Does Something Evolve to become Less Productive?
Printable View
Does Something Evolve to become Less Productive?
Haha creationism.....
"The origins of the universe can be explained by ancient folklore that predates the discovery of the atom."
This is the problem, creationism is not an answer to the question of 'where did existence come from?'
God created the universe because his power is equal to his will.
Ok, How? How on a microscopic level was all matter formed? God wanted to so he did and then there we were? You're skipping the explanation part, but evolution doesn't pretend to have this answer either. WE DON'T HAVE THIS ANSWER AND NEVER WILL.
What creationism does is pretend we've always had the answer to where we came from. It casts aside genuine evidential analysis of our environment in favor of keeping our old ideas.
And as for eugenics I think the idea that a group of humans is superior to another is a lot older than the theory of evolution. Just because some bastards in Nazi Germany like to use the "theory of evolution" as an excuse for genocide does NOT tie eugenics to evolutionary theory. Every group that has ever gone to war thought they were superior and should survive while their enemies died. For thousands of years. Some even used religion as an excuse for their superiority.
huh..... The more ya know........
I'm sorry but nobody here knows enough about the universe to even begin to say how it all started.
And you are using the same explanation for reality as you were at age 5.
'God poofed us here' may be an excellent way for a child to conceptualize the world, but at some point you have to look a little closer at what the evidence suggests.
And don't bother with the quoting each sentence I said and then countering it with "but you can't prove that" Nothing can be proven. This is one of the most basic assumptions of science. Science never claims to have proven anything, and encourages inspection into every theory as such. Creationism seems to take this type of inspection as an insult. You don't start out with your answer and mold your hypothesis and evidence around that. You look at the evidence and then come up with a hypothesis. Your data either confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis (not prove).
Evolution is not an absolute, it's an idea to explain what we have observed with scientific inquiry. Creationism, on the other hand, is absolute and says that it can never change. Evolutionary theory has undergone a lot of changes since it was developed.
I agree, this is a stereotypical personality trait to creationism, but I am not here to debate the validity of the two theories creationism and evolution, I am just saying that because evolution holds the same lack of evidence as creationism then it too could be considered as viable.Quote:
What creationism does is pretend we've always had the answer to where we came from. It casts aside genuine evidential analysis of our environment in favor of keeping our old ideas.
Teaching creationism does not at all prevent schools from learning, if a class taught creationism with science I dont see how it would have stopped us from making the scientific discoveries we have made, it is not because of evolutionary thinking we have discovered so much, it is because of revolutionary thinking outside of the realms of religious doctrines.
Who is that then?Quote:
And you are using the same explanation for reality as you were at age 5.
What amazingly profound theory do you carry?
Evolution from rocks?
No, this is wrong you are viewing creationism from the stereotypical judea christian perspective of the theory.Quote:
This is one of the most basic assumptions of science. Science never claims to have proven anything, and encourages inspection into every theory as such. Creationism seems to take this type of inspection as an insult.
I suggest you read a book called "Science and Islam" and then tell me that creationism refuses inspection and use of science to disprove it.
Islam is actually the religion considered by millions accross the western world to be a religion which conforms with scientific theory.
One example of how creationism CAN work with science.
YouTube - Qur'an & Modern Science - Conflict Or Conciliation (15/24)
:thumbsup:
Firstly...Quote:
Evolution is not an absolute, it's an idea to explain what we have observed with scientific inquiry. Creationism, on the other hand, is absolute and says that it can never change. Evolutionary theory has undergone a lot of changes since it was developed.
In what ways has the theory of evolution changed, can you give me any examples?
Because to my knowledge evolution has and always will be about evolving.
Your statement is wrong clearly, evolution teaches that we EVOLVED, creationism teaches that we were CREATED.
How do you go about changing evolution without taking away the element of evolving?
Same with creationism, how do you go about changing creationism without changing the possibility of us being created?
You can alter the theories, but this can be done with evolution as well as with creationism, im only to mention the number of different Gods people have made up such as Zeus, Brahma, Wotan, Thaw, and the great spaghetti monster to name but a few.
And you claim evolutionary theories can and have been adapted so I wont waste my time typing examples.
But the theories remain concrete in their concepts, if they did not then you cannot call them what they are.
Take evolving from evolution and you dont have evolution LOL
Take creating from creationism and you dont have creationism LOL
They are both absolutes.
:thumbsup:
This is wrong! Do you have even the slightest understanding of evolution? The evolution you are rambling on about has always been mentioned by me! I said a few posts back that evolution is good at the smaller scale however how can you prove it on our scale?Quote:
What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others.
YOU CANT
This is the last time im going to say this! I wont repeat this again because im just sick of it, im sick of the ignorance and the monotonous "search for a debate" you people are obssessed with!
All I am saying and all I ever did say was that due to the lack of evidence with regards to evolution IN OUR STORY then the same credit you atheists give to evolution about being valid we could give to creationism otherwise you would reside in a paradox!
