Political Crossfire Forums

[Vulcidian]

Ameriman wrote: ontheyslay wrote: Ameriman wrote: ontheyslay wrote: And to say creationism and evolution aren't oppositional is just not true. They give two different views for the beggining of life. You can't get more oppositional than having conflicting views on one subject :roll:

Evolution doesn't even touch the beginning of life...simply how life evolves.
One part of evolution is the study of where everything came from, not just how a particular species evolved. If you took an evolutionary theory class at the university level, you would know this.

OK. Where did everything come from according to Evolution?

First you have to fully understand the question you are asking. "Where did everything come from?"

What do you mean by everything? Do you mean all the various animals existing today? Or matter, or the Universe?

Evolution explains how biological systems evolve over time. Everything, in the sense of all organic matter is explained in this way.

Then you have everything as in where did all matter come from? Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps matter itself is the creator? Perhaps you don't like this because matter isn't intelligent in the human sense of the word?

When you think about it, it seems fairly common sensical. Matter that organizes in ways which perpetuates itself tends to perpetuate itself. Things which perpetuate themselves have small variations over time, and the variations which enable the matter to better perpetuate itself are naturally selected.

With this you can build up to more and more complicated compounds until organic matter appears. It's all evolutionary biology from there.

It is true, there is the grey area where evolution and basic chemistry overlap. The matter had to organize into these more complicated forms before these forms could assemble into living things.

I refer you to this webpage for more information. www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm#stanley

It is true, there are criticisms of these experiments that I find valid. However, they cannot refute that organic structures can be formed from the combination of normal elemental matter. From this point it just becomes a question of what conditions occured to cause the matter to be naturally assembled.


So, if we wish to look at this from the point of where did everything come from. I suggest that the energy of the Universe was the creator. If we look closely we will see that everything in the universe comes from energy and changes forms into other forms of energy. You might ask, where did the energy come from? God would have the same problem of explanation. You would simple have to conclude that god was always here and is mysterious. The energy was always here, but it doesn't have to be mysterious to explain intelligence.

What I suggest is that you are simply mixing up your words. If you define god as the unintelligent energy of the universe, then there is no difficulty. Then there is no intelligent design, and creationism is simply studying how this energy naturally behaves over time.

I have shown you that matter does not have to come from "somewhere". In fact, in reference to the matter/energy of the universe there is no "nowhere".

I have shown you that matter/energy forms naturally into subatomic and atomic structures. These structures naturally form elements, the elements naturally form molecules and so on and so forth until we come to human beings in the current point in time.

It's a long story, one that takes billions of years.

I would also refer you to this link where you can read about how the elements and the conditions for the complicated material structures which we call life have their beginnings.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star

[Ameriman]

Vulcidian wrote: [qu

First you have to fully understand the question you are asking. "Where did everything come from?"

What do you mean by everything? Do you mean all the various animals existing today? Or matter, or the Universe?

That's what I was trying to find out. Read the context of the thread. I was responding to this comment:

Quote: One part of evolution is the study of where everything came from, not just how a particular species evolved. If you took an evolutionary theory class at the university level, you would know this.

Quote: Evolution explains how biological systems evolve over time. Everything, in the sense of all organic matter is explained in this way.

Yup...

Quote: Then you have everything as in where did all matter come from? Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps matter itself is the creator? Perhaps you don't like this because matter isn't intelligent in the human sense of the word?

Hmmm...sounds like a Creationist theory to me...

Quote: When you think about it, it seems fairly common sensical. Matter that organizes in ways which perpetuates itself tends to perpetuate itself. Things which perpetuate themselves have small variations over time, and the variations which enable the matter to better perpetuate itself are naturally selected.

With this you can build up to more and more complicated compounds until organic matter appears. It's all evolutionary biology from there.

What started the ball rolling?

Quote: It is true, there is the grey area where evolution and basic chemistry overlap. The matter had to organize into these more complicated forms before these forms could assemble into living things.

