Forums → WEPR → Evolution, creationism and the school cirriculum
| 697 | 104827 |
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
Want to hear a big hole?we havnt found anything that can't be carbon 14 dated under our curent system that only can trace back 80,000 years
Samy, before you should know, I am a Christian too, and that claim is utterly preposterous. Carbon-14 has a half-life of about 5,700 years or so; as such, it only goes up to about 60,000 years because anything beyond that would be an undetectable amount. However, we also use other radioisotopes with longer half-lives to date older objects, like rocks.
ID is more believed by actual biologists
I've already given a source to prove that claim is ridiculous and I can give several more, whereas you are making a claim without evidence. This isn't a legitimate argument to support your view either because as I already said ad populem is a logical fallacy.
evolution is beleived by people who just listen to it in schools because most of our generation doesnt look it up on there own
1) That doesn't make it false.
2) I did not learn it in school, this statement is wrong because it tries to argue on a categorical level.
3) Creationism is primarily believed by people who listened to it in church.
4) Looking it up on your own, as I did, doesn't make one support ID.
5) Our generation is becoming decreasingly religious as several studies have shown, a source, the cause of increased support in evolution is not what you claim.
6) You gave no evidence to back your claim.
Christians who belive it take genisis as just a story the bibles an absolute this makes there belief wrong which means there not christians
Jesus told many parables. They weren't stories of truth but rather ways to convey ideas on morality and piety. Those take Genesis to be just a story can still be Christians, they just take it as a story for moral guidance and enlightenment on God's ways. Further, the Bible is not an absolute truth, I think either Peter or Paul said somewhere within the Bible, to not take the stories as absolute truth but instead to take their morals as a path to follow to achieve godliness. Also, such exclusionary methods alienate your fellow Christians.
I have other arguments if ud like 2 hear them as well
Fire away then.
we havnt found anything that can't be carbon 14 dated under our curent system that only can trace back 80,000 years
Carbon-14's half-life is 5,700 years after 60,000-70,000 years there is too little to detect instead we use other radioisotopes such as Uranium-238 and Potassium-40.
just to clear something up im talking about the science aspect of cretionsim(or ID) not the religion of it and yes there is a difference
Then show some real science for it. The whole concept does rely on religion though.
Jesus told many parables. They weren't stories of truth but rather ways to convey ideas on morality and piety. Those take Genesis to be just a story can still be Christians, they just take it as a story for moral guidance and enlightenment on God's ways. Further, the Bible is not an absolute truth, I think either Peter or Paul said somewhere within the Bible, to not take the stories as absolute truth but instead to take their morals as a path to follow to achieve godliness. Also, such exclusionary methods alienate your fellow Christians.
Jesus' parables were stories with a primarily allegorical meaning, but it was explicitly mentioned. I also believe that Genesis has its metaphorical meanings, but the Bible has recounted so many historical events with unique accuracy that it would be foolish to take a primarily symbolic reading of the Bible. Moreover, Peter and Paul were firmly convinced of the reality of what they taught, that Jesus died and rose again, that he was the son of God, and that what the Old Testament taught was true, historically and prophetically. They viewed their teachings both ways: as a path to Godliness AND as an absolute truth.
*sigh*
I hate it when people say that since there are two sides to this argument, we should naturally teach both sides.
There will be more than two sides to a lot of different things that people and science at large accept as fact, so we only teach the factual theory.
Just because there are people who believe that the earth is flat does not mean that we have to "Teach the Controversy", as I.D. proponents like to put it. The earth is roundish. Period. Fact.
Just because there are people that like to think that God made the earth in 6 days some 10,000 years ago does not make it fact, and we don't have to teach it when there is a real, scientific, evidence-based theory.
I hate it when people say that since there are two sides to this argument, we should naturally teach both sides.
Word up. Any discussion of Evolution vs. ID as a controversy should be taken to a philosophy or world religions class. It has no place in a science class, except for perhaps an in passing mention.
Anyone whose child has an interest in entering a scientific field should seriously push for said child to ONLY receive education on evolution as far as science curriculum is concerned.
Students who attend schools that actually try to present ID as science often find themselves greatly hindered when they try to go for post-grad degrees or enter the field. And for good reason.
to tell you the truth I'm Christian but I believe more in evolution then creation and its fine with me if they teach both
Only what is known can be taught.
