ForumsWEPRIs it OK to teach evolution in public schools?

367 40375
shortstopkid123
offline
shortstopkid123
20 posts
285

Many parents argue about schools teaching evolution. Creationalists do not support or believe in the theory of evolution. It goes against their beliefs. They do not believe it should be taught because it apposes many peoples' beliefs. Do you think that it should be taught?

Notes:
Lets try not point out certain religions. I am saying creationalists for a reason.

  • 367 Replies
KnightDeclan
offline
KnightDeclan
479 posts
280

I think teaching kids something that may contradict their religion is bad. JUST SAYIN! If you have a problem with my religion, Kalic, and the other jerks, then don't respond, cuz it will be a stupid comment that I will not listen to.

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,602 posts
3,605

I think teaching kids something that may contradict their religion is bad.


Why is it bad to contradict religion? What makes religion so inherently valuable that it is wrong to question the validity of it?

Further, evolution is not contradictory to religion in general. Just very specific beliefs.
KnightDeclan
offline
KnightDeclan
479 posts
280

My religion is a very specific belief. How would you like it if I came and doubted something you believed so strongly, and was raised to love. I pity you Kasic, I really do. Maybe if you would just stop feeling guilty of your sins, and open up to religion. Maybe you'll be happier. It's bad to put down religion, yes, because my religion is thousands of years older than this hundred year old theory. I have more faith in it, and trust the sources more. When you look at the crazy things that scientists say, and the logical things religion says, you can only turn to one source. Now I know that you're just gonna find some way to try to prove your point, but I know that deep down inside, you crave religion, but you know that you just aren't strong enough to make the sacrifices and hardships. Weak...

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,602 posts
3,605

Since arguing with you has proven pointless in the past, I'll be brief.

My religion is a very specific belief.


Good for you.

How would you like it if I came and doubted something you believed so strongly, and was raised to love.


That has nothing to do with evolution's validity.

Maybe if you would just stop feeling guilty of your sins, and open up to religion. Maybe you'll be happier.


1) Has nothing to do with this topic.
2) I'm quite happy.

It's bad to put down religion, yes, because my religion is thousands of years older than this hundred year old theory.


1) Irrelevant
2) Has no impact on validity.

When you look at the crazy things that scientists say, and the logical things religion says, you can only turn to one source.


*facepalm*

Yes, religion is so logical...so much so that this statement here is a logical fallacy, " It's bad to put down religion, yes, because my religion is thousands of years older than this hundred year old theory."

Now I know that you're just gonna find some way to try to prove your point, but I know that deep down inside, you crave religion, but you know that you just aren't strong enough to make the sacrifices and hardships. Weak...


1) Another logical fallacy.
2) Off topic.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,544 posts
2,210

How would you like it if I came and doubted something you believed so strongly, and was raised to love.


Please do so. I would rather not believe something that is wrong. Just remember to bring objective verifiable evidence to the table. And do remember your argument will be scrutinized.

Correcting error, even long held error is not a bad thing.

Maybe if you would just stop feeling guilty of your sins, and open up to religion.


Considering a sin is a violation of God's will and Kasic doesn't believe such a being exists. It would be rather hard to feel guilty about it.

It's bad to put down religion, yes, because my religion is thousands of years older than this hundred year old theory.


Age doesn't make something more valid. If it did there would be religions far more valid than yours.

I have more faith in it, and trust the sources more.


So your believing it with out evidence and trusting a colbed together, re-edited, self contradicting, factually inaccurate source more than a heavily evidenced, observed phenomena that has stood up to some of the harshest scrutiny we can possibly throw at it?

When you look at the crazy things that scientists say, and the logical things religion says, you can only turn to one source.


What crazy things would these be and what logical things is this religion saying? You mean logical things like talking snakes, magic spit, This thing...

http://coventryrm.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/cockatrice.png

(yeah it's in there, Isaiah 11:8, Isaiah 14:29, Isaiah 59:5, Jeremiah 8:17. NIV changed the word to viper.)

Or one of my favorites the whole of the human race coming from two people.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,406 posts
2,680

I think teaching kids something that may contradict their religion is bad.

Have you ever tried to teach someone of a different faith about your religion? Wouldn't that be bad?

How would you like it if I came and doubted something you believed so strongly, and was raised to love.

A belief so strong, yet so unbacked that any doubt is a threat...

because my religion is thousands of years older than this hundred year old theory.