I refer you to this webpage for more information. www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm#stanley

It is true, there are criticisms of these experiments that I find valid. However, they cannot refute that organic structures can be formed from the combination of normal elemental matter. From this point it just becomes a question of what conditions occured to cause the matter to be naturally assembled.

Yup...


Quote: So, if we wish to look at this from the point of where did everything come from. I suggest that the energy of the Universe was the creator. If we look closely we will see that everything in the universe comes from energy and changes forms into other forms of energy. You might ask, where did the energy come from? God would have the same problem of explanation. You would simple have to conclude that god was always here and is mysterious. The energy was always here, but it doesn't have to be mysterious to explain intelligence.

Sounds like a Creationist theory to me...

Quote: What I suggest is that you are simply mixing up your words. If you define god as the unintelligent energy of the universe, then there is no difficulty. Then there is no intelligent design, and creationism is simply studying how this energy naturally behaves over time.

I never even mentioned God although Creationism tends to inspire that idea.

Quote: I have shown you that matter does not have to come from "somewhere". In fact, in reference to the matter/energy of the universe there is no "nowhere".

Actually you haven't "shown" me anything. You gave me your opinion that is based on a theory..

Quote: I have shown you that matter/energy forms naturally into subatomic and atomic structures. These structures naturally form elements, the elements naturally form molecules and so on and so forth until we come to human beings in the current point in time.

It's a long story, one that takes billions of years.

I think we both know you're over simplifying a tad... :wink: But whatever...how that discredits Creationism is still beyond me.

Quote: I would also refer you to this link where you can read about how the elements and the conditions for the complicated material structures which we call life have their beginnings.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star

Again...what started the ball rolling?

[bob.appleyard]

Vulcidian wrote: That is fairly ironic, seeing as confusion over the scriptures is one of the things that has led us to evolution.

Substantiate please.

[perdidochas]

Vulcidian wrote: Here is the link:

news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061122/sc_nm/religion_turkey_evolution_dc


So, basically, in Turkey they are continuing the push to uproot evolution from schools. They are using propaganda created by Intelligent Design and Creationism advocates to further there cause.

I feel it is a sad day when the pseudo-intellectual arguments in America are beginning to be used to justify the destruction of science throughout the world. Especially among nations with fundamentalist Islamists, where it is needed the most.

It's time for the United States government to make a stand. Despite the feelings of the country overall, our government rallied to strike a huge blow to prejudice and racism in the 1960's.

I feel it's time the government laid down the law in the intelligent design and creationist debate.

Unless it infringes upon the rights of others, one cannot force another human being to believe something that is a matter of opinion. But evolution is not a matter of opinion. The exact mechanics of evolution are up for debate, but the theory itself is beyond contestation of any manner that current science can offer.

Intelligent Design and Creationism are fake sciences with little use to humanity at all. Their arguments are so vague, and the predictive qualities so useless that any truth in them is completely useless for applications.

If I were to say, the sun will come up tomorrow, and it does, that is somewhat of a theory. But if a scientist tells me the sun will come up because of the rotation of the earth about its axis which completes a revolution approximately every 24hrs...now that is something useful.

Intelligent design and creationism are insults to the nation's intelligence. Every minute our society allows another child to be corrupted by this nonsense and put on the path of being useless as a thinking individual is a tragedy.

In my opinion, allowing someone to discriminate against someone because their race might be inferior, is the same thing as allowing creationism and intelligent design the same status as Evolution.

Evolution is a theory just like Atomic theory. But we can make atomic bombs, and we can breed animals based upon desired qualities.

I think this nonsense must stop immediately.

How do the readers feel?

1. Do you feel Intelligent design is a theory with as much support and power of prediction as evolution?

Nope, although I kind of doubt evolution's power of prediction as well....

Vulcidian wrote: 2. Do you think it's a good thing that Christian fundamentalist propaganda is being used to tighten fundamental Islam's hold on the middle east?

