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 | 104872 |
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
This actually resulted in a court case because a school teacher in Arkansas taught evolutionism when creationsism was taught in schools. He was taken to court and the top lawyers from both sides of the argument clashed. Evolutionism won and thats why its now taught in American schools.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epperson_v._Arkansas
This actually resulted in a court case because a school teacher in Arkansas taught evolutionism when creationsism was taught in schools. He was taken to court and the top lawyers from both sides of the argument clashed. Evolutionism won and thats why its now taught in American schools.
Ya I saw that on PBS lol, but again the main problem with both arguments is faith is needed for both, and for the majority of people who don't believe in God evolution has to be right, and while the judge was conservative I believe he was an atheist.
If sombody could prove there is a giant flying spaghetti monster, then they would have to teach that silly lie.
with both arguments is faith is needed for both
Not nescessarily. Belief in science and scientific evidence is different from faith. Belife based on facts is not the same. You can easily see how in a court case how the evolutionist side won and fairly spectacularly too. The creationist side was humiliated. Why do you think there havent been any further serious attempts at a law suit if so many people feel so stroongly about creationism. Because every lawyer knows that it is almost impossible to win since court cases are based on evidence not on religious beliefs.
So why do we learn about atoms, electrons, how combustable some substances are. We learn about the big bang! So now how do they expect to integrate any of this?
Not nescessarily. Belief in science and scientific evidence is different from faith. Belife based on facts is not the same. You can easily see how in a court case how the evolutionist side won and fairly spectacularly too. The creationist side was humiliated. Why do you think there havent been any further serious attempts at a law suit if so many people feel so stroongly about creationism. Because every lawyer knows that it is almost impossible to win since court cases are based on evidence not on religious beliefs.
Eh...I'd disagree it's still faith in a lot of things, a lot of the things they base there findings on previous guesses like carbon dating they asume that the ratio of carbon-14 to nitrogen has always been the same. Also as i said before i think the judge believed in evolution, the verdict will always be incredibly biased. For creationism or evolution.
like carbon dating they asume that the ratio of carbon-14 to nitrogen has always been the same.
Carbon dating isnt actually used much anymore. It can only look back tens of thousands of years. Intead they now use radio active dating using the half life of radioactive materials as that goes back millions of years, the amount of time needed to study evolution. Carbon dating has been proved to be incredibly accurate over a few thousand years when archaeologists study them.
Ya I saw that on PBS lol, but again the main problem with both arguments is faith is needed for both,
Really?
Faith: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
Call it what you want but your having faith that there is no God, that he earth is billions of years old, ect.
So why do we learn about atoms, electrons, how combustable some substances are. We learn about the big bang! So now how do they expect to integrate any of this?
Well... instead of saying 'big bang' you say 'God' and its all the same for the most part. Well, ID does say evolution is guided by a higher power and not just advancement due to random mutations creating new, superior species.
The major argument in favor of ID in the arena of evolution is the Cambrian Explosion. At the beginning of the Cambrian era most of the major complex animal groups of today sprang up out of the aether. Natural selection, as envisioned by Darwin, has yet to explain the Cambrian Explosion. Perhaps biology will have a major paradigm shift capable of explaining this... or maybe the big G is involved.
As I've stated before, I'm fairly sure that by definition, "scientific creationism" is an oxymoron. The appropriate way to think about the terms is in some kind of 'evidence compatible' form of creationism. That's not a problem here.
From page 39, because this is a good opportunity to explain by example:
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.
Samy, what you're saying here is actually a perfectly good demonstration of what you professed not to understand:
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
Note how you said, in your original quote, that 'being the "fittest" can lead to your death'. If this is the case then those characteristics that would make you 'fit' in one sense no longer apply, and therefore those characteristics no longer make you the "fittest". Because by definition, being the "fittest" means being able to survive, thrive, and propogate.
This therefore perfectly fits with what I'm saying: the characteristics that make a living being "fit" in one circumstance will change as those circumstances change. And by the very nature of nature itself, they will.
The issue then with the bulk of Creationist and Intelligent Design ideas is that they both assume that there is some kind of "erfect point" or telos to which people are developing. This assumes that the universe (or at least our observable part of it) will somehow become static, an idea I cannot support. Our functions are being modified and optimising yes, but not necessarily towards any single one arbitrarily defined point.