In teaching creationism, you need to teach creationism from all points of view/religions in order to be unbiased. As creatinism is linked to religion, it should not be taught in schools.
Schools are a place for academic achievement and improvement, not religous fulfillment.
Should evolution be the only origin of life taught in schools?
Yes.
I think Creation and evolution should both be taught. In an argument, would you want to hear only one side of the story or both sides? It's the same with evolution and Creation. Only teaching the theory of evolution to children doesn't let them decide for themselves which one makes more sense. I am home schooled through a Christian program, and they teach teach the kids about evolution and how the theory started. It doesn't really what we say anyway, the schools teach evolution and that's all that they are going to teach.
I don't really know, actually. In the Netherlands this isn't really an issue, actually.
But when I think about it... I suppose it's up to the school to decide - there's a difference between a public school and a Christian school, right? Even so, I do believe that seeing both sides is the best thing., just like Shadow_Blade said. Let the kids choose which view suits them best.
Samy, before you should know, I am a Christian too, and that claim is utterly preposterous. Carbon-14 has a half-life of about 5,700 years or so; as such, it only goes up to about 60,000 years because anything beyond that would be an undetectable amount. However, we also use other radioisotopes with longer half-lives to date older objects, like rocks.
Ya but rocks are unpredictable also we found carbon 14 in diamonds which suggests that they werent made from millions of years of heat and pressure
Schools are a place for academic achievement and improvement, not religous fulfillment.
Should evolution be the only origin of life taught in schools?
Yes.
ok as ive said before a lot im talking about the science aspect which there is one in fact its very strong, professional biologists and other scientists and starting to see how it makes more sense im just saying the science aspect its not just a religious theory
ok as ive said before a lot im talking about the science aspect which there is one in fact its very strong, professional biologists and other scientists and starting to see how it makes more sense im just saying the science aspect its not just a religious theory
Show me proof that professional biologists and other scientists are starting to see how it makes more sense. Show a major scientific journal with a scientist providing proof. Show a peer-reviewed article or writing where they outline how intelligent design makes more sense.
Again, if you notice, you are not offering evidence of a god, only perceived holes in evolution.
In an argument, would you want to hear only one side of the story or both sides? It's the same with evolution and Creation.
No, it's not, because it's not an argument. Not a scientific one, that is. You can argue it until you're blue in the face in a religious forum, like a church or a - GASP! - PRIVATE school, but not in a public science class. Like I said before, you don't teach both sides just because there is a disagreement. You teach the facts. Someone disagrees with it, too bad.
What about creaolution?
Anyway, both should be taught, I just think that there should only be an introduction to creationism, as it still have a lot of weird reasons for things to happen, though there are things pointing towards it being at least somewhat right.
Show me proof that professional biologists and other scientists are starting to see how it makes more sense. Show a major scientific journal with a scientist providing proof. Show a peer-reviewed article or writing where they outline how intelligent design makes more sense.
...well i will but first lets c...xplain how life was created by natural forces if oxygen would have broke it down way b4 it could have gotten anywhere..also explian who theyve carbon dated coal and diamonds and still found traces of it...what about the odds that life formed its around 1x10to the 70th power thats a higher number than the amount of atoms in the universe , i can answer those first coal and diamonds were created in a world wide flood along with fossils since fossils show evidence of being formed in one swift burst of pressure...ask away ill tell u why ur evolution is wrong and what i a creationist would argue...and also can we get back to the original topic?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/ and im sure you will find what your looking for here
Jesus told many parables. They weren't stories of truth but rather ways to convey ideas on morality and piety. Those take Genesis to be just a story can still be Christians, they just take it as a story for moral guidance and enlightenment on God's ways. Further, the Bible is not an absolute truth, I think either Peter or Paul said somewhere within the Bible, to not take the stories as absolute truth but instead to take their morals as a path to follow to achieve godliness. Also, such exclusionary methods alienate your fellow Christians.
BUT he always said when it was a parable genisis is not. Neither Peter nor Paul said anything like that and ok. Well the God i believe in is loving evolution is a horrible brutal means, and if u believe in this u believe that there was death before sin, (the wages of sin is death) which does counteract much of the bible
You must be logged in to post a reply!