The "Theory" of Evolution vs. "Creationism"

[Busta]

But then we weren't talking about the Science Classroom. We merely were talking about school in general, and your complain that people wanted to get rid of ID in school. That you then claim it has no foundation in reality and hence complain about a fantasy/fiction beign removed, TAHT is puzzling.
Well, first of all, would you present fictional works without making it clear that it is fiction, especially when the work tries to present itself as non-fiction?

What we are looking at here is the integrity of what we teach kids. What is your position on such? You are upset that kids are lied to in math class and told that 2+2=5 is good enough, yet are not upset that lies like ID are pushed at students, in fact complaining when it is NOT pushed at them. That does NOT make sense, so you do need to explain yourself regarding the integrity of the lesson material to clarify this.

First, I never said "it has no foundation in reality" nor "fantasy/fiction".

I have no problem with I.D. being in school. I have a problem with I.D. being in a science classroom when it does not conform to the norms of science.

Second, as for "fictional works", they should be presented as they are classified by the school's library.

It is more important to teach children how to think, then what to think. Teach them how to think and give them the universe as a library. All ells will follow.

 

[kal-el]

The theory of evolution has only existed in this last century or so. Whereas people have known that God created the universe for many thousands of years. So the distinction is obvious.

Uhh, nobody knows it. It is a rather naive belief that has no evidence to back it up.

 

[AlbqOwl]

AlbqOwl:
"Actually I was lucky enough to have teachers who did teach us to think and showed us how, in certain circumstances, 2 + 2 could equal five. "

steen:
"It could, eh? I would love to see the proof for such an outright lie. It seems like you are thanking your teachers for lying to you. How odd."

I remember that!!!
Oklahoma and California middle school!!!!
These wako Leftists came into our school and implemented a "more sensitive" education program. They didn't want any child "too feel bad because they got an answer wrong or did poorly on a test". They said something about it harming our selfesteem or some bull$#it.

Yup, 2+2=5, because that was "close enough". We were literally taught that your best guess was as-good as the actual answer.....and these are the same people who want to do away with I.D. and prayer in schools and promote "intellectual freedom" (= how-to sex ed.) in 3rd. and 5th. grade.

No, it was not in the context of 'close enough'. I was also fortunate to be educated in an era where the right answer was both expected and required. But in 'thinking outside the box', and as an illustration of taking care not to rely on absolutes, we were taught how numbers can mean different things. For instance, in the wonderful world of algebra and in weights and measures and in other circumstances where a number related to one thing can be quite different from the same number applied to another thing, you can come up with circumstances where 2 + 2 = 5 depending on what value is placed on the numbers. It was another way to teach us to look further than the obvious, and we actually had assignments to demonstrate things like this. It was both fun and instructional and taught us to appreciate that what appears to be is not always what is.

In this context, given how many peoples have come up with the concept of intelligent design independent from each other, I think prudent people do not dismiss it out of hand. Acknowledge that it is unprovable, yes. Acknowledge that it is not science as we know science, yes. Do not teach it as science, yes. Dismiss it because we can't prove it, no.

 

[Busta]

No, it was not in the context of 'close enough'. I was also fortunate to be educated in an era where the right answer was both expected and required. But in 'thinking outside the box', and as an illustration of taking care not to rely on absolutes, we were taught how numbers can mean different things. For instance, in the wonderful world of algebra and in weights and measures and in other circumstances where a number related to one thing can be quite different from the same number applied to another thing, you can come up with circumstances where 2 + 2 = 5 depending on what value is placed on the numbers. It was another way to teach us to look further than the obvious, and we actually had assignments to demonstrate things like this. It was both fun and instructional and taught us to appreciate that what appears to be is not always what is.

In this context, given how many peoples have come up with the concept of intelligent design independent from each other, I think prudent people do not dismiss it out of hand. Acknowledge that it is unprovable, yes. Acknowledge that it is not science as we know science, yes. Do not teach it as science, yes. Dismiss it because we can't prove it, no.

Um, OK....post an example of 2+2=5.

I'm all for I.D. being in school. But until it can conform to the norms of science, it has no place in a science class.

 

[God-Is-Holy]

Uhh, nobody knows it. It is a rather naive belief that has no evidence to back it up.