So is the tradition of slavery. Doesn't make it right.
KnightDeclan
offline
KnightDeclan
479 posts
280

Kasic, good job proving your point...oh wait, no, they're quite lackluster. Also, *******es, I didn't say anything about validity lol. You're going against what I was saying was valid, yet I don't remember saying valid. Also, trying to convert and totally putting down someones religion are two totally different things. Also, I'm not saying that it's the most valid, even though I believe it is, I'm just saying i believe it more than newer things. You're all too stupid to understand. For instance, if your father told you one thing, and your little sister told you the opposite, which would you believe? If you have half a brain, you'll see what I'm getting at. I'm not doubting evolution totally, I just trust the older, more credible source. The theory of evolution was posited by Charles Darwin and was published in 1859. "Evolution is the idea that living things in our world have come into being through unguided naturalistic processes starting from a primeval mass of subatomic particles and radiation, over approximately 20 billion years"(What Is The" n.d.). Darwin's general theory presumes the" development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature)"(Darwin's Theory Of" n.d.).
Rebuttal
Evolution is false because it cannot give a full explanation of our origins. It can't take us right back to the beginning of the story. In order for evolutionary processes to get going, things must already be the case. For example: "there must be biological organisms; there must be an environment capable of supporting them; they must be capable of reproduction; random mutations must introduce variety"("Can Evolution Explain" n.d). The problem is that, where did simple organisms capable of reproduction come from? How are environments capable of supporting life? Evolution cannot provide answers to these questions, because evolutionary processes cannot occur until these conditions are met.Organs.
The human brain is one of the most complex things known to man. The brain stores an amazingly huge amount of information. The brain takes in all the colors and objects people see, the temperature around people, the pressure of someone's feet against the floor, the sounds around, the dryness of the mouth, even the texture of the keyboard. The brain holds and processes all natural emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time the brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of the body like for example breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands. The human brain processes more than a million messages a second. The brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows people to focus and operate effectively in the world. The brain functions differently than other organs "(Adamson n.d).There is intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people. God created the human brain, because something as complex and intelligent can only be created by someone as complex and super intelligent like God.
The eye can distinguish among seven million colors. "It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages -- simultaneously. Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain -- the start of living organisms from nonliving matter" (Adamson n.d). The only answer is God.

As Catholics we believe that God created everything and he has no begining.Evolution on the other hand, has a begininng. Tell me what came before bacteria and before that and etc.. Science has not found the answer to that yet.
Even einstein himself believes theres a God and he is classfily as one of the most respected scientist of all time.(Not saying hes Catholic). If someone as smart as him, who has dedicated his whole life to science believes that only God has created everything what does that say of science itself. He himself knows that theres somethings science can't prove. Science can not prove everything. On the other hand Catholcism proves everything, because the only explanition to everything is God.

Motion.
One reason why God prove evolution wroong is the argument of motion posited by Thomas Aquinas Catholic Phlisopher). His first proof was that "some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there cant' be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover" (Aquinas n.d). Thus, if Aquinas' argument is correct, "the degree of the truth of the conclusion would be comparable to the conclusions of the findings of modern science. It is important to see that since no claim is made as to the certainty of the conclusion but only as to its probability, the argument cannot be criticized on the grounds that the conclusion does not follow with absolute necessity.Also, note that the concept of motion involves dependency, not necessarily temporal succession. In other words, the argument from motion relies on the concepts of potentiality and actuality rather than that of causal sequence."("The argument of" 2012). Evident to our senses in motionâ"the movement from actuality to potentiality. Things are acted on. An example would be an actual oak tree is what produces the potentiality of an acorn. Unless there is a first mover , there can be no motion, taking away the actual is to take away the potential. In these terms, which came first the chicken or the egg? Another example would be "the reason a student has the potential to be awake is that he had (actual) toast for breakfast. Toast has the potential to keep the student awake. But (actual) bread has the potential to become toast, and actual grain has the potential to become bread. Actual water, dirt, and air have the potential to become grain. To take away any of these actualities is ultimately to take away the potential for the student to be alert"( " The Argument of" 2012). Aquinas is not rejecting an indefinite or an infinite series as such; the idea is that a lower element depends on a higher element as in a hierarchy, not a temporal series.