That's their business. I don't believe in censorship of ideas.

Vulcidian wrote: 3. Do you think Creationism is preying on the uneducated, and deserves the same fate as Jim Crow laws?

Well, if someone passed a law saying that creationism was going to be taught exclusively, or that evolutionists had to use separate water fountains I would be against it (although as an evolutionist in Pensacola (home of Dr. Dino), it wouldn't be bad, I would get to use a pretty much unused water fountain). However, everybody has a right to their philosophy and opinion. Jim Crow was an act of government. Creationism/ID is not.

[Vulcidian]

Ameriman wrote: Vulcidian wrote: [qu

First you have to fully understand the question you are asking. "Where did everything come from?"

What do you mean by everything? Do you mean all the various animals existing today? Or matter, or the Universe?

That's what I was trying to find out. Read the context of the thread. I was responding to this comment:

Quote: One part of evolution is the study of where everything came from, not just how a particular species evolved. If you took an evolutionary theory class at the university level, you would know this.

Quote: Evolution explains how biological systems evolve over time. Everything, in the sense of all organic matter is explained in this way.

Yup...

Quote: Then you have everything as in where did all matter come from? Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps matter itself is the creator? Perhaps you don't like this because matter isn't intelligent in the human sense of the word?

Hmmm...sounds like a Creationist theory to me...

Quote: When you think about it, it seems fairly common sensical. Matter that organizes in ways which perpetuates itself tends to perpetuate itself. Things which perpetuate themselves have small variations over time, and the variations which enable the matter to better perpetuate itself are naturally selected.

With this you can build up to more and more complicated compounds until organic matter appears. It's all evolutionary biology from there.

What started the ball rolling?

Quote: It is true, there is the grey area where evolution and basic chemistry overlap. The matter had to organize into these more complicated forms before these forms could assemble into living things.

I refer you to this webpage for more information. www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm#stanley

It is true, there are criticisms of these experiments that I find valid. However, they cannot refute that organic structures can be formed from the combination of normal elemental matter. From this point it just becomes a question of what conditions occured to cause the matter to be naturally assembled.

Yup...


Quote: So, if we wish to look at this from the point of where did everything come from. I suggest that the energy of the Universe was the creator. If we look closely we will see that everything in the universe comes from energy and changes forms into other forms of energy. You might ask, where did the energy come from? God would have the same problem of explanation. You would simple have to conclude that god was always here and is mysterious. The energy was always here, but it doesn't have to be mysterious to explain intelligence.

Sounds like a Creationist theory to me...

Quote: What I suggest is that you are simply mixing up your words. If you define god as the unintelligent energy of the universe, then there is no difficulty. Then there is no intelligent design, and creationism is simply studying how this energy naturally behaves over time.

I never even mentioned God although Creationism tends to inspire that idea.

Quote: I have shown you that matter does not have to come from "somewhere". In fact, in reference to the matter/energy of the universe there is no "nowhere".

Actually you haven't "shown" me anything. You gave me your opinion that is based on a theory..

Quote: I have shown you that matter/energy forms naturally into subatomic and atomic structures. These structures naturally form elements, the elements naturally form molecules and so on and so forth until we come to human beings in the current point in time.

It's a long story, one that takes billions of years.

I think we both know you're over simplifying a tad... :wink: But whatever...how that discredits Creationism is still beyond me.

Quote: I would also refer you to this link where you can read about how the elements and the conditions for the complicated material structures which we call life have their beginnings.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star

Again...what started the ball rolling?


Ahh, I see your point, and it is a very interesting one.

First, I just want to be clear that it seems you don't require god to be intelligent to support your form of creationism.

I think we might just be disagreeing over our word structures. If you take any theory that attempts to explain the "origin" of the universe, then what I have just described to you is a creationist theory.

My definition of a creationist theory is one that says the universe cannot come about naturally and requires a complicated supernatural intelligence to create it.