Actually we have the bible, which is the very word of God. But man only has naive theories.

 

[kal-el]

Actually we have the bible, which is the very word of God. But man only has naive theories.

Yes, theories that contain testable evidence. Your "holy book", is just a couple hundred pieces of paper which was always written by man, and the themes were distorted throughout the ages because of each age's preferences and prejudices.:lol:

 

[kal-el]

But until it can conform to the norms of science, it has no place in a science class.

Exactly. Although I believe ID should be in a theology course, or a fairy tale course.:lol:

 

[steen]

The theory of evolution has only existed in this last century or so. Whereas people have known that God created the universe for many thousands of years. So the distinction is obvious.

oh, yeah. For thousands of years, we knew that illness came from God rather than from bacteria. So obviously, antibiotics is a bunch of huey.:doh

 

[steen]

In this context, given how many peoples have come up with the concept of intelligent design independent from each other,

They haven't, really. A few people pushed it and all the creationists who were shut out from science class then jumped on the bandwagon. It still is nothing but creationism. You obviously are ignorant of the history of ID.

I think prudent people do not dismiss it out of hand.

It wasn't. The hypotheses were looked at and found to already have been disproven, them merely being creationism in drag after all.

Acknowledge that it is unprovable, yes. Acknowledge that it is not science as we know science, yes. Do not teach it as science, yes. Dismiss it because we can't prove it, no.

But YES certainly dismiss it when it has been disproven. Why teach what has been shown to be false?

Oh, I forgot, maybe this time the creationists can get their lies put into the classroom if they lie enough about it. Show me an ID claim that has not already been shown false or impossible to explore in any scientific fashion, why don't you?

NO? No takers? How disappointing. After all, if there even is a itty bitty shread of legitimacy or scientific potential, it should be possible to come up with something that hasn't been outright proven false even before it is expressed?

So come on all you brave "I just WANT evolution to not be right" liars and deceptive hypocrites, just ONE itty bitty claim?

No? Uhum, I rest my case. No more BS!

 

[MrFungus420]

steen, this question is directed to you, or others familiar with it:
The first, and main, problem is the very existence of the big bang. One may wonder, What came before? If space-time did not exist then, how could everything appear from nothing? What arose first: the universe or the laws determining its evolution? Explaining this initial singularity-where and when it all began-still remains the most intriging problem of evolution.

No, it has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is the theory of how genetic changes occur over time. It has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, or even the origin of life. It only has meaning when applied to things that are already alive.

Expecting the theory of evolution to explain the origin of the universe is akin to expecting cellular biology to explain why solar flares occur.

 

[MrFungus420]

The theory of evolution has only existed in this last century or so. Whereas people have known that God created the universe for many thousands of years. So the distinction is obvious.

People have known that "God created the universe" for a long time. Just as people used to "know" that the earth is flat, that diseases were cause by evil spirits and that the sun revolved around the earth.

So, yes, the distinction is obvious. Evolution is a theory that is based on empirical evidence, whereas creationism is just an old story that only has validity if you have a compatible religious belief.

 

[God-Is-Holy]

Yes, theories that contain testable evidence.

Testable evidence of what?

Your "holy book", is just a couple hundred pieces of paper which was always written by man,

The bible was written by men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

and the themes were distorted throughout the ages because of each age's preferences and prejudices.:lol:

More theory on your part. God is unchanging.

oh, yeah. For thousands of years, we knew that illness came from God rather than from bacteria. So obviously, antibiotics is a bunch of huey.:doh

What in the wide world are you talking about? God made antibiotics to be used by man.

People have known that "God created the universe" for a long time.

Correct.

Just as people used to "know" that the earth is flat, that diseases were cause by evil spirits and that the sun revolved around the earth.

You're partially incorrect here. Although diseases are sometimes caused by evil spirits, the earth is neither flat nor does the sun revolve around the earth. Two of these are completely extra-biblical.

So, yes, the distinction is obvious. Evolution is a theory that is based on empirical evidence,

Evidence of what?

whereas creationism is just an old story that only has validity if you have a compatible religious belief.

I'll sooner believe God than man, because God is omniscient and man is not.

 

[kal-el]

Testable evidence of what?