We should also give creationism a viable explanation as to how we came about, you cant prove evolution is right so why should we have that theory as the figurehead of truth in our educational system?
Im not challenging the theory of evolution, it is common fact to anyone with 2 brain cells that there is no proof for evolution which is why we call it a theory, a monkey could work this out!Quote:
If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence
I feel like your being ignorant on purpose to annoy me!
LOL are you serious?Quote:
We don't teach Eugenics in school as far as I'm aware
LOL a "school of thought" is not literally a classroom full of kids learning the alphabet with a teacher.
Its a figure of speach!!!
Evolution is a "school of thought". Doesnt mean you go to a school called evolution lmao.
LOL...Quote:
Morality has fuck all to do with evolution
WRONG. I did not once say evolution is flawed.Quote:
So what you are saying is, you feel that evolution is flawed, and since they are teaching flawed science, it should be ok to teach another flawed theory?
I do not feel it is flawed, im sorry that you just cannot understand english but what is so hard about this?
ALL I AM SAYING IS THAT CREATIONISM SHOULD BE AS VIABLE AS EVOLUTION BECAUSE THEY ARE ON PARR WHEN YOU TAKE IT IN TERMS OF EVIDENCE, EVOLUTION IS NO GREATER A TRUTH IN TERMS OF EVIDENCE THAN CREATIONISM.
YOU CANT ARGUE THIS, ITS FACT, NOBODY CAN PROVE EVOLUTION, AND IM NOT SAYING ITS NOT TRUE! IM JUST SAYING THAT CREATIONISM SHOULD BE GIVEN IN EDUCATION AS A VIABLE REASON AS TO HOW WE CAME ABOUT.
But what more evidence do you see for phrases such as "we evolved from rocks?"Quote:
If creationism can provide more evidence, and more to say for their theory then, "god did it", then sure, teach it. But you cant really teach something that says, if you dont understand it, then god did it.
Can you answer this?
I understand that creationism is lacking evidence.
I also understand evolution is lacking evidence.
BUT WHY SHOULD ONE BE PUT ABOVE THE OTHER IN TERMS OF "BEING THE CORRECT THEORY TO FOLLOW?"
DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?
Why must creationism always be linked to the politics of religion or even religion itself?Quote:
Not to mention, seperation of church and state. If these religious groups want to promote teaching of their beliefs, then they can provide money for it themselves. The Government should not be providing them money to spread their beliefs unless they are providing equal money to every other religion and their belief on the creation of the world and everything else entailed.
We dont need to fund Pastors to tell children creationism is another viable reason as to how we were created.
LOL
Can you not be a creationist without being a christian?
And what you are talking of is just "another" belief which just happens to appeal to you (evolution).
Your in a complete paradox.
Your theory has as much lacking evidence as your opposing theory creationism yet you believe for some reason that yours is true? The same can go for the religious person, their theory is based upon no fact or evidence but they believe it is true.
What is the difference between the two people and their beliefs?
NOTHING
SO WHY SHOULD ONE BE PUT ABOVE THE OTHER?
PROVE EVOLUTION AND/OR CREATIONISM TO BE ABSOLOUTE TRUTH AND THEN YOU ARE AT LIBERTY TO PUT ONE ABOVE THE OTHER, UNTIL THEN WE SHOULD GIVE CHILDREN CREATIONISM AS A VERY GOOD REASON AS TO HOW WE CAME ABOUT.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?
Firstly I am not saying evolution is not correct, im just saying it should be given as a viable option (because it is!) along with evolution!Quote:
So until the government starts providing equal funds for all religious beliefs in regards to this subject, it should not be providing any funds to any of them. The state should not be promoting a "state religion", because that is discriminating against all other beliefs.
This does not mean we must wipe out all evolutionists and this type of thinking, why would we need to do this? This is stupid, we just need to offer it as a viable option (creationism).
I seriously think you guys are blowing this out of proportion, like I said I personally do not have a problem with evolution, some people have, I am very open minded, open minded enough to question my own beliefs, even the ones which form after I have left the former.
I will keep questioning them, I will question evolution, creationism and the great spaghetti monster, I think this is what you call learning, by all means evolution could be true, it is founded upon no evidence YET however so lets atleast provide creationism as a viable option to the children.
Let me explain this to you all.
I know this is not a very nice analogy to use so please forgive me.
If you see a piece of shit on the floor, you may think it is a disgusting piece of matter, yet why not look at the positives? Its relieved someone... Its biodegradable and will probably feed some species of the ecological system.
We must take the positives and negatives of EVERY theory we look at into consideration, this is all I am saying, there is no need to debate with me in regards to evolution being true!
I hope this explains to you exactly what I mean now.
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
I just think it's borderline hilarious that evolutionists are exceedingly quick to call Christians and other creationists "naive", "narrow minded", etc., for believing in the concept of a higher authority, and the remote possibility that they're not at the top of the intelligent-being hierarchy. Yet, they get all defensive when a creationist laughs at the idea that the entire universe, and all the mass therein, was created by some enormous galactic fart known as the infamous "big bang" theory!
