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.

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'
I did not once say that science cannot PROVE anything, when did I say this?

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.

`
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.'
Are you serious?

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?

It's a theory, yes, and it has problems, lots of them
You have just answered your own question, (the above one if you dont understand).

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.

Not that I care what you say
Why are you here?

I didnt bring you here, if you dont care about what I say then why are you here?

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.
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.

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 made up?
Tell me sir, how can you know that those Gods listed there are not made up?

dont think you are for teachign creationism because you want things to be equal
I think you are finally getting it.

I not once said I disgree with evolution, yes it is a good theory.

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.
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.

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.
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.

Im a philosopher
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 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
If you see plenty of evidence, then why is evolution still a theory?

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.

How do you prove or disprove that a God created everything around you?
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"?

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.

Dont get me wrong, I agree with you
:thumbsup:

Even if evolution is all true, it still doesnt discredit creationism,
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.

:thumbsup:

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.
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?

God could have still made everything, and yet evolution could still be true.
Exactly, evolution could be true, but that does not disprove the existence of god.

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!

I think everyone should examine all possibilities instead of just simply accepting one thing as the truth and not searching anymore for answers.
Well, Imitator, I have been saying this all along, but why are people disagreeing with me?

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?

But then I want schools to teach about FSM's version of everything, and Buddhisms, and Greek/Romans version...
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.
Fallen_Icarus Reviewed by Fallen_Icarus on . Some front line views of the war against God. After reading some here I felt this fitting, not so much as a reply but as a dedicated thread. There is a real spiritual war out there against God, and the forces involved know that the "Family", "The Mind", and "Journalism/education" is major spiritual high ground to take. EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed If you have a question about his intellegence and view please note this in His Bio Link below: "He graduated from Columbia University in 1966 with honors in economics and as Rating: 5