way or the other. You said it, Pacridge, "faith is the key."
It takes a lot of faith to believe that an intelligent designer, God, if you will, created the universe and everything in it, because obviously, you have to first believe in a God.
It also takes faith to believe in evolution, because there is no evidence, and what indications there are often cast at least a shadow on the theory.
The probability of either is miniscule, yet we typically accept that one of them must be true, as there has yet to have been another solution offered. Which one we believe should be up to us, and both should be offered in the classroom.
Pacridge said:Well I don't think we should be teaching creationism in the classroom. I think that would be a violation of church and state. If you start teaching that do you then also teach the Buddhist view of world orgin?
I also think there is evidence of evolution.
My understanding of most Eastern religions is that the Gods or God did not "create" the universe but rather most believe God rearranges or manipulates the world that was already in existence.bryanf said:Well, I haven't seen convincing evidence making evolution any more credible than intelligent design.
Since both are theories, then it wouldn't be fair to teach one without giving airtime to the other.
On the religious side, could evolution be painted as a product of the "faith" of atheists and agnostics? As far as I know, most of the traditional religions (that put faith in a god or gods) hold that that god (or gods) designed the universe.
There is no possible way that science can prove or disprove the origin of the universe, so anything taught to explain it is theory, based on faith. Perhaps it would be best not to teach the origin of the universe?
Yes. Yes you do. It's called "Comparative World Religions." It's usually a 100 level class in college.Well I don't think we should be teaching creationism in the classroom. I think that would be a violation of church and state. If you start teaching that do you then also teach the Buddhist view of world orgin?
LiberalFINGER said:Evolution theories can be proven or disproven and therefore belong in a science class. Creation theories cannot be proven or disproven and therefore belong in humanities/sociology.
That makes sense to me. But you've got a lot of poeple who disagree with "Evolution theories can be proven or disproven" of course when it comes to religion and science there's a long history of ignoring each other. Then again maybe the sun does revolve around the earth, the earth is flat and who know's maybe the earth is only 6,000 years old?LiberalFINGER said:Yes. Yes you do. It's called "Comparative World Religions." It's usually a 100 level class in college.
Evolution theories can be proven or disproven and therefore belong in a science class. Creation theories cannot be proven or disproven and therefore belong in humanities/sociology.
Studying only science does not make for a well rounded education.
argexpat said:This goes to the heart of the sham that is "creationism" and why it has no place in a science class. There is no double standard in science. There is one standard, and it's the scientific method. This is the only article of faith in science. And it's what separates the fact of evolution, from the fiction of "creationism."
argexpat said:Creationism is not a hypothesis, it's mythology. It's like saying that the Earth resting in the shoulders of Atlas is a hypothesis. Should we be teaching that in a science class, too?
bryanf said:So, it's not quite the number that I had, but even at that rate, it would have been touching the earth 100 million years ago, still far short of the 4-5 billion years that evolution "scientists" claim to be the age of the universe.
bryanf said:The absence of proof in the fossil record is only a part of my argument that evolution cannot be proven, and as regards to the burden of proof being on evolution and not on creationism, that is absolutely my position. I am not trying to say that creation should be taught in science class, I'm saying that evolution should not be. Since that is my position, I think that it is reasonable to put the burden of proof lies completely upon evolution.
bryanf said:It is interesting that you used "principle" to describe the "theory" explaining gravity. Principle mean "Law," or "A basic or essential quality or element determining intrinsic nature or characteristic behavior," again from the American Heritage Dictionary. A principle is not a theory, because it is an expression of something absolute, or "characteristic." So, again, comparison between gravity and evolution is a weak one.
bryanf said:Look back to my definition of a hypothesis. Under that definition, which was the one I was applying here, both creationism and evolution are hypotheses.
bryanf said:Finally, I think that you're missing what is, perhaps, the biggest point of my argument, namely, that evolution should NOT be taught as fact in a science class room. I am NOT trying to argue that creationism should be taught in science class. That is why I am putting the burden of proof on evolution, and not on creation.
bryanf said:Let me start over with some basic logic. First of all, do you believe that there are absolutes?
bryanf said:Is there a right and wrong? If so, what determines that, and if not, then how do you justify anything that you do?
argexpat said:No. As Einstein proved, everything is relative.
argexpat said:Yes, there is a right and wrong, and I, as a rational being with a free will, determine it.
argexpat said:No. As Einstein proved, everything is relative.
argexpat said:Yes, there is a right and wrong, and I, as a rational being with a free will, determine it.
bryanf said:EVERYTHING is relative. So, is that an absolute, or are there exceptions?
bryanf said:If there is a right and wrong, there must be some standard that you compare them to.
bryanf said:If we evolved, then it would follow that our reasoning evolved over time, as well. If that's the case, then how do I know that my reasoning has evolved correctly? That my process of weighing things in my thought processes is accurate?
bryanf said:Nietszche said that our errors have preserved our race (speaking, in particular, to our reasoning). If that is the case, then how do we know that our intellect is not deceiving us? For in so doing, it would preserve us.
bryanf said:Happy Birthday, btw
argexpat said:Not sure what this has to do with teaching evolution, but I'll answer anyway: There is only one absolute, that everything changes.
argexpat said:I ask myself, "What would my mother think?"
argexpat said:Descart said, "I think, therefore, I am." Meaning, the only thing you can know with certainty are the thoughts in your head. All else is speculation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?