The Armor Games website will be down for maintenance on Monday 10/7/2024
starting at 10:00 AM Pacific time. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Forums → WEPR → Evolution, creationism and the school cirriculum
| 697 | 104863 |
Well to start out i dont beleive in evoltuion so the fact that other things cant be taught really ticks me off but i just want to see what people think and why.
- 697 Replies
Whats anything any one on here has explained by saying that
That is not what I am saying. I was saying that it is the general viewpoint. When there is something that can't be explained, creationists just reason that its that way because God willed it that way. It seems like an easy way out. And does not involve critical thinking.
Look at the Irreducible Complexity theory. It basically states that some things in nature are too complex to have arisen by chance, so they must have been designed. It seems like the easy explanation to me. Just because we haven't found the pathway yet does not mean it doesn't exist. Because there is no current explanation as to how the first cell came to be, does not mean that it did not form itself instead of being designed. The fact is, we don't know. But by saying that a designer did it rules out further scientific exploration and critical thinking.
for some but people will still search for answers why because with no back up(and i think there is) i wouldn't be here arguing with you lol.
When there is something that can't be explained, creationists just reason that its that way because God willed it that way
I'll admit some do but i for one and i think i represent a majoirty would never back my self up like that usualy it's the poeple who are christian but don't understand either theroy
Just because we haven't found the pathway yet does not mean it doesn't exist.
This reflects my ealier post on seeing both sides this is when you should admit that creatioism has a stronger point . Just as if you mentioned the fact that we see starlight form what appears to be millions of years ago i'd admit the big bang and evolution does make more sense here
This reflects my ealier post on seeing both sides this is when you should admit that creatioism has a stronger point .
But I don't think it has a stronger point. Why else would I be arguing for evolution? I have looked it up, I have considered the options, and the fact is there is no evidence. Sure, it is a possibility. I just don't think that it is actually what happened.
i'm not saying everything about it but Irreducible Complexity has a lot more going for creationism than evolution
i'm not saying everything about it but Irreducible Complexity has a lot more going for creationism than evolution
That is because it is a theory specifically formulated to defend intelligent design, so of course it is going to better explain creationism over evolution. Of course it is going to back it up. That doesn't make it right though. We come to the same issue again in that irreducible complexity is only a theory. There is no supporting evidence.
Besides, if you read Michael Behe's books, and then his reviews, you will find that the majority of his arguments have been ripped apart. And he admits it. And then he comes out with newer books with newer arguments. And then they get scientifically mauled as well. It is a never ending process of Behe trying to get a complexity argument through. But he has never had evidence, and there is always contradictory science.
That is because it is a theory specifically formulated to defend intelligent design
and theres things like the light form old stars thats made for evolutiona and the big bang
and theres things like the light form old stars thats made for evolutiona and the big bang
I don't think I understand where you are trying to go with this. Could you explain yourself further?
I'm saying that both therories have things that they thought hey if i could prove this it would much better suit my needs creationists aren't the only ones with wedge tactics
creationists aren't the only ones with wedge tactics
Errr... evolution doesn't need a wedge. It has a pretty good hold in science already.
Errr... evolution doesn't need a wedge. It has a pretty good hold in science already.
how would it get there in the first place when creationism or a slighlty ignorant form of it had a hold over almost everyone
how would it get there in the first place when creationism or a slighlty ignorant form of it had a hold over almost everyone
I mean it doesn't currently have a wedge. And it isn't exactly a theory that was accepted straight off. Evolution has been contested and studied for a very long time. So perhaps it needed a wedge to begin with? Or people just recognized its evidence and merits. I am not entirely sure, I am not as familiar with the initial spread of evolutionary belief.
I mean it doesn't currently have a wedge. And it isn't exactly a theory that was accepted straight off. Evolution has been contested and studied for a very long time. So perhaps it needed a wedge to begin with? Or people just recognized its evidence and merits. I am not entirely sure, I am not as familiar with the initial spread of evolutionary belief.
and creationism also is fighting an extremely uphill battle now since it's only recently actauly been able to use science to back it up..a wedge isn't nessicarily a bad thing it jsut helps what u beleive
it's only recently actauly been able to use science to back it up
What is the science? I still have yet to see any science backing up the theory.
ok i've been trying not to say this darn u lol but ya creationism is based a lot on faith atleast form what i've read and please dont take this for all creationist most likley im being ignorant but creationism is more of a negative argument. It's better (again i think my opinion proably wrong) that it does a much better job scientificaly disproving evolution which makes it the logical answer(so i guess positive as well) The science doesn't fit without the faith unless it's reasons why evolution is incorrect
@Samy:
Or: Creaionism have not been proven, but not proven wrong either, because how could anyone prove something wrong, when they cannot prove God is not real...
Theories have a funny thing with being proven wrong, instead of being proven right....
Anyway, Carlie, you know my poin of view about this, so continue on.
You must be logged in to post a reply!