a question for the evolutionist

[Gidon]

Please correct me if I am wrong. It is my understanding that the evolutionist believes that evolutionism and creationism are BOTH man made theories.

The evolutionist believes that the theory of evolution and only the theory of evolution should be taught in schools.

If that is the case, then from a scholastic standpoint why should one man made theory be valued more than another?

[TaylorW65]

Please correct me if I am wrong. It is my understanding that the evolutionist believes that evolutionism and creationism are BOTH man made theories.

The evolutionist believes that the theory of evolution and only the theory of evolution should be taught in schools.

If that is the case, then from a scholastic standpoint why should one man made theory be valued more than another?

Both theories should be taught in school...just not in the same class.

Evolution is a theory based on empirical and tangible evidence. This should be taught in science classes.

Creationism is a theory based on philosophical evidence. This should be taught in religious and philosophy classes.


Plus evolutionism and creationism are dealing with two different issues. Evolution doesn't address the origins of the universe but of the origins of man. Cosmology is the scientific study of the origins of the universe and life.

Sorry if I am not explaining this properly.

[Alaric]

This evolutionist/creationist believes the theory of evolution is man's attempt to describe and understand in a scientific manner the process by which the species were created.

The fossil and geological record is the only record we have that was made by the hand of God himself, and He left that book wide open for us to read.

[Alaric]

Both theories should be taught in school...just not in the same class.

Evolution is a theory based on empirical and tangible evidence. This should be taught in science classes.

Creationism is a theory based on philosophical evidence. This should be taught in religious and philosophy classes.

Sorry if I am not explaining this properly.

The problem with that is that there are hundreds of creation mythologies. Even among the Abrahamic religions there are dozens of variants of the creation story. Which one do you teach?
Do you teach it as fact? Do you teach it as myth? How can you academically say this one is myth and that one is not? If you call one a myth, you must call all a myth - and that isn't going to sit too well with Reverend Bubba.

[WorldWatcher]

The evolutionist believes that the theory of evolution and only the theory of evolution should be taught in schools.


Not quite.


Evolution: As a scientific theory it should be taught in science class. Creationism is not a scientific theory so should not be taught as science.

Creationism: I have no problem with teaching creationism in school in non-scientific classes, however if creationism is taught then the creationist views of various religions should be reviewed as the government should not be in the business of endorsing one religious view. Probably in a Social Studies comparative religion section.



I have no problem with how my daughters textbook addressed the issue. (See below.) It clearly points out there are different views, it' doesn't say one is right and one is wrong. It differentiates between knowledge derived through religion, philosophy, and science.


No muss, no fuss.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~

Biology Principles & Explorations by George B. Johnson and Peter H. Raven, Copyright 1996 Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.

Chapter 1 Biology and You
1-2 The Scientific Process (Page 11)
The word theory is used very differently by scientists and by the general public. To a scientist a theory represents that of which he is most certain.

<<snip>>

Theories are the solid ground of science, that of which scientists are most certain. There is however, no absolute certainty or scientific “truth” in a theory. The possibility always remains that future evidence will cause a theory to be revised or rejected. A scientist’s acceptance of a theory is always provisional.


Chapter 11 The origin of Life
11-1 The Mystery of Life’s Origin
There are several ideas about the Origin of Life. Trying to explain how life might have originated on Earth is a difficult but fascinating quest and one that has been pursued by philosophers, theologians, and scientists alike. Still, we may never know exactly how life got here. No one was there to record what happened. What was it really like on the early Earth? Were the forces that caused life to begin ones that can be explained by science or one that cannot be explained by science?

<<snip>>

The Two principal means by which life might have originated are discussed below.

Divine Creation
Traditionally, many cultures have believed that life was put on Earth by divine (relating to a god or gods) forces, as the act of a creator or creators. Belief in divine creation is common to many of the world’s major religions, though accounts of creation vary from one religion to another. By all accounts of divine creation, the process that gave rise to life on Earth was driven by forces that cannot be explained by science.

<<snip>>

Spontaneous Origin
Most scientists think that life on Earth had a spontaneous origin, developing by itself through natural chemical and physical processes. They hypothesize that molecules of non-living matter reacted chemically during the first 1 billion years of Earth’s history forming a variety of simple organic molecules.
<<snip>>


>>>>

[Sketch]

evolution - creation threads do not beling on this forum, unless they go here:

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1377231

[Wake-Up]

This evolutionist/creationist believes the theory of evolution is man's attempt to describe and understand in a scientific manner the process by which the species were created.

The fossil and geological record is the only record we have that was made by the hand of God himself, and He left that book wide open for us to read.

Hence the problem many of us have with creationism. The fossils were made by the hand of God himself? So, God pressed the organic matter into sludge that was them compressed under heat and pressure for millions of years to create a fossil. I suppose he did that to leave signs for us of his existence?

We know God did not physically press anything into the mud unless you've got some evidence other than your faith. I understand what you are trying to say but can you at least see how non-believers take statements like this?

My point is only statements like that put your defense of creationism way behind the proverbial 8 ball.

[TaylorW65]

The problem with that is that there are hundreds of creation mythologies. Even among the Abrahamic religions there are dozens of variants of the creation story. Which one do you teach?
Do you teach it as fact? Do you teach it as myth? How can you academically say this one is myth and that one is not? If you call one a myth, you must call all a myth - and that isn't going to sit too well with Reverend Bubba.