If you agree that any theory that attempts to explain the origin of the universe is a form of creationism, then we have no dispute in that area.

Now, what started the ball rolling?

This notion goes back to Newtonian Physics and perhaps even back to Aristotle's "unmoved mover". I suggest that this is another one of those "human world" stipulations.

We assume that something has to start the ball rolling because this is usually what appears to be happening in the human world. It's the same idea that the sun appears to be rotating around the earth and the earth being stationary. It's only after careful observation that we can come to a better understanding of what it actually taking place. Namely, the earth rotates about it's axis and revolves around then sun.

So, what started the universe rolling is what you're asking. Surely it needed that first push from nowhere to actually begin? Since matter wants to stay put until acted upon by an outside force?

For this we must go back billions and billions of years to the primordial singularity that is supposed to have given birth to the universe. Where did that singularity come from? I have already said that the energy/matter was always here, if this can be true of god, it seems even more likely that this is the case for the energy/matter. It is only a question of how dense it is compacted before it becomes the singularity.

So how did it get to this state? And what caused it to change?

Here is where we go into the crazy and interesting world of QUANTUM MECHANICS.

We find that when objects are compacted into the quantum realm, they behave in ways which we would not dream in our human realm. This is because we have evolved to live in the human world where we percieve things in a certain way. We have found that as we go into larger spectrums and smaller spectrums of life, things behave in ways we would not expected.

For example, Einstein supplied relativity to explain what happens when we travel much faster than humans are accustomed to in our human world. It proves that sometimes when we think we are applying "common sense", we are simply mistaken because of our evolutionary history.

Here's a link to explore Quantum mechanics: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Now, when our universe is compacted to the size of the Quantum, what happens?

Then we go into the even more interesting realm of String Theory

We find that variation and motion are the only thing we can be nearly certain about. Objects don't "rest" the way they appear to in the human world. They are in a constant chaotic froth of quantum activity. Nothing had to start this quantum activity, we've found that quantum particles do things quite on their own and seemingly without any provocation.

Now that the distance between these particles has grown, the quantum foam is no longer so obvious. When the universe is reduced to the quantum level, this random quantum activity becomes very very important.

However, I must admit that I do not know everything about quantum theory. If I thought I did, I would be decieving myself.

The linguistic picture I have just painted for your makes hypotheses that have been tested and tested again, and is based upon mountains of evidence.

The intelligent creator does not have a fraction of this evidence. It has been shown how the universe behaves "on its own". However, as we are not adapted to the Quantum or the Galactic realm, it is difficult for us to speak about how they behave. We must be conscious that our discriptions are only metaphors that we gather from our experiences on the human world size level.

Postulating god is first attempting to say that our human notions are somehow perfectly applicable to the rest of the universe. When we find this is not so, god becomes mysterious.

Why do this to ourselves? Why not just find out how the universe works, instead of trying to make it fit within this system that it clearly rejects at every discovery. There's no "magic". Magic is simply a lack of understanding.

Magic implies the will of god. If there is no magic, then there need not be a god. There is only nature.

[perdidochas]

Vulcidian wrote: ontheyslay wrote: Creationsim is not science. There is no scientific basis for it. Teach it in a religious studies class, not a science class. I don't think creationism is preying on the uneducated, it's a way for religious fundamentalists to push their views onto people who may not agree with it.

I think that it does. Most scientists have been content to simply do their research. The average working American doesn't have time to take an in depth course in biology just to understand evolution.

I think creationists and intelligent design advocates go into churchs and out into the public and prey on these uneducated people.

The bottom line is the scientists need to draw the line because creationists and intelligent design advocates have no serious theory, so they can spend all their time shouting about it in the streets and trying to work it into school boards.

Modern biology simply cannot function without evolution and neither intelligent design or creationism provide theories with any predictive power or scientific meaning. It's nothing but unprovable theological rubbish.

