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 | 104867 |
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
Again I'll post a link to a creationist website that includes a peer reviewed journal,
Again I'll post a link to a creationist website
a link to a creationist website
creationist website
creationist
For some reason, I don't want to believe a word that site says. Can't quite place my finger on it though...
For some reason, I don't want to believe a word that site says. Can't quite place my finger on it though...
Maybe becasue it could undermine what you think?Or your just to ignorant to agree that ya that does make sense.
@Basha go to
answersingenesis.com
Maybe becasue it could undermine what you think?
Wrong...It's a creationist site, founded on the basis of disproving evolution. Generally, when people put up arguments for the sake of disproving something, the results end up with some amount of bias, varying on the source. You could, of course argue that evolution is founded on debasing religion, but it is not. The process of evolution occurs naturally, and can thus be observed. It is simply a theory meant to explain scientifically how man arrived at the point we currently are at now.
Whereas, the site you are attempting to get people to go to, is chock full of this bias. The site itself was made to make claims against evolution, and therefore should not be trusted if one is going to make a fair, balanced argument.
Or your just to ignorant to agree that ya that does make sense.
I do not think you understand the definition of ignorance, samy. For one, I have knowledge that there is bountiful proof hinting at evolution taking place for the billions of years that the Earth has been around.
However, your refusal to accept scientific findings that have been backed up by an overwhelming majority of scientists in the past five decades or so cannot be classified as ignorance either. There is a less polite name for it, but I will simply say you are being stubborn.
I do not think you understand the definition of ignorance, samy. For one, I have knowledge that there is bountiful proof hinting at evolution taking place for the billions of years that the Earth has been around.
However, your refusal to accept scientific findings that have been backed up by an overwhelming majority of scientists in the past five decades or so cannot be classified as ignorance either. There is a less polite name for it, but I will simply say you are being stubborn.
Findings like what?I think your being ignorant in your beliefs that there is no God. Also I'm a very scientific person, I'm not stupid, but when I look at the two theories I think creationism makes more sense. I'll admit evolution has better points on some arguments but I believe creationism has more, better arguments.
Wrong...It's a creationist site, founded on the basis of disproving evolution. Generally, when people put up arguments for the sake of disproving something, the results end up with some amount of bias, varying on the source. You could, of course argue that evolution is founded on debasing religion, but it is not. The process of evolution occurs naturally, and can thus be observed. It is simply a theory meant to explain scientifically how man arrived at the point we currently are at now.
Whereas, the site you are attempting to get people to go to, is chock full of this bias. The site itself was made to make claims against evolution, and therefore should not be trusted if one is going to make a fair, balanced argument.
Have you read the website?The great majority of the things on there are about proving creationism, and find me a site that is truly un-biased.
The process of evolution occurs naturally, and can thus be observed
I would have to disagree with that statement. My reason being that evolution in itself is a very long process and no single human has been around to watch one species acquire different traits that suggests the transformation into another species altogether.
The only sources that evolutionists can really draw from (along with creationists) are from archeological findings, historical text (which points more towards Creationism), and various dating methods (which point more towards evolution); and the way I see it, dating methods are like a dartboard. Sure, it's east to hit the bull's eye from a yard away, but what about from a hundred yards away? And when looking at the Historical text, one would have to make sure the author is legit.
There is a less polite name for it, but I will simply say you are being stubborn.
Hey, creationists can say the same about evolutionists. Both evolutionists and creationists probably have the same evidence. Both sides have the same data; however, the main difference between the two sides is how they interpret the data.
Thank you! Even though I'm sure this will get ignored (AGAIN) thanks for trying.
I would have to disagree with that statement. My reason being that evolution in itself is a very long process and no single human has been around to watch one species acquire different traits
I would say it's pretty easy to observe...A long-necked giraffe lives in an area where the trees are tall. Why? Adaptation. The short-necked giraffes died out. Birds with long beaks tend to feed on animals, and live in places where such prety is abundant, while birds with shorter, more blunt beaks live in areas where nuts and fruit are more abundant.