As a Christian, I'll raise my children by the word of the Bible. And there's no evolutionist who has a right to tell me I'm wrong...just like I won't judge their beliefs (or lack thereof), and tell them that they should raise their children a certain way. It's not in my nature or religious belief to judge others. Call me ignorant if you really want to, and have nothing better to do with your time...but I'd rather base my beliefs around a theoretical faith in a higher power, as opposed to endless theories concocted by abjectly biased "scientists", who get their rocks off by claiming that the universe created something from nothing and having nothing to back up their assertation - other than more theoretical assertations by like-minded individuals.
LOL - well you certainly don't. You keep mixing it up with Abiogenesis - get your facts straight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallen_Icarus
I'm degree educated in Genetics and Microbiology so go for your life :D
The rest of your post was well.... mostly bold.
Try and understand you don't actually know what you are arguing about. You aren't even arguing about evolution ffs!.
forums like this make me wanna quit smokin cannabis
and move to a country that is not christiania, or jihadistan.
Creationism?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Seriously?!?!?!?!?
wow
And I really like the 'well science is just like a religion too, it's just another belief system and science can't prove anything'
whether you want to admit it or not, you are wrong if this is what you think.
science can't prove anything because nothing can be proven.
and please please show us this complete lack of any evidence supporting the theory of evolution. please say what you mean by 'there's no evidence in support of evolution.' (on this forum i guess it'd be 'THEIRS no evidance four evalution') It's a theory, yes, and it has problems, lots of them. But please be specific when you claim a widely accepted scientific theory comes from nowhere. Not that I care what you say, I'm officially done with this forum. High school stoners wondering how loud God can fart? yikes
As for the original topic, not teaching religious doctrine in public (meaning fucking PUBLIC) schools does not amount to a war against God. This is the United States, and in this country we have freedom of religion. This does not mean ' well us christians are the majority so our religion's gonna get taught in our schools.' Creationism is a religious idea, our schools should be religiously neutral since we have freedom of religion. (I can just hear the replies now)
I think it'd be pretty easy to have a day in class where all theories are introduced, but given equal weight? I honestly think most kids are able to figure out what is bullshit and what is based on reality. So teach intelligent design, creationism, whatever. The students will develop their (There) own spirituality anyways, and if they're (Their) smart, they'll throw aside any spaghetti.
So go ahead with the usual
-quote sentence
-'nuh-uh, nuh-uh! you don't know that for sure! my way is equally likely and thusly better.'
-quote next sentence
-'i teach at princeton and you're wrong!'
bye kids
have fun in the 21st century
Because this is politics. People are trying to use politics to put creationism teaching into our public schools. Or did you miss the earmark for the teaching of creationism. Last I checked, that is federal tax money being given for that, which goes completely against the seperation of church and state. It doesnt have anythign to do with personal beliefs or not, the government should not be funding, or help fund any religion, unless its willing to fund all of them. When we have Islamic viewpoints and Buddist viewpoints on all of this alongside creationism and evolution, then I will have no problem, until then, it is wrong and against the ways of this nation as written by our forefathers that the government in any way help support the spread of one religion or religious viewpoint over others.Quote:
Why must creationism always be linked to the politics of religion or even religion itself?
I am assuming you mispoke there and meant to say creationism somewhere in that first sentence. Otherwise I am not sure what on earth you are trying to say.Quote:
Firstly I am not saying evolution is not correct, im just saying it should be given as a viable option (because it is!) along with evolution!
This does not mean we must wipe out all evolutionists and this type of thinking, why would we need to do this? This is stupid, we just need to offer it as a viable option (creationism).
Creationism is a religious belief that goes against other religions and their beliefs, and has no place being funded by the government in a government funded public school. I dont care what its trying to say, and this has nothing to do with my belief system in any way, its just wrong on a fundamental level. I have no problem with the theory, or the theory being taught, but when my tax money is being put towards something that is obviously biased in that it is not being done for any other religion and their beliefs, then I have a problem. I will not let my taxes promote a specific religion and its beliefs over another. If you want to teach creationism, then you need to teach all the other alternatives. And I dont see what the problem is with that, by your own accord you just want people to be presented all the options.
Public schools should not be a place that promotes any kind of religion, at all, ever. Evolution, at its most basic form, doesnt offend any religion, only when used in hyperbole is it ever anything offensive(we evolved from monkeys, rocks, retarded fish frogs, whatever). Any teacher worth their weight is going to teach students that its a theory, and show the problems with it. If they dont, it is not the fault of the theory, its the fault of the teacher, and teh school system.
But as I have said before, provide teaching on every single religions view on creation and life and whatnot, or none of them at all. There are multiple religions out there that do not agree with creationism in any way, shape or form... and I do not think its right to include some peoples religious beliefs in the teachings at school, but not others. Personally, I think it would be great if schools taught a little bit from every major religion past and present, so that people could be more well rounded and have a better perspective.