Well, I beg to differ with part of that statement. I'm an evolutionist (the evidence points clearly to evolution), but I do believe that biology would function without it. Also, what predictiveness does evolution provide? Evolution describes history. It doesn't provide for predictions, IMHO.

Vulcidian wrote: The average citizen doesn't have time to work out the necessary arguments to defeat these door to door scam artists who think they're doing their god's bidding.

Somebody has to protect the citizens of the world from this scam. Lest we fall back into the middle ages. Education is part of the plan, but so is rethinking our definition of tolerance.

I agree and disagree. I don't think that the government should be in the position to determine what non-governmental agencies teach. It is against the fundamentals of liberty. Also, some ideas that are now a central part of geology (plate tectonics) were once viewed as the work and idea of kooks.

[perdidochas]

gavnook wrote: It's a stupid political issue that would never happen if education wasn't a "public good". Once upon a time in America, parents had to pay to educate their own children, and nobody had to pay educate the children of others. Education was not a matter of politics. Kids were taught as their parents wished, which seems to exactly how things should be.

Never in the United States have there not been public schools that have been taxpayer funded. Publicly funded schools in the 13 colonies predate the American Revolution. In fact, some of the Founders, notably Samuel Adams and Ben Franklin, attended publicly funded schools.

[perdidochas]

Ek0nomik wrote: ID is creationism on crack. It can't be scientifically proven, therefore it shouldn't be taught in school. Evolution can be scientifically proven, and therefore should be taught.

Evolution cannot be scientifically proven. That is not how science works. In science it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove anything.

Actually, the difference between evolution and creationism/ID is that evolution can potentially be disproven. creationism/ID cannot. That is why creationism/ID are not science.

[perdidochas]

Ameriman wrote: Random Evil Guy wrote: Ameriman wrote:

And at some point you have to answer the question...where did that come from...



But where did the other "bubble" universes come from?

Fact is...we don't know...that makes creationism a very viable theory.

if you don't know the answer, you can't answer the question. making s**t up won't change that...

A theory isn't an answer my friend. It's a guess.

A scientific theory isn't a guess. It's the best solution possible using the evidence at hand.

[perdidochas]

Ameriman wrote: Random Evil Guy wrote: Ameriman wrote: Random Evil Guy wrote: Ameriman wrote:

And at some point you have to answer the question...where did that come from...



But where did the other "bubble" universes come from?

Fact is...we don't know...that makes creationism a very viable theory.

if you don't know the answer, you can't answer the question. making s**t up won't change that...


A theory isn't an answer my friend. It's a guess.

the concept of scientific theory is not a guess. it's for instance a scientific theory that the earth revolves around the sun....


Not a theory. A known fact that has been proven. Theories have no proof behind them. Try again.

Scientific theories do have evidence behind them. Proof doesn't belong in science. Without evidence, they aren't scientific theories, but are just philosophy.

[Vulcidian]

perdidochas wrote: Vulcidian wrote: ontheyslay wrote: Creationsim is not science. There is no scientific basis for it. Teach it in a religious studies class, not a science class. I don't think creationism is preying on the uneducated, it's a way for religious fundamentalists to push their views onto people who may not agree with it.

I think that it does. Most scientists have been content to simply do their research. The average working American doesn't have time to take an in depth course in biology just to understand evolution.

I think creationists and intelligent design advocates go into churchs and out into the public and prey on these uneducated people.

The bottom line is the scientists need to draw the line because creationists and intelligent design advocates have no serious theory, so they can spend all their time shouting about it in the streets and trying to work it into school boards.

Modern biology simply cannot function without evolution and neither intelligent design or creationism provide theories with any predictive power or scientific meaning. It's nothing but unprovable theological rubbish.

Well, I beg to differ with part of that statement. I'm an evolutionist (the evidence points clearly to evolution), but I do believe that biology would function without it. Also, what predictiveness does evolution provide? Evolution describes history. It doesn't provide for predictions, IMHO.

