Forums → WEPR → Evolution, creationism and the school cirriculum
| 697 | 104831 |
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
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.
You commit a logical fallacy here. Your argument is premised on the idea that there are only two competing theories; however, there are more. For example, the Norse used to believe that he world started as a hellish battle between the Southern Fire, Muspelheim, and the Northern Ice, Niflheim- from this chaos emerged Ymir, the first being. Ymir, a giant, created the first people while he slept, when they grew from his left armpit. Thus by denying alternatives, such as this simplified version of Norse mythology, you commit the fallacy of false dilemma.
Teach the controversy, you say, but what controversy? There are a myriad of conflicting stories about life's origins. To teach one "theory" based on religion but not the other, is to blatantly deny all other religions, but to teach all theories would expend our resources to no end. Thus it must be presumed that we ought teach no religious theories.
Still, people contend that their specific religious "theory" has evidence. But what sum of evidence is necessary to teach a particular religious theory? The Norse tale tells of Northern Ice and Southern Fire, clearly, their tale must be true because Greenland is in the north and the Sahara Desert is in the south. Likewise, all other creation stories have some partially factual premise, otherwise none would believe them in the first place. However, the difference between evolution and other theories lies in the comparable levels of known factuality. All pieces of evolution are supported by verifiable facts and the parts that are disputed are continuously having cross-verification done by leading biologists. The fluid nature of science allows evolution to have almost complete support by known facts, whereas other other religious theories have far less of an empirical base. I cannot prove for certain that Ymir was the first being as I cannot prove Adam was, those are unprovable assumptions. We must instead rely on the currently most complete and empirically supported theory.
Yet more, some argue that evolution has holes, thus justifying the teaching of other theories. This argument is fallacious, it suggests that something must have complete perfection to be taught. It is guilty of the nirvana fallacy. Moreover, we teach our students about gravity, yet our knowledge of it is still incomplete, why is gravity so much weaker than the other four forces of nature? To suggest we only teach things that reach the pinnacle of perfection excludes our ability to teach anything.
Evolution is the only theory to have justifications that should be considered universally reasonable as they rely on natural observations rather than abstractions into one's personal theory of creation. To teach anything other than evolution discriminates against religious theories that are not taught. Therefore, within the bounds of the public education system it is the only theory that ought be taught.
xplain how life was created by natural forces if oxygen would have broke it down way b4 it could have gotten anywhere
Prior to the growth of photosynthetic bacteria in 2.5 billion B.C.E. oxygen was bonded to carbon as Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide.
xplian who theyve carbon dated coal and diamonds and still found traces of it
Scientists have carbon dated some coal because coal as previous biological matter, some of it was created within the recent past in peat bogs. Diamonds on the other hand were not carbon dated, instead scientists look for specimens with inclusions that have radioisotopes such as Uranium-238.
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
This statistic has no evidence and the estimate of atoms is wrong. A lower limit calculation (it only counts material in stars and is just an approximation based on the idea of 80 billion galaxies with 400 billion stars each, when there are many nebulas, planets, black holes, and dark matter offsetting this). Further, there are trillions of stars in the universe with even more planets, why wouldn't life flourish? (Scientists, using biologic models based on evolution, have said that it is possible for other life to be extent within our solar system.
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
The pressure and heat necessary to create a diamond would either vaporize of pulverize a fossil, they couldn't form simultaneously, also there is no way there would be enough pressure from a flood to make diamonds.
Creatioism has the same facts as evolution!the other ideas dont
That's a load of bull. Plus, you need to prove this. :P
u know ur stuff ur about the only one who i can debate with:P
Creatioism has the same facts as evolution!the other ideas dont
That's a load of bull. Plus, you need to prove this. :P
ok as ive said its the same facts just interpreted differently the other ideas well most of then died out soo ya.
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
The pressure and heat necessary to create a diamond would either vaporize of pulverize a fossil, they couldn't form simultaneously, also there is no way there would be enough pressure from a flood to make diamonds.
different amounts of pressure due to elevation place indies the world ect.
xplian who theyve carbon dated coal and diamonds and still found traces of it
Scientists have carbon dated some coal because coal as previous biological matter, some of it was created within the recent past in peat bogs. Diamonds on the other hand were not carbon dated, instead scientists look for specimens with inclusions that have radioisotopes such as Uranium-238.
the coal was in a canyon area and they carbon dated the diamonds it was a study with unbiased scientists to find the age of the earth
xplain how life was created by natural forces if oxygen would have broke it down way b4 it could have gotten anywhere
Prior to the growth of photosynthetic bacteria in 2.5 billion B.C.E. oxygen was bonded to carbon as Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide.
actauly they've found purely oxidized rocks in all levels of the crust which shows an atmosphere that always contained pure oxygen..
btw on the real topic what was your answer?