Tell me sir, how can you know that those gods listed there are made up? You can easily see the strong bias you have towards your religion of choice, and against all other religions in everything you type. I dont think you are for teachign creationism because you want things to be equal, it has alot more to do with dogma and alot less to do with any noble cause. Maybe I am off base, and if so, then my most humble apologies, but that is exactly how you come off to me.Quote:
You can alter the theories, but this can be done with evolution as well as with creationism, im only to mention the number of different Gods people have made up such as Zeus, Brahma, Wotan, Thaw, and the great spaghetti monster to name but a few.
Ignoring your absolutely abhorant manner of posting with caps and garish colors to draw attention to yourself...Quote:
ALL I AM SAYING IS THAT CREATIONISM SHOULD BE AS VIABLE AS EVOLUTION BECAUSE THEY ARE ON PARR WHEN YOU TAKE IT IN TERMS OF EVIDENCE, EVOLUTION IS NO GREATER A TRUTH IN TERMS OF EVIDENCE THAN CREATIONISM.
Thats fine, and you know what, if you want that, right on. But then I want schools to teach about FSM's version of everything, and Buddhisms, and Greek/Romans version... and every other viewpoint. Because any of those views could stand up to creationism and evolution if you believe that both creationism and evolution have the same amount of evidence to prove them.
We evolved from rocks huh? You sure about that statement, sounds like another one of those horrible exaggerations to me? Kinda like the line that we all evolved from retarded fish frogs.Quote:
But what more evidence do you see for phrases such as "we evolved from rocks?"
I see plenty of evidence though, see thats one of the problems that creationism has in comparison to evolution. We can test the theory of evolution, we can prove if its true or not given enough time. We cant prove shit about creationism. How do you prove or disprove that a God created everything around you? Even if evolution is all true, it still doesnt discredit creationism, which is something alot of pro-creationism people seem to forget about. God could have still made everything, and yet evolution could still be true. Unless you are talking about a Chrisitian version of creationism, but I could have sworn you said earlier that creationism didnt have anything to do with the politics of religion, or religion itself.
Im a philosopher, I think everyone should examine all possibilities instead of just simply accepting one thing as the truth and not searching anymore for answers.Quote:
BUT WHY SHOULD ONE BE PUT ABOVE THE OTHER IN TERMS OF "BEING THE CORRECT THEORY TO FOLLOW?"
That being said, what makes creationism, be it the chrisitian version, or any other, better to teach to people then the FSM theory of creation? Or Greek/Roman creation? Aztec creation?
If you arent willing to teach every possible variety, then I dont see a point in making an outcry for putting one theory above another.
My religious/evolutionary beliefs have little to nothing to do with what I was saying earlier. In fact, I dont think I once brought up anything that had to do with my beliefs at all. I never stated that I believe in evolution, nor have I stated that I do not believe in creationism. Therefore, you must be making assumptions. Might I ask that you stop doing that, as its rude.Quote:
And what you are talking of is just "another" belief which just happens to appeal to you (evolution).
I dont have a problem with any specific theory being discussed here. My fundamental problem with the entire ordeal is that we are taking government money and providing it to spread the beliefs of a SPECIFIC religious belief. And to try to claim otherwise is foolish, as creationism really only applies to a specific branch of religion. Christianity and Judism are not the only religions out there, and plenty of other religions have their views on creation and their own type of creationism, but I dont see you pushing to have those taught.Quote:
PROVE EVOLUTION AND/OR CREATIONISM TO BE ABSOLOUTE TRUTH AND THEN YOU ARE AT LIBERTY TO PUT ONE ABOVE THE OTHER, UNTIL THEN WE SHOULD GIVE CHILDREN CREATIONISM AS A VERY GOOD REASON AS TO HOW WE CAME ABOUT.
I just see the entire situation as very... prejudiced. I believe that every person should be free to have whatever religion they wish, and if you teach specific religious beliefs to students in school, you are not promoting that freedom, you are hindering it. You would not like it if someone was promoting and teaching a religious belief that went against everything you believed in, would you? This is the same thing, as creationism promotes the beliefs of only certain groups of religion, and those beliefs actually do contradict the beliefs of other religions. Evolution is independant of religious belief, because it does not try to answer how everything came to be, in any way. A god could have created everything that exists, but that doesnt disprove evolution, they are truely independant of each other unless you are talking about chrisitian creationism.
Then you have no problem supporting that the earmark in the bill that was providing money to teach creationism in Louisiana, and have it instead go to the teaching of any and all other possible theories along with evolution?Quote:
We must take the positives and negatives of EVERY theory we look at into consideration, this is all I am saying, there is no need to debate with me in regards to evolution being true!
Dont get me wrong, I agree with you, I think that this nation is doing as poorly as it is lately because of the lack of doing that very thing. The philosophers life of questioning everything and always examining things as much as possible has been tossed aside for the instant gratification that comes from ignorance and apathy.
