Forums → WEPR → Evolution, creationism and the school cirriculum
| 697 | 104833 |
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
That example that Thaytekk posted is true. Us having Earth, where all other planets around us aren't fertile, and it forming life was one HELL of a dice roll. That being said, it still happened. The first micelles that formed were formed because that was the only way for them to ensure survival on their part. The clay montmorillonite was a perfect catalyst for the process to take place.
I think public schools should teach evolution, but not as if it were fact.. i think they should teach all views on the matter in an unbiased (or as unbiased as they can manage) manner, and let the students decide for themselves what they believe. I personally think they would choose creationism as the 'theory' with the most evidence.
Evolution IS a fact - there is too much strong evidence for any other conclusion. So... You think Creationism has the most evidence? Just look at Common Descent - that is proof of Evolution!
And while I'm here:
One of the pillars of the scientific method and hence of scientific theories, is that they be falsifiable, i.e. there has to be some potential observation that would show the theory to be wrong.
Creation science falls at this hurdle, as there is no known way to falsify a creation event. For example, on the evolution side of the argument, a cat giving birth to a dog is an event that would falsify evolution and render our current understanding of it almost worthless. (Funnily enough, this is the very type of event that a number of creationists claim would get them to believe in evolution, which is just a further sign of how little they understand the subject of evolution and falsifiability).
There exists, however, no corresponding idea for creation science - unless they impose limits on their chosen creator, which they are naturally rather loath to do. For a creator can choose to create whatever they will, in whatever manner they will, so any possible scenario could be "explained" by a creation event. In being able to answer every question, creation science in effect answers none of them. Floating axe heads, burning bushes, talking snakes, etc. are all capable of being explained by a supernatural creator, so what is left to falsify the idea? Nothing, and so the science has to be removed from the creation science title.
So in the falsifiability arena, the question that the supporters of creation science need to answer â" and have comprehensively failed to answer â" is: what possible event would falsify their position?
Just look at Common Descent - that is proof of Evolution!
Lol, I love the evidence against common descent^^
I think public schools should teach evolution, but not as if it were fact.. i think they should teach all views on the matter in an unbiased (or as unbiased as they can manage) manner, and let the students decide for themselves what they believe. I personally think they would choose creationism as the 'theory' with the most evidence.
I think public schools should teach gravity, but not as if it were fact.. i think they should teach all views on the matter in an unbiased (or as unbiased as they can manage) manner, and let the students decide for themselves what they believe. I personally think they would choose invisible magic gnomes holding you to the ground as the 'theory' with the most evidence.
Just to give you an idea of how ridiculous that sounds.
Another thing evolution is both a fact and a theory.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
But even if it was "just a theory" this still means loads more then what creationism is, (which is NOT a theory) as it explains the facts.
every living thing is evidence. they're way to complex to have come into being by random chance.
Do any of you creationist supporter ever read the stuff being posted in here?
It also didn't start complex but started very basic.
Dr. J. Wile says that the chances of all the chemicals required for life coming together randomly are the equivalent to a poker player drawing a royal flush 19 times in a row.
Based on the evidence at hand I would say Dr. J. Wile is full of $%^&. We have proven that basic RNA polymers could easily form using under an early earth environment using chemicals that were very abundant. From RNA polymers it's an easy leap to RNA molecules, from RNA molecules it's an easy leap to DNA molecules.
Also the odds of something that has already happened is 1 in 1.
Based on the evidence at hand I would say Dr. J. Wile is full of $%^&.
The way I see it, he's right in the part about how lucky everything turned out. First, we have the earth that's in a great spot to be fertile. Then, it has a stable atmosphere for protection from the sun and from hostile foreign objects. Next, all the processes for abiogenesis started taking place. For all this to happen, it had to be in a good-enough position from the expansion (I'm guessing it's from the expansion). The rest of the planets in our solar system aren't so lucky. So for this earth that we live on to be in that position, it had to have been one hell of a dice roll. If any different, this planet would be very unsuitable to live on.
But that's it. The rest of this (Doctor that doesn't have a citation) matter is phooey.
If you want to hear just how full of crap Dr. J. Wile is here's a video of him talking.
Evolution: The Enemy of Truth and Science - Dr. Jay Wile Part 1 of 9
Evidence does support evolution, as has been shown numerous times here.
Evolution has faced competing theories and does allow competing ideas. In fact when the theory was still new it was almost pushed out by another theory.
Heckle's Embryos are not taught as an example of evolution but as an example of a discredited idea. (basically showing what not to do)
First, we have the earth that's in a great spot to be fertile.
Yeah out of the 125 billion galaxies each with hundreds of billions of stars what are the chances of at least one of those stars getting at least one planets in a "great spot". Also keep in mind the possibility for life can occur in much more unsuitable conditions then what we have.
Then, it has a stable atmosphere for protection from the sun and from hostile foreign objects.
Actually early Earth was quite unstable. One requirement for protection seems to be having a large gas giant further out to filter in coming object. Considering we are finding such planets all over the place this doesn't seem to be a huge issue.
Next, all the processes for abiogenesis started taking place.
Again has been shown to not be that hard of a thing to take place. Particularly under early Earth environments.
For all this to happen, it had to be in a good-enough position from the expansion (I'm guessing it's from the expansion). The rest of the planets in our solar system aren't so lucky. So for this earth that we live on to be in that position, it had to have been one hell of a dice roll. If any different, this planet would be very unsuitable to live on.
Another thing that you seem to be forgetting is that life adapts to it's environment, not the other way around. So really all you would need is liquid water (preferred water though it technically doesn't even need to be water) and the basic chemical compounds (found all over the place)
Just for fun the odds of winning a royal flush 19 times is 12,345,041:1 now again comparing this to the estimated number of galaxies in the universe is 125 billion Our galaxy has roughly 100-400 billion stars, so let's get the rough estimate of 200 billion stars per galaxy. (some may have more, some may have less) that's roughly 25,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe.
That means by this dingleberries odds there are roughly 2,025,104,655,383,486 planets that could have life.
God created all. there is proof to that. Do not let others shoo you away from the the truth, samy
Can you kindly remove your head from your rectum and look at other ideas besides your own beliefs? Be more open and accept when facts are facts. Evolution is a fact.
God created all. there is proof to that.
Let me guess this "roof" is either things exist so God exists and/or The Bible says God exists so he exists. Would that be about right or do you have actual proof?
'Can you kindly remove your head from your rectum and look at other ideas besides your own beliefs? Be more open and accept when facts are facts. Evolution is a fact.'
i have. i study stuff like that. i study other religons.
im not debating with you guys
i have. i study stuff like that. i study other religons.
im not debating with you guys
Oh. Try opening a science book some time. Reading other **** will just get you more ****...
Well then, don't come into a thread that's about debating the validity of teaching Creationism alongside Evolution then if you're not going to debate.
You must be logged in to post a reply!