Well, let's start with the law of gravity. What the hell holds you to the ground? Not god? Now let's go to physics. If you place your hand on a car muffler after it was driven, it will burn, right? O, yea, I forgot, that also must be your "supernatural" god's doing?:lol:

The bible was written by men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

More theory on your part. A stupid claptrap fallacy.

More theory on your part. God is unchanging.

Keep telling yourself this. You might start believing it.:lol:

 

[AlbqOwl]

Um, OK....post an example of 2+2=5.

I'm all for I.D. being in school. But until it can conform to the norms of science, it has no place in a science class.

ID should not be taught as science because there is no known scientific basis for it. Science teachers should not, however, automatically dismiss ID as a possibility. Even as they teach good science to their students, good science teachers should never discourage students from opening their minds to yet unrealized possibilities. So yes, don't teach ID as science. But don't dismiss it as one of many additional possibilities either.

While some of the analogies we developed became quite complex, one of the simplest examples we used in the math problem (thinking outside the box) was:

2 8-oz containers + 2 12-oz containers = 5 cups. Of course we were given the challenge to develop an analogy in which 2 + 2 could equal five. Some of the real math whizzes (of which I am not one) came up with unbelievably elaborate equations for this.

 

[steen]

Testable evidence of what?

Of whatever the Scientific Question is. Tell me, do you know ANYTHING AT ALL about the Scientific Method? This is grade-school level stuff.

The bible was written by men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Ah, so it is God's word because you SAY it is God's word? Anybody xcould claim that the Biology Textbook was written by men under direction of God. How would you know whether that was right or not?

More theory on your part. God is unchanging.

But the Bible is not, so your claim of this just being a "theory" is downright false. Be careful about your claims here. Simply spewing self-righteous blabbering doesn't give you ny credibility; it would merely show you bearing false witness. And I am sure you know THAT is frowned on in the Bible?

What in the wide world are you talking about? God made antibiotics to be used by man.

An outright lie. Antibiotics today are synthetically derived and generated in labs, there is nothing "nature" involved. So I ask you again, relating to the length of time we have "known" things (Obviously relating to what WE have known, not antibiotics), in the hope that you are actually going to show a glimmer of understanding of what you are talking about instead of silly fervent nonsense and falsehoods: " For thousands of years, we knew that illness came from God rather than from bacteria. So obviously, antibiotics is a bunch of huey."

You claim that if we have known "A" longer that "B" then A must be more correct. That is what you expressed eaxlier. So back to the Scientific Germ Theory of Diseases. We have "known" that illnesses came from God for thousands of years. We now KNOW that illnesses come from germ. yet, we have only known that for about 100 years. Per YOUR logic, that must mean that the original idea of these illnesses being punishment from God is the correct idea and that bacteria therefore are a figment of our imagination and antibiotics are placebo.

So please explain how you can spew such utter and complete nonsense.

You're partially incorrect here. Although diseases are sometimes caused by evil spirits,

You have GOT to be kidding? EVIL SPIRITS cause diseases?

the earth is neither flat nor does the sun revolve around the earth. Two of these are completely extra-biblical.

So the part of the bible talking about Joshua's day, that part is lying? The Bible is LYING?

I am not sure what my impression of you is, but it is vaccilating between ignorant and dumb right now. Please start putting a bit more thought into your answers so they don't sound so stupid, please.

Evidence of what?

Further demonstrating your ignorance, your utter cluelessness and lack of even rudimentary knowledge of what you are arguing about? Well, OK. Evidence nof changes in a population from generation to generation.

I'll sooner believe God than man, because God is omniscient and man is not.

And you obviously have no problem bearing false witness to this capacity, "lying for Jesus."

 

[steen]

BTW, GiH, your comment was so outrageous that I had to put it in my sig. What do you think?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Just an observation here, anger, insults, demeaning and belittling comments, absolute unprovable statements as rebuttal, and pompous arrogance, do not contribute to either civil discourse or true debate. If one cannot rebut a comment without casting negative aspersions on their opponent, it's pretty certain that person cannot rebut it intelligently at all.

 

[steen]

Just an observation here, anger, insults, demeaning and belittling comments, absolute unprovable statements as rebuttal, and pompous arrogance, do not contribute to either civil discourse or true debate. If one cannot rebut a comment without casting negative aspersions on their opponent, it's pretty certain that person cannot rebut it intelligently at all.