Others may have an issue with creationism itself, but my issue has been and will likely always be with the spending of federal tax dollars on the promotion of a specific religious belief with no attempt to provide similar assistance to all other beliefs, to teach them on an equal playing field. Granted its a major slippery slope fallacy, but I firmly believe that things like this are the first steps taken towards pushing for a state sponsored religion, which isnt something that anyone should really want. The government should have no hand in teaching anything about any religion at all personally, but if they feel something needs to be taught, then they need to teach everything, not just things from a select religious viewpoint.
Quote:
LOL - well you certainly don't. You keep mixing it up with Abiogenesis - get your facts straight.
I'm degree educated in Genetics and Microbiology so go for your life
All the more reason for you to understand the mistakes you have made throughout this "debate".
I have an accountancy and finance degree at LSE but that does not by any means make me a figurehead on financial theory, someone with no degree or qualification could wind up with a theory which could stagger the world of financial theorists.
So again, your wrong, you cant apply your CV to a cannabis forum and demand respect lol.
There is in fact no debate, I or nobody else is trying to prove or disprove evolution, I am just saying that due to the lack of evidence on both parties of evolution and creationism both are just as viable in terms of an option in education.
Prove evolution to be an absolute truth and then you can teach it with removing entire elements of creationism in your teachings.
Until that dayâ?¦
YOU COULD JUST BE WRONG!
DR Zakir Naik is a creationist whom im sure is as qualified as the likes of you, you cannot call him less of a scientist because he is a creationist lol.
You should never give people the opportunity to make a fool of yourself in a debate by saying sensless things which do not have any applicible reason for existence within the structure of the debate.
I did not once say that science cannot PROVE anything, when did I say this?Quote:
And I really like the 'well science is just like a religion too, it's just another belief system and science can't prove anything'
This clearly does not make any sense, anyone who believes science has not the ability to prove anything is clearly wrong.
SCIENCE HAS THE ABILITY TO PROVE THEOREM BUT YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THAT IT HAS NOT YET PROVED EVOLUTION WHICH MAKES CREATIONISM JUST AS VIABLE AS EVOLUTION.
THIS IS SOMETHING EVOLUTIONISTS MUST LIVE WITH UNTIL IT IS PROVEN.
Be careful of how you use your english.
Dont put words in my mouth, you lost your credability 3 posts back do not pile on the proof that you still have no credability or understanding of how to debate.
`Are you serious?Quote:
and please please show us this complete lack of any evidence supporting the theory of evolution. please say what you mean by 'there's no evidence in support of evolution.'
This is like me asking an evolutionist to "please show me the lack of existence of creationism PLEASE!"
Are you serious about this?
Are you being purposely ignorant to annoy me?
You have just answered your own question, (the above one if you dont understand).Quote:
It's a theory, yes, and it has problems, lots of them
Yes the fact that it is a theory means it lacks evidence lol.
Sorry to do this, but im sure your used to having people run rings around you in a debate by now.
Why are you here?Quote:
Not that I care what you say
I didnt bring you here, if you dont care about what I say then why are you here?
Creationism itself can always contain the stereotype of the teachings of the Judea Christian God, yet what you fail to realise is that creationism and the teaching of it will only lead to a religious influx of doctrines and beliefs if we are still to pertain to the thinking that we must have a centralized theory of belief which is also founded upon no evidence as the spearhead of learning.Quote:
Because this is politics. People are trying to use politics to put creationism teaching into our public schools. Or did you miss the earmark for the teaching of creationism. Last I checked, that is federal tax money being given for that, which goes completely against the seperation of church and state. It doesnt have anythign to do with personal beliefs or not, the government should not be funding, or help fund any religion, unless its willing to fund all of them.
There is no need to being in creationism into schools alongside with Judea Christian teachings.
We donâ??t need to do this, we donâ??t have to, like you have pointed out, as there are many different theories to creationism there is also a number of different teachings for evolution (As has been pointed out earlier on in the thread) but teaching universal evolution does not always mean we must also teach every other theory of evolution, singularly the fact that they are all theories puts them on par in terms of evidence etc, which also puts creationism on par with evolution.
So why I ask, we donâ??t have the same ideas to teach creationism as we do when we teach other theories of evolution.
Teaching evolution does not mean we must teach other aspects of evolution and all other schools of thought, the same applies with creationism; the universal theories do not change in their concepts from the flying spaghetti monster to God.
It is still creationism.
I am no creationist, (you may find this hard to believe) but my arguments are in no way against evolution or in favour of creationism, my arguments are in favour of the fact that each can be classed as viable as the other!
Your only argument against this (because your a philosopher which means you should or must consider even your own theories of philosophy you may believe in) is the fact that this will slowly bring the church united with state education.
Can you explain exactly how this will happen?
Can you proclaim here and now that this WILL happen?
Im sure there are creationists whom believe in their theories without believing in a religion.
I was once a creationism who was very far from the doctrines of religion, so why on earth, if I learned this (creationism thinking) in school would it bring me closer to indoctrination to the bible??
Has the teachings of evolution dragged you to the doctrine of the origin of species?
Tell me sir, how can you know that those Gods listed there are not made up?Quote:
Tell me sir, how can you know that those gods listed there are made up?