A First.
Thomas Aquinas' third proof is "Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing"(Aquinas n.d). What the argument means "since objects in the universe come into being and pass away, it is possible for those objects to exist or for those objects not to exist at any given time. Since objects are countable, the objects in the universe are finite in number .If, for all existent objects, they do not exist at some time, then, given infinite time, there would be nothing in existence. (Nothing can come from nothingâ"there is no creation) for individual existent objects. But, in fact, many objects exist in the universe. Therefore, a Necessary Being (i.e., a Being of which it is impossible that it should not exist) exists ( "The argument of", 2012).
One way to think about Thomas' argument is to consider "a straight line extending without bound representing time. If one takes a finite number of line segments of a specific length representing the time of existence of objects in the world and places them on that line, then most of the unbounded time-line would be unoccupied. That is, very little of the time would objects exist. Thus, there must be something necessary upon which these existent objects depend since at the present time it would so improbable that objects should exist"

nichodemus
online
nichodemus
14,328 posts
24,220

Evolution is false because it cannot give a full explanation of our origins. It can't take us right back to the beginning of the story. In order for evolutionary processes to get going, things must already be the case. For example: "there must be biological organisms; there must be an environment capable of supporting them; they must be capable of reproduction; random mutations must introduce variety"("Can Evolution Explain" n.d). The problem is that, where did simple organisms capable of reproduction come from? How are environments capable of supporting life? Evolution cannot provide answers to these questions, because evolutionary processes cannot occur until these conditions are met.Organs.
The human brain is one of the most complex things known to man. The brain stores an amazingly huge amount of information. The brain takes in all the colors and objects people see, the temperature around people, the pressure of someone's feet against the floor, the sounds around, the dryness of the mouth, even the texture of the keyboard. The brain holds and processes all natural emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time the brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of the body like for example breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands. The human brain processes more than a million messages a second. The brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows people to focus and operate effectively in the world. The brain functions differently than other organs "(Adamson n.d).There is intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people. God created the human brain, because something as complex and intelligent can only be created by someone as complex and super intelligent like God.


The process of life starting is called abiogenesis. Evolution not equal abiogenesis. You should try reading about it sometime, instead of thinking that God is the answer everytime something in the cosmic unknown rears its head and scares the clergy and its flock, because they've never encountered it before.
KnightDeclan
offline
KnightDeclan
479 posts
280

You're obviously too lazy to read this, but i could go on forever. My religion was started by God, your belief by man. If you don't believe in God, then... well, I don't think we can have an argument. For an argument you need to have some common belief, which would not be satisfactory unless it be God.

nichodemus
online
nichodemus
14,328 posts
24,220

You're obviously too lazy to read this, but i could go on forever. My religion was started by God, your belief by man. If you don't believe in God, then... well, I don't think we can have an argument. For an argument you need to have some common belief, which would not be satisfactory unless it be God.


I've read your entire argument, and it can be summed up in that statement. Evolution IS NOT the theory about the start of life. You claim that we need a common understanding to discuss, yet claim that understanding is YOUR answer.

Now that's not an argument, but a sermon, and a pretty narrowminded, bigoted one at that.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,602 posts
3,605

You're obviously too lazy to read this, but i could go on forever.


The blatant hypocrisy is really irking me, KnightDeclan. You're the one who has not responded to any of our points, whilst we continually address yours.

My religion was started by God,


So you say.

your belief by man.


Except evolution isn't a "belief." It's far, far, far, infinitely more proven than your religion. It actually has a single piece of evidence for it.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,406 posts
2,680

Please cite/link where you copy and paste from.

Science has not found the answer to that yet.

Exactly. They're working on it.

The only answer is God.

Even if that is the answer, where does that advance us? Can we apply God to medical research? If He's got all the answers, let's all drop to our knees for cancer cures instead of doing anything productive.

Even einstein himself believes theres a God

Even Einstein himself described the very notion of your god as naive and childlike.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,544 posts
2,210

For instance, if your father told you one thing, and your little sister told you the opposite, which would you believe?


Let's use Santa Claus as an example. Your father tells you that Santa is coming. Your little sister says Santa isn't real and that the presents are from your parents. She further backs up this claim by showing you the stash of toys your parents are hiding. By your argument you would dismiss your little sister and continue to believe your father that Santa is coming to deliver the very presents you were just shown.

The theory of evolution was posited by Charles Darwin and was published in 1859.