The issue then with the bulk of Creationist and Intelligent Design ideas is that they both assume that there is some kind of "erfect point" or telos to which people are developing. This assumes that the universe (or at least our observable part of it) will somehow become static, an idea I cannot support. Our functions are being modified and optimising yes, but not necessarily towards any single one arbitrarily defined point.
if your saying creationists are that 100% false. In fact the world is headed for a point of deception and tribulation, great deception and tribulation (not to be a doomsayer :S)
if your saying creationists are that 100% false.
That would be distorting my conclusions, which I would strongly encourage you not to do.
There are many steps to mounting an argument. But all coherent arguments begin with a set of premises, which are the set of things that you assume to be true, from which you base the rest of your argument. Depending on the person, most Creationists, except those who allow for the co-existence of Creationism and Evolutionism, tend to make the following errors:
1) What you've quoted above, which means that I disagree with their premises. Not quite the same as saying 100% false because you can make good arguments and also correct conclusions from false premises, but if these premises are held then scope for debate is limited.
2) Question-begging premises, i.e. "it's true because it's true, and therefore this argument proves it's true." Quite an easy trap to fall into if you're a religious person in a rational discussion because the first thing that people of faith must assume is the existence and properties of God. Proper evolutionists base their premises on fundamental mechanisms of life and ecology, which is widely backed by observation.
3) Contradictory arguments, often poorly avoided by equivocation. That God must be omniscient and omnipotent makes for a myriad of semantic issues over what God can do and what god did and why God did what God did if God were wholly benevolent. Then of course, this would bring me to...
4) Catch-alls and cop-outs, which are like the question begging premises except at the end, not the beginning. Once frustrated with arguments, one can always go back to reasserting that we can't possibly understand God but God did it anyway. And if you can accept this, that's actually fine.
Unlike many so-called evolutionists, I don't wish to impinge on religious peoples' right to practice their belief, but like many people I would also like to have my rights to my own beliefs respected. In this case I favor theories of evolution and do not favor Creationist myth (I mean this to describe the nature of the story, not to say that it is a 'lie', because as far as I can tell, theories of evolution give me a much more powerful explanation on that which I observe, and it's useful to me in my profession and the way I deal with people. People from different backgrounds can't possibly expect me to throw these away and adopt something on the grounds of an experience that I have no clue about, when they have no clue about my own.
And that, on a tangential note, is why arguing on the internet is often useless.
In fact the world is headed for a point of deception and tribulation, great deception and tribulation (not to be a doomsayer :S)
This would be sophistry, specifically using fear tactics to attempt to gain a rhetorical foothold. I especially strongly discourage anybody from doing this on the forums for two reasons.
1) It brands you politically, and once this happens you're generally locked into a useless, acrimonious battle of egos or mud-flinging between the Religious and Atheists, Liberals and Conservatives, Reds and Blues, Left and Right, Democrats and Republicans, or what have you.
2) It completely undermines any rationality you may have been credited with, which means nobody with serious intent to discussion is going to want to listen to you anymore.
And never ever say "but it's true!" as the opening to your counter-rebuttal, because that is instant death.
This would be sophistry, specifically using fear tactics to attempt to gain a rhetorical foothold. I especially strongly discourage anybody from doing this on the forums for two reasons.
Actualy it's just what i believe, I believe the bible is true and I take Revelations seriously, so that would be my conclusion, I wasn't trying to use fear tactics, I hate fear tactics lol.
Unlike many so-called evolutionists, I don't wish to impinge on religious peoples' right to practice their belief, but like many people I would also like to have my rights to my own beliefs respected. In this case I favor theories of evolution and do not favor Creationist myth (I mean this to describe the nature of the story, not to say that it is a 'lie', because as far as I can tell, theories of evolution give me a much more powerful explanation on that which I observe, and it's useful to me in my profession and the way I deal with people. People from different backgrounds can't possibly expect me to throw these away and adopt something on the grounds of an experience that I have no clue about, when they have no clue about my own.
[url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/12/06/news-to-note-12062008]
Most evolutionists have this thought that to be "tolerant" no religions can be involved at all, I would disagree. Recently evolutionists protested the cincinati zoo partnering with the creation museum for a dual ticket to go to both. The zoo cut the promotion off it really seems (to me atleast) like every evolutionist is extremely intolerant of all other beliefs.
You must be logged in to post a reply!