I think you are finally getting it.Quote:
dont think you are for teachign creationism because you want things to be equal
I not once said I disgree with evolution, yes it is a good theory.
I like this statement, you are a philosopher and not im guessing an out right evolutionist which is why I wont brandish you a complete hypocrite lacking universal understanding of the fact that evolution is as dogmatic as creationism, due to the fact it is lacking the same evidence for universal truth as creationism.Quote:
I dont think you are for teachign creationism because you want things to be equal, it has alot more to do with dogma and alot less to do with any noble cause.
If you actually believe or look into evolution you will find that this is the actual universal concept of Darwinist evolution, right back to the smallest molecule, it actually (according to evolutionists) came out of a rock.Quote:
We evolved from rocks huh? You sure about that statement, sounds like another one of those horrible exaggerations to me? Kinda like the line that we all evolved from retarded fish frogs.
Which is why I donâ??t expect you to understand the above segment of obvious information, but if you were a good philosopher, I would.Quote:
Im a philosopher
If you see plenty of evidence, then why is evolution still a theory?Quote:
I see plenty of evidence though, see thats one of the problems that creationism has in comparison to evolution. We can test the theory of evolution
Infact why am I even here?
Like I said before, evolution is very good for explaining how lower form animals can form into higher form, yet to apply it to our own cause of existence and coming contains as much evidence as believing in the great african tinman.
I accept that evolution COULD be true in our case but saying this is simply backing a theory which you are discussing in the sense of truth.
Philosophize that.
There is just as much chance creationism is correct as evolution, what if evolution is actually wrong?Quote:
How do you prove or disprove that a God created everything around you?
Will you then read "science and the Quran"?
How do you prove that we evolved from rocks?
I can apply your argument against creationism also to evolution without contradiction, because I have been right all along, they are both theories which lack substantial evidence for you to call them truths and believe that one can be placed above the other in terms of validity.
You cannot contradict this, philosophise all you wish and create theories but you cannot contradict my original statement, I still stand by it and stick to the subject.
:thumbsup:Quote:
Dont get me wrong, I agree with you
Even if creationism is true, then it would not discredit evolution, like I said its a good method for survival to evolve around your surroundings, we have formed this method in business as we evolve around consumers and market trends.Quote:
Even if evolution is all true, it still doesnt discredit creationism,
That does not mean to say that a centralized force did not create these markets.
:thumbsup:
There is no need to interlink creationism so constantly as you do with religion.Quote:
This is the same thing, as creationism promotes the beliefs of only certain groups of religion, and those beliefs actually do contradict the beliefs of other religions.
Creationism does not stand apart from the bible and fall without it.
Aliens could have created us.
God could be a particular race of alien.
Allah could be another.
The great spaghetti monster could have come here to earth millions of years ago and engineered us to evolve at this rate.
Are you with me now?
Exactly, evolution could be true, but that does not disprove the existence of god.Quote:
God could have still made everything, and yet evolution could still be true.
SO WHY REMOVE CREATIONISM?
Am I using the wrong word here? Is intelligent design a better word that does not stereotype the Judea Christian biblical indoctrination?
Your actually agreeing with me!
Well, Imitator, I have been saying this all along, but why are people disagreeing with me?Quote:
I think everyone should examine all possibilities instead of just simply accepting one thing as the truth and not searching anymore for answers.
Because they PERCIEVE me to be a creationist dismantling evolution which I am not doing.
What if I am actually an evolutionist having doubts about the validity of evolution?
Many of the theories you are describing all contain the same basic concept of intelligent design, I dont care which God you think did it, it is not our job to convince children in education that this God or that God was responsible for it, it is our responsibility to offer the universal concept of 'intelligent design' as much a viable option and explanation as evolution.Quote:
But then I want schools to teach about FSM's version of everything, and Buddhisms, and Greek/Romans version...
let's follow the argument. This is your reasonQuote:
Originally Posted by Fallen_Icarus
So to change some of the language that I've used in previous posts, but to generally make it mean the same thing...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallen_Icarus
My original reasons for bringing up astrology was based around the fact that astronomy and star positions which have been around a long time gave birth to silly and absurd ideologies SUCH AS astrology.
These points in turn are not communicated effectively in the schooling system, the negative sides to astronomy must be addressed.
Look familiar? You keep saying that you're not trying to use eugenics to show flaws in evolution, yet you do keeps saying that you're trying to show the link between them to show the "negative aspects" of evolution, which seems like a case of poe-tay-toe/poe-tah-toe to me.
How do you figure? I used a silly analogy to show that the link between eugenics and evolution is about the same as the link between astrology and astronomy. You even said, before replying with your own silly analogy, that my scenario was correct. But if the scenario is correct, how does it not apply to evolution and eugenics?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallen_Icarus
If you disagree with my reasoning, point out why it isn't a valid reasoning instead of just resorting to calling it stupid.
You need to make a link to eugenics, it seems, to have an argument that there are "negative aspects" to evolution. Claiming you've made the link by showing that the founders of each are related and that eugenics has a false interpretation of evolution is the best you can do?