Darwin didn't come up with the theory of evolution. he came up with the mechanism by which it works.

"Evolution is the idea that living things in our world have come into being through unguided naturalistic processes starting from a primeval mass of subatomic particles and radiation, over approximately 20 billion years"


That's not what evolution is. This appears to have mashed together the Big Bang and abiogenesis with a completely made up time line which doesn't at all match what what scientist actually claim the age of the universe to be.

development of life from non-life


Evolution makes no presumption.

Evolution is false because it cannot give a full explanation of our origins.


Totally irrelevant to the theory. It's speaking of what life did after it already existed. If the origin of life was a god, abiogenesis, aliens or some other as yet unknown process makes no difference.

God created the human brain, because something as complex and intelligent can only be created by someone as complex and super intelligent like God.


That would seem to suggest that God would have to have been created. If not then obviously an intelligence can exist without being created by a greater intelligence. In such a case we can simply save the step of God. Not to mention we can see the evolutionary process within the layering of not just the human brain but in every species.

The eye can distinguish among seven million colors. "It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages -- simultaneously.


And functions completely backwards in humans.

Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain -- the start of living organisms from nonliving matter" (Adamson n.d). The only answer is God.


In other words "I don't know, therefore God." Unfortunately for this argument.
The Origin of the Brain
Evolution Of The Brain
And
Evolution of the eye
The Evolution of the EYE

Evolution on the other hand, has a begininng. Tell me what came before bacteria and before that and etc..


Even more simplistic organisms, basic organic compounds, basic chemical compounds, The planet made up of the various elements, those elements floating around space in a dust cloud, supernova, a protostar, hydrogen helium and a couple other trace elements, electrons protons neutrons and quarks, just electrons and quarks, singularity.

Oh, you didn't actually want an answer did you?

Even einstein himself believes theres a God


Besides the plea to authority fallacy.

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -Albert Einstein

Einstein was an pantheist, going with Spinozism

One reason why God prove evolution wroong is the argument of motion posited by Thomas Aquinas Catholic Phlisopher). His first proof was that "some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there cant' be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover"


Oh the cosmological argument

From the link.
"1. It does prove enough, but instead replaces the proposed problem with a larger problem. If the universe was made by a god because nothing can exist without cause, then something must have "caused"/made that god, otherwise the argument requires special pleading to make its point. If something else were to make that god, he would not be the god of creation anymore. It has been argued, however, that God can exist without cause, because he, unlike everything else, is pure act.

2. It is non-specific: Even if the universe was devised by some creative force, there is no evidence that this creative force was a religious god. There are an infinite number of causes other than a human-inspired god that could have caused the creation of the universe. The creator of the universe need not even be supernatural, or sentient or intelligent to satisfy this argument of "first cause".

3. In addition to these, the argument makes the assumption that a causal chain of events cannot be infinite, that it must terminate at a point. While the nature of cause and effect is observed by experiment (within the limits of the uncertainty principle at least), whether this chain can be infinite or not is certainly not mandated by experiment and is only inductively preferred. One could even consider it an act of begging the question to assume that a causal chain is finite in order to prove a first cause.
"

Thus, if Aquinas' argument is correct,


As shown, it's flawed.

Here's more, http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Cosmological_argument
Counter arguments presented on wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#Objections_and_counterarguments
An d just to beat this dead horse, http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/cosmological.html

What the argument means "since objects in the universe come into being and pass away, it is possible for those objects to exist or for those objects not to exist at any given time.


On the most basic level this isn't happening. It's just matter/energy rearranging, changing states.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/p480x480/601992_501555299904307_1470307392_n.jpg
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,614 posts
20,745

The blatant hypocrisy is really irking me, KnightDeclan. You're the one who has not responded to any of our points, whilst we continually address yours.

Well then don't. He has shown clear enough that he won't be argued with. Every post of him is trying to guilt-trip us into his erroneous fanatism, what he thinks to be the only right way. We can go on throwing proof at him as much as we want, it won't matter. So why not leaving him to his little fantasy world.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,544 posts
2,210

We can go on throwing proof at him as much as we want, it won't matter. So why not leaving him to his little fantasy world.


Personally I was more interested in addressing his arguments for people on the side line who either might be questioning their views or wouldn't know what to say if faced with these arguments.

It's pretty clear KnightDeclan is completely closed minded and apparently finds it offensive to even try and change his mind.
Showing 241-255 of 367