And when looking at the Historical text, one would have to make sure the author is legit.
Darwin's observations of different finches and tortoises aren't to be taken as accurate? Fossils on display throughout museums around the world aren't legit?
the way I see it, dating methods are like a dartboard. Sure, it's east to hit the bull's eye from a yard away, but what about from a hundred yards away?
Considering that the half-lives of molecules like C-14 and Uranium are pretty constant, I would say it's pretty accurate, especially as science continues developing.
Both evolutionists and creationists probably have the same evidence.
No...There is no proof of God, unless you are going to argue that the Bible is proof, that the fact that the Earth and humans exist is proof, etc., etc.
Both sides have the same data;
Once again, incorrect. Religion is based on faith, whereas science is based on theories backed up with tangible evidence.
We DID evolve from apes.
Actually, we evolved from the creature apes evolved from.
Which is not technically an ape.
I would have to disagree with that statement. My reason being that evolution in itself is a very long process and no single human has been around to watch one species acquire different traits that suggests the transformation into another species altogether.
But we can see what is left. We have skeletons of our ancestors, who look much different then we do today.
Darwin's observations of different finches and tortoises aren't to be taken as accurate? Fossils on display throughout museums around the world aren't legit?
Darwin observed the flucuation of four different species of finch.
Considering that the half-lives of molecules like C-14 and Uranium are pretty constant, I would say it's pretty accurate, especially as science continues developing.
As stated before were not sure c-14 is in a state of equilibrium or what it used to be.
Once again, incorrect. Religion is based on faith, whereas science is based on theories backed up with tangible evidence.
Nope again never read that website have you?Creationism uses the EXACT same data as evolution we just interpret it differently.
But we can see what is left. We have skeletons of our ancestors, who look much different then we do today.
Just animals, or humans with mutations, not early humans.
Creationism uses the EXACT same data as evolution we just interpret it differently.
What? No, it doesn't. Creationism believes that an omnipotent, omniscient being created stuff, and that nothing has changed since the time of creation. Evolution believes in an Earth that is older than 4,000-5,000 years old, and that species have changed and gone extinct a great number of times.
I wrote a paper on this once here let me get my thumb drive (walks down the stairs and falls gets up gets the thumb drive then trips going up stairs) lol
ah dang it's saved at school
Never mind found it !!!!!
Creationism in Public School
The theory of Christian creationism is all around us but one place it isnât is school. The Christian story of creation should be incorporated in science (especially in Earth science) because it is important to get different views on these types of topics. We even incorporate God, the creator of the universe, in the pledge of allegiance so why canât we put him in Earth science. The Christian creation story should be included in high school Earth science.
Firstly, in science it is important to have the original aspect of creation as well as the scientific creation. I say this because science is the subject used to cover up God and in a lot of peopleâs minds they would like to have the Christian creation story in the classroom. Next, people who are in Earth science ponder about what is the truth and if creationism was allowed into this topic than it would be much easier to discuss. Astronomy, the study of stars and planets, is one of the most fought over subjects. For example people say that the big bang theory was the way that the Earth came to be and others thought that God created the universe. This is all related to science and God it sparks a great battle between the Christians and the science enthusiast.
Public school does not allow for this but I am looking forward to the day when God can be discussed in the classroom. Earth science is one of the most controversial subjects out there and if we bring Christianity creation into it then we would learn much more about culture and science in my opinion. These are both good things as it would bring belief and fait into the classroom as well as it would make us think why science explains it one way and not the other. All in all, Creation is an important part of our daily lives and should not be excluded from any subject whether you are in public school or private school.
What? No, it doesn't. Creationism believes that an omnipotent, omniscient being created stuff, and that nothing has changed since the time of creation. Evolution believes in an Earth that is older than 4,000-5,000 years old, and that species have changed and gone extinct a great number of times.
Wrong again. I'm talking about our scientific evidence, we have the same earth, the same soil, the same universe.
You must be logged in to post a reply!