You do keep saying that, and you also keep trying to show "negative aspects" of evolution in the same breath.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallen_Icarus
I fail to see the relation between a Dr Dino contest with rules that alter the definition of evolution, has to do with why creationism is a viable option to teach in classrooms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallen_Icarus
The questions have no point in regards to evolution anyways. Who punishes a mantis for killing it's mate? And what does that have to do with evolution?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallen_Icarus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallen_Icarus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallen_Icarus
So because evolution lacks morality, we shouldn't teach it to children? Morality should be as much of a concern with regards to evolution as morality does with math.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallen_Icarus
To be fair, he asked you a question, and you are dodging it entirely here. Answer the question, please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallen_Icarus
Because, the theory of creationism goes against some peoples religoius beliefs. It excludes some religions, and includes others, which in turn promotes some religions, while "disproving" others.Quote:
Creationism itself can always contain the stereotype of the teachings of the Judea Christian God, yet what you fail to realise is that creationism and the teaching of it will only lead to a religious influx of doctrines and beliefs if we are still to pertain to the thinking that we must have a centralized theory of belief which is also founded upon no evidence as the spearhead of learning.
There is no need to being in creationism into schools alongside with Judea Christian teachings.
We donâ??t need to do this, we donâ??t have to, like you have pointed out, as there are many different theories to creationism there is also a number of different teachings for evolution (As has been pointed out earlier on in the thread) but teaching universal evolution does not always mean we must also teach every other theory of evolution, singularly the fact that they are all theories puts them on par in terms of evidence etc, which also puts creationism on par with evolution.
So why I ask, we donâ??t have the same ideas to teach creationism as we do when we teach other theories of evolution.
So what you are saying is you are want a very basic form of creationism that says, in essence, "something created us, the end"? Because if you go past that at all, you are walking into the realm of a specific religion or religions, and are then promoting those religious beliefs above others.Quote:
Teaching evolution does not mean we must teach other aspects of evolution and all other schools of thought, the same applies with creationism; the universal theories do not change in their concepts from the flying spaghetti monster to God.
There is a difference between the simple concept of creationism meaning that something created all that we see, and the specific versions of creationism that people want to teach in the schools.Quote:
It is still creationism.
I havent slated you as anything yet, especially not a creationist. Some people on these forums dont understand that you can talk about a subject and not bring in any bias, or even argue for something that you dont believe in.Quote:
I am no creationist, (you may find this hard to believe) but my arguments are in no way against evolution or in favour of creationism, my arguments are in favour of the fact that each can be classed as viable as the other!
And I believe that there is some viablity in creationism, but I dont think a basic form of creationism deserves to be taught in class, because to exclude religion from it, leaves you with nothing more then a simple statement and thats it.
That is one of my arguements yes. And as I admited, its a bit of a slippery slope fallacy, but this is one of the building blocks towards a government religion. First you have schools teaching a specific religious viewpoint, which gives you the foothold to put more and more religious type things in the schools. Public schools should not promote any religion, ever. Freedom of religion is an important trait of this country, and teaching creationism leads itself to pushing a specific religions viewpoints, as there is no point in teaching creationism if you are going to teach its most basic form. A single statement does not a class make.Quote:
Your only argument against this (because your a philosopher which means you should or must consider even your own theories of philosophy you may believe in) is the fact that this will slowly bring the church united with state education.
Can you explain exactly how this will happen?
Sir, if I could do that, I would be alot richer at the moment. All I can state is how I feel about the subject, and what I think will happen. No one ever has a way to state for certain how something will happen in the future.Quote:
Can you proclaim here and now that this WILL happen?
That some higher being created everything? Ok, thats fine, but I dont think for a second that that is what will be taught in Louisiana. It will be a christian focused version of creationism. Its a christian group that is getting the funding to do it.Quote:
Im sure there are creationists whom believe in their theories without believing in a religion.
I dont believe that evolution has to have anything to do with our origin. I believe that while its possible for evolution to be the key, that there is nothing in the evidence that can prove that without a doubt. However, the true purpose behind the theory of evolution, showing that things do evolve over time, is 100% true in my eyes, and is easily provable.Quote:
I was once a creationism who was very far from the doctrines of religion, so why on earth, if I learned this (creationism thinking) in school would it bring me closer to indoctrination to the bible??
Has the teachings of evolution dragged you to the doctrine of the origin of species?
Too often people combine the theory of evolution with some sort of origin theory. In its basic form, without hyperbole, evolution just says that over time things evolve. Its through other theories that you see things like we evolved from monkeys or single cell organisms and whatnot.
I am not the one who made a statement of fact. I do not state that any gods are real, or not real, as I can not ever really know. Its why I asked you that question, because obviously to make a statement of fact like that, you must have undeniable proof of such things. The burden of proof is on you in this instance.Quote:
Tell me sir, how can you know that those Gods listed there are not made up?