Vulcidian wrote: The average citizen doesn't have time to work out the necessary arguments to defeat these door to door scam artists who think they're doing their god's bidding.

Somebody has to protect the citizens of the world from this scam. Lest we fall back into the middle ages. Education is part of the plan, but so is rethinking our definition of tolerance.

I agree and disagree. I don't think that the government should be in the position to determine what non-governmental agencies teach. It is against the fundamentals of liberty. Also, some ideas that are now a central part of geology (plate tectonics) were once viewed as the work and idea of kooks.

1. Biology could not work without Evolution. How do we place the catagories of all the species of the world? How do we explain the role of DNA? How do we explain the behavior and the activities of organisms on this planet?

Without evolution this activity becomes meaningless. Why should an animal be compelled to survive if their is no motivation?

2. Evolution does provide for predictions. Evolution predicts that the bacteria which we kill today with our drugs will adapt to those drugs and so we must find new drugs. If you don't believe evolution, you don't believe this, and you think our drugs will work forever. This has already proven to be false. Variation is a cornerstone of evolution. Evolution predicts what will happen to any species in any given situation, it predicts that a polar bear will survive in the cold and a naked human will die. It's a simple prediction, obvious, but a prediction nontheless. It's also another cornerstone of evolution.

3. The same people who didn't like plate tectonics also didn't like evolution. They have become less and less powerful because of free and REASONABLE discourse. Evoutionists should not turn on themselves and accept arguments without evidence.

If you feel it isn't the governments job to make sure people tell the truth, what do you have to say about fraud, theft, and slander?

Parents aren't allowed to abuse their children, the government(the people) protect children from that. Lying to your child in order to cripple that child as a reasonable individual is abuse. The government protects children from abuse.

If somebody could provide and support a creationist or intelligent design hypothesis, evolutionists, if they could repeat the experiment, would take it very seriously.

Evolution is taken seriously for a reason, and so is plate tectonics. Nobody is stopping creationists from testing their hypotheses. They simply don't have any, all they want to do is discredit evolution. In America, it's not ok to knowingly mislead people. It's call fraud.

[perdidochas]

soldierofsoul wrote: Evolution is a theory dude, it has not been provin.

heres something good to read...www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0802human-evolution.asp

even your own site (linked) says that the "evolution is a theory argument" is not a very good one to use.

www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

answersingenesis wrote:
“Evolution is just a theory.”
What people usually mean when they say this is “Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.” Therefore people should say that! The problem with using the word “theory” in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known theories such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, as well as lesser-known ones such as the Debye–Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions.

[bob.appleyard]

perdidochas wrote: Ek0nomik wrote: ID is creationism on crack. It can't be scientifically proven, therefore it shouldn't be taught in school. Evolution can be scientifically proven, and therefore should be taught.

Evolution cannot be scientifically proven. That is not how science works. In science it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove anything.

Actually, the difference between evolution and creationism/ID is that evolution can potentially be disproven. creationism/ID cannot. That is why creationism/ID are not science.

This post is competing for thread winner.

There really is nothing else to add, if one were to argue rationally.

[perdidochas]

Vulcidian wrote: perdidochas wrote: Vulcidian wrote: ontheyslay wrote: Creationsim is not science. There is no scientific basis for it. Teach it in a religious studies class, not a science class. I don't think creationism is preying on the uneducated, it's a way for religious fundamentalists to push their views onto people who may not agree with it.

I think that it does. Most scientists have been content to simply do their research. The average working American doesn't have time to take an in depth course in biology just to understand evolution.

I think creationists and intelligent design advocates go into churchs and out into the public and prey on these uneducated people.

The bottom line is the scientists need to draw the line because creationists and intelligent design advocates have no serious theory, so they can spend all their time shouting about it in the streets and trying to work it into school boards.

Modern biology simply cannot function without evolution and neither intelligent design or creationism provide theories with any predictive power or scientific meaning. It's nothing but unprovable theological rubbish.

