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 | 104878 |
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
A change to the original constitution.
Umm, I don't think the Bill of Rights has ever been changed, sorry. If, by the original constitution, you mean the Articles of Confederation, the two documents are entirely different.
So, there may not be so much evidence for Evolution
I daresay this only reflects how much you actually understood.
Also I have a question, according to evolution our world should be improving, we should be heading for a perfect world and humanity, our next evolutionary leap.
Zootsuit said it, you've made a common but grave misunderstanding of evolutionary principles, furthermore:
Actauly survival of the fittest is refering to what organism has the most offspring in a set time
This is also absolutely incorrect. Survival of the fittest, by definition, would be whether any of those offspring actually survive to reproduce and in turn generate their own offspring. Obvious, no?
The beauty of the evolutionary model is that it reminds us that environments change as a direct consequence of ecological dynamics- competition. Changes in one set of attributes will result in changes in interactions and therefore in the attributes favored in other species. In this way this theory is more compatible than most Creationist interpretations which tend to favor a 'static perfection' in order to be compatible with "erfect God" assertions, because it reflects that "everything is connected to everything", a wisdom among indigenous peoples all around the world that has proven to be far more correct than any half-baked theory of the colonialists.
Though I'll give you this:
The term "leaps" refer to huge changes over a short period of time, which doesn't happen
One of the most significant challenge to evolutionary theory is how it could possibly account for the changes required to develop sight.
Why not let the majority rule?
How could you seriously resort to such a cheap tactic at a juncture like this? I'm sorry, but that's a complete cop-out and you really should have known better.
Simply put, knowledge is power. The majority do not have knowledge. Though I will stop short of saying that the most knowledgeable should actually control social direction, because that would be downright arrogant.
Rather, I will use this knowledge in conjunction with charisma, determination and a grand plan to garner the influence required to exercise this knowledge as power!
Rather, I will use this knowledge in conjunction with charisma, determination and a grand plan to garner the influence required to exercise this knowledge as power!
Sorry for offtopic post, but...
STROP4PREZ '12 haha. If only you were born in America, huh?
Ok, ok. I'm done, then. with that arguement.
But I wonder, How is it that a creature would know about the need for certain bodily mechanisms to make them stronger?
How is it that a creature would know about the need for certain bodily mechanisms to make them stronger?
What? Animals don't realize that they are adapting. It simply happens. To get to the point where humans are at, (sentient beings with advanced thought patterns) all the species we left behind us simply survived, and then adapted naturally.
This is also absolutely incorrect. Survival of the fittest, by definition, would be whether any of those offspring actually survive to reproduce and in turn generate their own offspring. Obvious, no?
Correct but as shown by sea lions being the "fittest" can lead to your death. A group of sea lines only mated on one certain small rocky island, however a genetic mutation occured in one male and he took up residence on another island. So his offspring were the "fittest" for an amount of time but soon every sea lion in the area died because of lack of food. So getting around to my point i believe it one in every 100,000 mutations that could be considered as good, but only for a short amount of time. Also the good mutations get covered up almost all of the time.
In this way this theory is more compatible than most Creationist interpretations which tend to favor a 'static perfection' in order to be compatible with "erfect God" assertions, because it reflects that "everything is connected to everything", a wisdom among indigenous peoples all around the world that has proven to be far more correct than any half-baked theory of the colonialists.
I'm not sure what your trying to say here sorry.
Still, the giant flying spagetti monster would need to be taught i some one presented enough evidence of it's existance.
Still, the giant flying spagetti monster would need to be taught i some one presented enough evidence of it's existance.
Again I'm asking to teach the scientific part of creationism, so find some proof that supports that the flying spagetti monster made every thing you can teach it.
Im going into this discussion now... I don't plan on reading the previous pages though so ill tell my point of view and how. I'm 100% sure that evolution is true. When an animal becomes mutated and the mutation is good for it, the mutation gets stored in the animal genes and enchances a small bit every generation. After a couple of hundred thousand years the change in the genes is big enought to be noticable, and thats how evolution works. Thats my point of view and how evolution works. besides, you only disagree with the evolution theory because you believe that the earth is 5000 years old, which it says in the bible.
Again I'm asking to teach the scientific part of creationism,
*Ahem*...How many times will we have to cover this? Creationism has absolutely no scientific backing to it. If it did, it wouldn't be considered Creationism. As you've said before, it is based on faith and faith alone.
Creationism=Intelligent Design. Therefore, ID has no scientific backing to it, and should not be taught in a science classroom.
Samy, there is only slightly less evidence that the flying spaghetti monster created the earth than that God did it. There is no proof for evolution or creationism. There is only evidence. Also, can you point me to the scientific part of creationism? From what I've read and heard, it seems to defy the laws of physics.
I believe that Strop was meaning this: The typical Christian theory holds a view of perfection that is unchanging. One can draw from the theory of evolution that, as we evolve, the idea of perfection changes.
Yes, which provoks anyone to say there's a giant flying spaghetti monster that they worship!
*Ahem*...How many times will we have to cover this? Creationism has absolutely no scientific backing to it. If it did, it wouldn't be considered Creationism. As you've said before, it is based on faith and faith alone.
Creationism=Intelligent Design. Therefore, ID has no scientific backing to it, and should not be taught in a science classroom.
-.- no there's a lot BUT without faith you can't believe it if you don't think God exists than it's wrong but if he does then science shows his "finger prints"
Im going into this discussion now... I don't plan on reading the previous pages though so ill tell my point of view and how. I'm 100% sure that evolution is true. When an animal becomes mutated and the mutation is good for it, the mutation gets stored in the animal genes and enchances a small bit every generation. After a couple of hundred thousand years the change in the genes is big enought to be noticable, and thats how evolution works. Thats my point of view and how evolution works. besides, you only disagree with the evolution theory because you believe that the earth is 5000 years old, which it says in the bible.
No i disagree because God made the earth in six day's which it says in the bible.
it seems to defy the laws of physics.
what? and ill give you the link to a website that has some evidence again you have to except that IF God is real and IF the world is only 5000 years old than it makes more sense, other wise your being ignorant, when i read a paper on evolution it makes sense if there is no God and the world is billions of years old, we have to have faith in the beggining of either theory or else it doesn't make sense.
[url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/]
Samy, there is only slightly less evidence that the flying spaghetti monster created the earth than that God did it.
according to the flying spahetti monster (religion...?) he extend his tentacles and changes a scientists reading to make it look like carbon dating say's something is older than it is, type in carbon 14 dating on that website and youl see why creationists say it's wrong, which makes more sense?
Aside from the obvious scientific oversights, creationism should not be taught in schools because the school cirriculum should be kept secular not religious. Many Americans criticise other countries so harshly for not having basic freedoms like for example freedom of religion. If it was taught in schools then you would be able to compare America with countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran. Even though in the eyes of some people this is not nescessarily a bad thing it goes against the ideals upon which America was founded.
[url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj]
theres another, a peer reviewed jurnal.
You must be logged in to post a reply!