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 | 104859 |
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
Well, the whole point is to keep an open-mind, right? I tend to not lean to either sides since "complex" unanswered questions bar the way. Anyway I'm fine with evolution taught in school, it's not like there's another place your gotta get the knowledge from, and for me, that's all I need.
Well, the whole point is to keep an open-mind, right?
Yes but not to the point your brain falls out.
wait ok, so why don't all the people who believe in "god" and creationism, ASK THEIR GOD, if it is true. If he doesnt answer, he's probably busy or something, or he doesnt exist, and therefore creationism is a load of lunch meat (baloney).
wait ok, so why don't all the people who believe in "god" and creationism, ASK THEIR GOD, if it is true.
"God's answer" tends to differ from person to person.
is it possible to only teach a priori knowledge in science classes, or would that exclude some important areas?
"God's answer" tends to differ from person to person.
the perspective of god also differs from person to person. which is why there is a split in religion itself, and the whole world is NOT united by 1 religion.
@Mage
I feel like you've only drove home my point about "certain" people not really having the right to post on this thread as I'm even more sure you don't understand what your arguing against.
No that's complete and utter bull%&^%.
I lol at your ignorance. After talking to my evolutionist biology teacher she confirmed my point above and said many of her colleges agree that your world view has a hug impact on what your going to accept and what your not. For example you wont even consider creation or ID worth study while I am a little more skeptical of evolution than I should be.
here's the basics of ID. Things are really really complex, so there must be a creator.
Then heres the basics of evolution. Things really really look the same so we must all have a common ancestor?
Try not to over generalize.
Micro and macro evolution is the same thing it's just a matter of scale.
Eh, it takes massive amount of micro-evolution to equal macro-evolution and the odds of all the species we see today, and can see in the fossil record, having evolved in a purely natural way are astronomical.
Evolution is not a world view. It's a scientific theory. That means it's a tested plausible explanation for what we have observed.
I never said it was a world-view I said whether or not you accept ID, creationism, or evolution depends on any previous beliefs and world-views you may have.
Yes it's a theory. That's the best thing you can have in science. It being a theory doesn't diminish it but elevates it.
I never said that? Please stop acting like I have no idea about the concepts of science just because I have slight leaning towards the involvement of a creator at some time during the process of the becoming of life.
Creationism and ID is the same **** thing. They only went to a generalization of a "designer" a.k.a. god as a means to trying and slip it past the separation of church and state.
Forgot to mention that we didn't land on the moon, the Earth is actually flat, and the government set up JFK's assassination.
the perspective of god also differs from person to person. which is why there is a split in religion itself, and the whole world is NOT united by 1 religion.
Uhhhh, or because some religions don't subscribe to the idea of an deities at all.
For example you wont even consider creation or ID worth study while I am a little more skeptical of evolution than I should be.
Using ID please explain to me why we find the fossil record follows a gradual progression from less complex to more complex lifeforms. Explain how along with the geographic distribution when compared with the phylogenetic tree of life and and molecular tree of life they all match up?
Then heres the basics of evolution. Things really really look the same so we must all have a common ancestor?
Actually it's change in a species over time. Anyway if the basics aren't "there had to be a designer" What is the basics? Enlighten me.
Eh, it takes massive amount of micro-evolution to equal macro-evolution and the odds of all the species we see today, and can see in the fossil record, having evolved in a purely natural way are astronomical.
No it's not astronomical it's just a matter of time. If you have changes accruing in a species and you allow that to happen enough times you will eventually end up with something far different then what you started with.
I never said it was a world-view I said whether or not you accept ID, creationism, or evolution depends on any previous beliefs and world-views you may have.
No it's based on the evidence presented.
I never said that? Please stop acting like I have no idea about the concepts of science just because I have slight leaning towards the involvement of a creator at some time during the process of the becoming of life.
First off you don't seem to be showing an understanding of the scientific process, otherwise you would realize personal belief doesn't mean anything. So you want to say there was a creator present the evidence for one.
It's the way you stated it should be taught as a theory. You seemed to be making it sound as if that made it less important some how.
Forgot to mention that we didn't land on the moon, the Earth is actually flat, and the government set up JFK's assassination.
Creationism is saying God did, ID is saying a designer did it. How is that not just removing the word god for something a little more generalized?
Okay you want me to be a bit more fair on what ID is. Here's what wiki has to say on ID. Since this is a quote from wiki sorry for the weird texts that might show up.
"Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer. The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creationâ"evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science."
Now again to be fair here is what an ID site says it is for comparison.
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
And what wiki has on Creationism.
"Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural agency."
So yes ID is just a generalized version of creationism. Also on the "natural selection being unguided", that's just flat out wrong. It's guided by environmental factors.
Sheesh. What's with the plethora of threads that attack religion?
Sheesh. What's with the plethora of threads that attack religion?
Pointing out flaws and contradictions is an attack?
Pointing out flaws and contradictions is an attack?
anything you say against religion seems to be an attack ._.
The thing is Darwinism is what scientists think is the absolute truth,and even though they have no absolute theory of how life began,they still think that anyone who doesn't believe in Darwinism is completely ignorant,including highly credited scientists
I stopped reading there.
Why? Because we don't think they're ignorant in any way.
It's media, do they ever make an effort to imply evolution is a good way of learning, or mention it in a positive manner? NO.
Do people ever research things for themselves (aka being ignorant and lazy, so yes, in a way)? YES.
Only the people whom aren't lazy and wish to actually learn something truthfully decide to learn, that could be anything. And when you think that we believe you're ignorant, you are only further implying that statement, nice one mate. -.-
Pointing out flaws and contradictions is an attack?
No, but because their Religion is (as always, nearly) to never question it, it kind of does become an attack.
But it is in every persons right to question what they follow or what they do, something which rarely comes into peoples minds nowadays (as they do not think before they act). The strange thing about this is that, despite all the evidence pointed out, no one seems to argue that God is wrong.
Let's face it, he is. He thinks blind faith and a lack of personal judgement is good! Also, if you querstion it or defy him for reasonable points he would want you to burn in Hell! (literally)
Uh huh. Very nice guy.
This isn't biased either, there really is no good way to put it except a 'leap of faith' in which no reasonable person would do.
But, there are situations where it is forced on you at young age, making your religious will nearly unbreakable when you're older. But if you ask yourself 'Why do I believe this?' you'll often come out with "Because God is our creator" or something, not 'Because my parents were the same Religion'. In a way, blind faith makes you even more blind. Kind of amazing, in the bad way :/
- H
What's with bringing back a t
There was a spam post for WOW gold that bumped it.
You must be logged in to post a reply!