Well, I beg to differ with part of that statement. I'm an evolutionist (the evidence points clearly to evolution), but I do believe that biology would function without it. Also, what predictiveness does evolution provide? Evolution describes history. It doesn't provide for predictions, IMHO.

Vulcidian wrote: The average citizen doesn't have time to work out the necessary arguments to defeat these door to door scam artists who think they're doing their god's bidding.

Somebody has to protect the citizens of the world from this scam. Lest we fall back into the middle ages. Education is part of the plan, but so is rethinking our definition of tolerance.

I agree and disagree. I don't think that the government should be in the position to determine what non-governmental agencies teach. It is against the fundamentals of liberty. Also, some ideas that are now a central part of geology (plate tectonics) were once viewed as the work and idea of kooks.

1. Biology could not work without Evolution. How do we place the catagories of all the species of the world? How do we explain the role of DNA? How do we explain the behavior and the activities of organisms on this planet?

Much of the current classification system predates evolution.

DNA's role is passing genetic information on. Nothing in it contradicts creationism, and there is no logical reason that a creator would invent organisms that didnt' have a way to pass on information to offspring.

An intelligent designer would build in the same behaviors that we ascribe to evolution.

Vulcidian wrote: Without evolution this activity becomes meaningless. Why should an animal be compelled to survive if their is no motivation?

The motivation would be what the designer gave them.

Vulcidian wrote: 2. Evolution does provide for predictions. Evolution predicts that the bacteria which we kill today with our drugs will adapt to those drugs and so we must find new drugs. If you don't believe evolution, you don't believe this, and you think our drugs will work forever. This has already proven to be false. Variation is a cornerstone of evolution. Evolution predicts what will happen to any species in any given situation, it predicts that a polar bear will survive in the cold and a naked human will die. It's a simple prediction, obvious, but a prediction nontheless. It's also another cornerstone of evolution.

I don't buy your prediction argument, but luckily, I don't think of prediction as an integral necessity in a historical theory. Much of the actions of evolution are unpredictable. For example, nobody would predict that a panda would develop a thumb out of a wrist bone.

Vulcidian wrote:
3. The same people who didn't like plate tectonics also didn't like evolution. They have become less and less powerful because of free and REASONABLE discourse. Evoutionists should not turn on themselves and accept arguments without evidence.

Actually you are wrong about the "evolution" of the idea of plate tectonics. The reverse is true. The major part of the scientific community rejected plate tectonics as a crazy idea until the 1950s and 1960s. I have a geology textbook from the early 1970s that I bought at a used bookstore, and it mentions nothing about it. I have another geology texbook from the early 1980s, and in it, plate tectonics is a major theme. At one time, the scientific community looked at Wegener's idea of plate tectonics as some scientists today look at ID--as the work of a nutcase.

Vulcidian wrote: If you feel it isn't the governments job to make sure people tell the truth, what do you have to say about fraud, theft, and slander?

There is no law against lying, as long as it doesn't directly hurt anybody. I can't see how creationism/ID or even the Flat earth theory directly hurts anybody.

Vulcidian wrote: Parents aren't allowed to abuse their children, the government(the people) protect children from that. Lying to your child in order to cripple that child as a reasonable individual is abuse. The government protects children from abuse.

Well, teaching alternative (even wrong) ideas is far from abuse. That is a big stretch to say teaching creationism is child abuse. Things like that HURT the evolutionist side more than they help us.

Vulcidian wrote: If somebody could provide and support a creationist or intelligent design hypothesis, evolutionists, if they could repeat the experiment, would take it very seriously.

The same could be said about evolution. Any result of evolution can be explained by an intelligent designer. ID is not science, because it can't be disproven, not because it is necessarily incorrect (although I beleive it is incorrect, but that's because I think God as a designer would have done a much better job than the living things in the world today).