No. THe theory of evolution has been proven. Its a fact. The hyperboles and other theories that have come from the theory of evolution are subject to questioning. There is undeniable scientific proof that things evolve as time goes on. That has nothing to do with theories on origin or anything else.Quote:
I like this statement, you are a philosopher and not im guessing an out right evolutionist which is why I wont brandish you a complete hypocrite lacking universal understanding of the fact that evolution is as dogmatic as creationism, due to the fact it is lacking the same evidence for universal truth as creationism.
Yes, people are very dogmatic in anything they believe, its in the average persons nature. People dont feel right stating they believe in something but they arent entirely sure if its true.
Sorry, you are confusing theories. The theory of evolution doesnt even begin to try to approach origin. Its been a common public misconception, because of popular soundbytes from people, that make them think that evolution HAS to have anything to do with origins. It can explain it if you want, but it does not do so on its own, nor does it try to.Quote:
If you actually believe or look into evolution you will find that this is the actual universal concept of Darwinist evolution, right back to the smallest molecule, it actually (according to evolutionists) came out of a rock.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Is this supposed to be an insult towards me? I understand what you are saying, but your entire premise is flawed because you view evolution as something that has to do with origins.Quote:
Which is why I donâ??t expect you to understand the above segment of obvious information, but if you were a good philosopher, I would.
I dont know if you have noticed, but everything in science is a theory. We dont hold any "facts", because there is no way to know the future, and you dont know for sure that everything that happened before wasnt just a giant coincidence.Quote:
If you see plenty of evidence, then why is evolution still a theory?
A philosopher might say that everything in science is just a theory, and that there is no way to prove anything as being a fact. The future is always ahead of you, and plenty of people in the past thought they had facts at the time, but as time went on it was proven all they had was ignorance.
Evolution doesnt have to explain WHERE humans came from. People using evolution for their own causes caused that idea to exist. Evolution just explains how things work right now, and it doesnt apply to anything in regards to our origin until you start going into subsects of the theory that were made by other people as time went on.Quote:
Like I said before, evolution is very good for explaining how lower form animals can form into higher form, yet to apply it to our own cause of existence and coming contains as much evidence as believing in the great african tinman.
Two wrongs dont make a right. If something is wrong, that doesnt make it ok to teach more wrong things, because that original thing was wrong.Quote:
There is just as much chance creationism is correct as evolution, what if evolution is actually wrong?
Will you then read "science and the Quran"?
As far as "science and the Qu'ran", I try to keep up on science, and have taken a small amount of time to read the Qu'ran, although it is translated to english so its not near as accurate as it could be. Like I said before, I think the problem with this nation is people not taking time to see all the other options, it would be incredibly hypocritical of me to say that and not be doing my best to practice what I preach.
The actually theory of evolution is very provable. People never discuss the actual theory though, they always talk about the theory of evolution in regards to origin. And in that respect, yes, both creationism and evolution are on equal grounds. Both are unable to prove much more then the other that that is how everything started.Quote:
I can apply your argument against creationism also to evolution without contradiction, because I have been right all along, they are both theories which lack substantial evidence for you to call them truths and believe that one can be placed above the other in terms of validity.
You cannot contradict this, philosophise all you wish and create theories but you cannot contradict my original statement, I still stand by it and stick to the subject.
Nope, one doesnt exclude the other at all. Thats what I am getting at. Creationism has jack shit to do with evolution.Quote:
Even if creationism is true, then it would not discredit evolution, like I said its a good method for survival to evolve around your surroundings, we have formed this method in business as we evolve around consumers and market trends.
That does not mean to say that a centralized force did not create these markets.
So what are you wanting to be taught? I dont get it... you are saying its not tied to a religion, but how do you plan on teaching it. The most basic form of creationism with all religion removed from it simply says "something created us". Thats not a class, thats not even a decent seminar.Quote:
There is no need to interlink creationism so constantly as you do with religion.
Creationism does not stand apart from the bible and fall without it.
Aliens could have created us.
God could be a particular race of alien.
Allah could be another.
The great spaghetti monster could have come here to earth millions of years ago and engineered us to evolve at this rate.
Are you with me now?
The popular views of creationism are tied directly into religion. In the case of the Louisianna situation, its tied directly into religion especially, since the money is going to a religious group to promote teaching creationism in public schools.
Am I using the wrong word here? Is intelligent design a better word that does not stereotype the Judea Christian biblical indoctrination?
I dont know about other people, I cant easily speak for them. But I can say that you are promoting the teaching of something that is only worthwhile to teach when tied to religion, but saying religion has nothign to do with it.Quote:
Well, Imitator, I have been saying this all along, but why are people disagreeing with me?
Creationism is pointless to teach in schools if its in its most basic form. Its a one day discussion if that. The only way there is any substance to discuss is when its a religious verison of creationism. And let us not forget that even the most basic form of creationism still goes against some religions.
You are confusing two seperate theories, and claiming they are the same, and attacking the theory thusly. THe problem is, origin based on evolution is not the same as the theory of evolution. And I think thats where the problem here, at least with what we were talking about, is at.