Samy I think you need to be more clear. You keep bringing up this 'scientific aspect' of creationism, and yet I haven't seen anyhting here that defines what it is. (I have yet to read through some of the longer posts.) So I ask you, What is the scientific aspect?
Also, many of your posts seem contradictory, I have trouble understanding most of them.
OKay, you two go argue off topic.
Reason why creationism should be considered: Many features like the eyes of some primitive animals seem to point towards something "designing" the creature, as the eyes are too evolved for the specimen.
Also, the - fact that the universe would have been unfit for life, if a comma had been moved two numbers either way, meaning we had a rather small chance for life to exist.
Also the way everything fits into mathematical equations.
Like the idea about how fossils fossil fuels and diamonds things like that were created by the flood i need some ideas if u want me to answer them and my fault on the posts again give me a definition ill try to be more clear adn the scientific aspect is also our reasons for elements atoms all the things evolution is based on just differently interpreted
You commit a logical fallacy here. Your argument is premised on the idea that there are only two competing theories; however, there are more. For example, the Norse used to believe that he world started as a hellish battle between the Southern Fire, Muspelheim, and the Northern Ice, Niflheim- from this chaos emerged Ymir, the first being. Ymir, a giant, created the first people while he slept, when they grew from his left armpit. Thus by denying alternatives, such as this simplified version of Norse mythology, you commit the fallacy of false dilemma.
Teach the controversy, you say, but what controversy? There are a myriad of conflicting stories about life's origins. To teach one "theory" based on religion but not the other, is to blatantly deny all other religions, but to teach all theories would expend our resources to no end. Thus it must be presumed that we ought teach no religious theories.
Alright well at this point I am not surprised this has turned into a creationism vs. evolution debate.The best arguement I could give for teaching intelligent design,and not Norse mythology or whatever other theories is mainly for the fact that yes,it does use science to support its theories,and before you go saying something like "OMG WHAT EVIDENCE!!!!" I shall supply a few links that all tell different things concerning the topic.
Scientific Evidence Against Evolution
More Evidence from a different source
eNews article about the movie "Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed"
Scientists who support intelligent design
A thread on the site Meebo,with some interesting arguments on the matter
Now while the thread on Meebo may not be the best source.I believe the rest of the links may be quite useful.Anyways I have other things to attend to now.
Off topic. Make a thread/find the thread for discussing this, and instead discuss the current topic.
Cenere, I understand what you are saying, but think through this scientifically.
The features of eyes do not point towards a design, they point towards a very intriguing, slow process of evolution. We see "eyes" around the animal kingdom in all DIFFERENT stages of evolution, from simple light-reactive cells all the way to our complex eyes. It is not difficult to see how over time, the eye could have evolved, because after all, ANY eye is better than no eye, regardless of the effectiveness.
As far as the part about the universe being unfit for life, and particularly our planet...this is what I was talking about when I said to think about it. The fact that we are here, on this planet, living, breathing, and debating, is ONLY because that chance DID happen. It's a matter of perspective.
Yes, the chance of life is very small. But think about how very big our universe is, how many planets and galaxies and solar systems there are. SOMEWHERE, life had to form, mathematically, and we are one of those formations.
Also, you are assuming that our form of life was the only kind that could evolve, which is actually discrediting some forms of life that we even have on this planet. We have archaebacteria that cannot survive in the presence of oxygen, can only survive at temperatures unfathomable to mammals, etc. These all show that, given the circumstances, "life" can evolve in conditions that WE didn't happen to evolve in and therefore cannot handle.
To all of you that keep saying that we're off topic: we're not. The whole idea of this thread is to debate whether or not evolution should be the only thing taught in schools. The whole argument is based off of a perceived weakness in the evolutionary theory or a strength of the christian creationist theory, which we are debating back and forth. It cuts to the very core of the argument itself.
And necromancer, great freaking post.
right sorry ok again should evolution be the only legal origin of life theory be taught in school?why or why not?
Off topic. Make a thread/find the thread for discussing this, and instead discuss the current topic.
Alright before I leave to do my school work I will just quickly respond to this.If you are talking to me,then I will go ahead and point out that everything I just said in my last comment was concerning the original topic, and debate.
Samy, stop trying to ignore what we're saying. As I JUST posted, this is DIRECTLY on topic because it cuts to the credibility of other theories. You have to defend your own theory before it can even be considered.
OKay, you two go argue off topic.
As long as it relates to the original topic, it won't be off topic.
the scientific aspect is also our reasons for elements atoms all the things evolution is based on just differently interpreted
All right, so how would they dinosaurs going extinct be explained according to ID?
I can see why you would want that to be taught in schools alongside evolution. However, evolution is more widely accepted and actually has proof of existance. i.e. early hominids and their relaton to humans today.
not really i did start this thread and i wanted to see what people thought and why not on the details just i think yes because evolution is more science...or i think no because creationism has as much proof as evolution and it's being biased, and trust me I've considered both theroies necromancers really the only one in a while to make me think
You must be logged in to post a reply!