Vulcidian wrote: Evolution is taken seriously for a reason, and so is plate tectonics. Nobody is stopping creationists from testing their hypotheses. They simply don't have any, all they want to do is discredit evolution. In America, it's not ok to knowingly mislead people. It's call fraud.

Hmm, fiction (which often is knowingly misleading) is not against the law. While I agree that creationism shouldn't be taught in public schools, I don't agree with a contention that it should be illegal to teach in private schools or by parents or in written works.

[ontheyslay]

Quote: I told you to seperte religion vs. creationism. You still have yet to do that.

OK, if you think creationism isn't part of a religious movement or has nothing to do with religion, where does creationism get it's roots from?

[ontheyslay]

Quote: Well at least you've conceeded the point. You're bias against creationism isn't a strong adovcate for your beliefs though...

It is not a question of bias against creationism, it is rejection of something that is not scientific being passed off as a scientific theory.

[ontheyslay]

Ameriman wrote: ontheyslay wrote:

Why wold you tell a student about a hypothesis that has nothing to do with science but rather theology? The days when a science class were there to advocate a theological viewpoint are long gone.

Because it relates to science....how many times do I have to explain to you that just because we haven't figured out how to observe or test a hypothesis, doesn't mean it doesn't deserve or warrant consideration.

Also, try and put this into context.

Religion belongs in theology class.

How long do you think a Creationism class would last? 5...10 minutes?

Here let me help you with what I believe should be in a science class:

When asked about the origins of the universe:

"There are those who subscribe to the theory of Creationism in one form or another."

THE END.

Now that wasn't so hard was it?

Again I ask you, how is creationism a scientific theory? If it is prove it, if it isn't why would we teach it in a SCIENCE class.

Just because it's another explanation for the beginning of life does not mean it should be taught. I can say "Hey the world was created by a 17 foot tall invisible dinosaur", should we then teach this theory? This explanation is the same as creationism, in that there is no evidence for it, it was made up without any observation accounting for it. Therefore it should not be taught in a science class.

[Ameriman]

perdidochas wrote: Ameriman wrote: Random Evil Guy wrote: Ameriman wrote: Random Evil Guy wrote: Ameriman wrote:

And at some point you have to answer the question...where did that come from...



But where did the other "bubble" universes come from?

Fact is...we don't know...that makes creationism a very viable theory.

if you don't know the answer, you can't answer the question. making s**t up won't change that...


A theory isn't an answer my friend. It's a guess.

the concept of scientific theory is not a guess. it's for instance a scientific theory that the earth revolves around the sun....


Not a theory. A known fact that has been proven. Theories have no proof behind them. Try again.

Scientific theories do have evidence behind them. Proof doesn't belong in science. Without evidence, they aren't scientific theories, but are just philosophy.

Are you saying there is no difference between a Scientific Theory and a Scientific Fact?

[Ameriman]

ontheyslay wrote:

Again I ask you, how is creationism a scientific theory? If it is prove it, if it isn't why would we teach it in a SCIENCE class.

Who said we were teaching it? You can't teach Creationism...that doesn't mean that it isn't a valid theory.

Quote: Just because it's another explanation for the beginning of life does not mean it should be taught. I can say "Hey the world was created by a 17 foot tall invisible dinosaur", should we then teach this theory? This explanation is the same as creationism, in that there is no evidence for it, it was made up without any observation accounting for it. Therefore it should not be taught in a science class.

I never said who or what...just that Creationism is a theory. Again...please...try and understand.....I am not advocating the instruction of religion in science class.

The String Theory was also made up with no evidence or observation...it's a theory...

[Ameriman]

ontheyslay wrote: Quote: Well at least you've conceeded the point. You're bias against creationism isn't a strong adovcate for your beliefs though...

It is not a question of bias against creationism, it is rejection of something that is not scientific being passed off as a scientific theory.

How do you know its not scientific? Yet one more time...just because we can't observe or test it doesn't make it an invalid theory. People subscribe to it...people should know that...