Sooo..? What is your feeling about evil spirits causing disease?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Sooo..? What is your feeling about evil spirits causing disease?

Well because I did pay attention in science class, I know that many diseases have no explanation. There are mental illnesses, false symptoms, life threatening conditions that are purely psychosomatic, post stress trauma symptoms in which no underlying cause has been identified, etc. The writers of the Bible had no science training to go on and almost certainly attributed these to the work of demons/evil spirits. Then again, if one's mind is open, there is acknowledgement of a possibility that there could be a spirit or extra-terrestrial existence and that such existence could interact with humans.

In other words, just because I believe most diseases are caused by biologically identifiable causes, I see no reason to insult somebody because they believe differently.

And so, could you provide a rationale for why some seem to need to insult, embarrass, or belittle others rather than provide a reasoned rebuttal to points with which they disagree?

 

[-Demosthenes-]

In other words, just because I believe most diseases are caused by biologically identifiable causes, I see no reason to insult somebody because they believe differently.

The point is, that in science there is not "belief," just the scientific method.

 

[steen]

Well because I did pay attention in science class, I know that many diseases have no explanation. There are mental illnesses, false symptoms, life threatening conditions that are purely psychosomatic, post stress trauma symptoms in which no underlying cause has been identified, etc. The writers of the Bible had no science training to go on and almost certainly attributed these to the work of demons/evil spirits.

Ah, but GOD certainly would know, and the writers of the Bible merely were God's pens, writing down God's words verbatim, right? Why wouldn't God know?

Then again, if one's mind is open, there is acknowledgement of a possibility that there could be a spirit or extra-terrestrial existence and that such existence could interact with humans.

And these are evil spirits that cause disease?

In other words, just because I believe most diseases are caused by biologically identifiable causes, I see no reason to insult somebody because they believe differently.

AH, but is it warranted for them to claim this an absolute "because I say so" fact directly delivered to them by God?

Same as with the ID. If they admitted that this simply was their faith, similar to creationism, or if they have any actual evidence to present, that would be one thing. But to spew "because I say so" postulations of facts that really are merely their belief/faith, then that is dishonest

And so, could you provide a rationale for why some seem to need to insult, embarrass, or belittle others rather than provide a reasoned rebuttal to points with which they disagree?

When people lie to me or spew nonsense, disrepestcfully ill-thought-through blabber, I get in their face big time. If they don't like it, all they have to do is to stop lying and start paying attention to what is written and what they write.

If they are disrespectful, so am I.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Ah, but GOD certainly would know, and the writers of the Bible merely were God's pens, writing down God's words verbatim, right? Why wouldn't God know?
And these are evil spirits that cause disease?
AH, but is it warranted for them to claim this an absolute "because I say so" fact directly delivered to them by God?

Same as with the ID. If they admitted that this simply was their faith, similar to creationism, or if they have any actual evidence to present, that would be one thing. But to spew "because I say so" postulations of facts that really are merely their belief/faith, then that is dishonest
When people lie to me or spew nonsense, disrepestcfully ill-thought-through blabber, I get in their face big time. If they don't like it, all they have to do is to stop lying and start paying attention to what is written and what they write.

If they are disrespectful, so am I.

In addition to the tactic of insults in lieu of intelligent debate, I should have included the tactic of distorting or changing the words, subject, intent of the other person's post rather than consider what they actually wrote.

At any rate, I rest my case.

 

[steen]

In addition to the tactic of insults in lieu of intelligent debate, I should have included the tactic of distorting or changing the words, subject, intent of the other person's post rather than consider what they actually wrote.

Yes, I have noted that creationists and fundie rightwingers do that alot.

 

[alphieb]

Steen,

"An outright lie. Antibiotics today are synthetically derived and generated in labs, there is nothing "nature" involved."

Incorrect they were not originally synthetically dervived, but found by Fleming by mistake while he was in the process of TRYING to dervive an antibiotic. He found the mold growing was effective in killing the organisms.
God showed him the light.


Who created our common ancestor? Where did it come from, a one celled organism. Impossible?

 

[alphieb]

Steen,

One's beliefs are not lies, but simply their beliefs. Are your beliefs lies?