I think some creation myths are taught in history and anthropology classes and I wouldn't mind Judeo-Christian creations stories being taught in that manner. But in a philosophy class or a religious studies class I think any of those creation stories are open for study. Hopefully the instructor can remain neutral in a philosophy and religious class and allow their students to think and decide for themselves.

[muhadeeb99]

Both theories should be taught in school...just not in the same class.

Evolution is a theory based on empirical and tangible evidence. This should be taught in science classes.

Creationism is a theory based on philosophical evidence. This should be taught in religious and philosophy classes.


Plus evolutionism and creationism are dealing with two different issues. Evolution doesn't address the origins of the universe but of the origins of man. Cosmology is the scientific study of the origins of the universe and life.

Sorry if I am not explaining this properly.

Great explanation TaylorW65. You put it so simply and compactly. If I could compare, It's nearly close to abbreviating the Relativity Theory E=MC2.

[Alaric]

Hence the problem many of us have with creationism. The fossils were made by the hand of God himself? So, God pressed the organic matter into sludge that was them compressed under heat and pressure for millions of years to create a fossil. I suppose he did that to leave signs for us of his existence?

We know God did not physically press anything into the mud unless you've got some evidence other than your faith. I understand what you are trying to say but can you at least see how non-believers take statements like this?

My point is only statements like that put your defense of creationism way behind the proverbial 8 ball.

Think a little less literally, will ya? You obviously completely missed the point.

[Alaric]

I think some creation myths are taught in history and anthropology classes and I wouldn't mind Judeo-Christian creations stories being taught in that manner. But in a philosophy class or a religious studies class I think any of those creation stories are open for study. Hopefully the instructor can remain neutral in a philosophy and religious class and allow their students to think and decide for themselves.

I don't have any problem with that approach. But I assure that there are hundreds of preachers that do have a problem with it. They want the Judeo/Christian creation myths taught in school along side the theory of evolution as though it were a fact. And I have a big problem with that.

[TaylorW65]

I don't have any problem with that approach. But I assure that there are hundreds of preachers that do have a problem with it. They want the Judeo/Christian creation myths taught in school along side the theory of evolution as though it were a fact. And I have a big problem with that.

I will fight right along side with you to prevent creationism being taught in a science class.

[RayMan]

evolution - creation threads do not beling on this forum, unless they go here:

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1377231

You sir are absolutely correct. Thanks for the reminder.

[Gem]

I don't have any problem with that approach. But I assure that there are hundreds of preachers that do have a problem with it. They want the Judeo/Christian creation myths taught in school along side the theory of evolution as though it were a fact. And I have a big problem with that.

All of this is the very reason I took all of my children out of the public schools years ago and put them in a christian school.

At least they got taught both sides on this matter in a christian school.

[THE LIGHT]

<<snip>>

The Two principal means by which life might have originated are discussed below.

Divine Creation
Traditionally, many cultures have believed that life was put on Earth by divine (relating to a god or gods) forces, as the act of a creator or creators. Belief in divine creation is common to many of the world’s major religions, though accounts of creation vary from one religion to another. By all accounts of divine creation, the process that gave rise to life on Earth was driven by forces that cannot be explained by science.

<<snip>>

Spontaneous Origin
Most scientists think that life on Earth had a spontaneous origin, developing by itself through natural chemical and physical processes. They hypothesize that molecules of non-living matter reacted chemically during the first 1 billion years of Earth’s history forming a variety of simple organic molecules.
<<snip>>[/COLOR][/INDENT][/INDENT]


>>>>

Ummmmm, first of all you are going to tell me that because your computer that you type on was CREATED it came about in an "unscientific" manner?

And secondly, that's the best explanation "atheistic* scientists" have? That non living matter turned into living matter. That we came from chemical soup? That's scientific? huh? wha? "Tangible" evidence (yep using your science books terminology) would tell you that is impossible and therefore unscientific and that creation has hard tangible evidence in practice as we speak.

*I say atheistic scientists because according to your books definition scientists have the same view as atheists

[Gem]

I don't have any problem with that approach. But I assure that there are hundreds of preachers that do have a problem with it. They want the Judeo/Christian creation myths taught in school along side the theory of evolution as though it were a fact. And I have a big problem with that.


Evolution hasn't been proven either, so what is the difference in the two ?

[I am the Eggman]

Evolution hasn't been proven either, so what is the difference in the two ?
Your lack of understanding between what a belief is and what a scientific theory is does not mean there's no difference between the two.

[Gem]

Your lack of understanding between what a belief is and what a scientific theory is does not mean there's no difference between the two.




I understand perfectly . and a theory is all it is. :)

[THE LIGHT]

Your lack of understanding between what a belief is and what a scientific theory is does not mean there's no difference between the two.

Imagine that. The evolutionists who tell us that our brains are nothing more than a chemical brew telling us that we don't know what is belief and what is scientific theory. What makes your random chemical reation in your brain more right than mine? :think:

[WorldWatcher]

Ummmmm, first of all you are going to tell me that because your computer that you type on was CREATED it came about in an "unscientific" manner?

Not in the least as that would be silly. Of course you and I could hop on a plan and I could show you the raw materials used (metal, plastic, etc…). Then we could tour the production facility and we could examine the machines used to manufacture the parts from the Central Processing Unit to the Video and Memory Chips, the injection molding equipment used to make the plastic parts, the sheet metal stampers used to press the metal parts. Then we could tour the production facility where people assemble the parts in a customer order to deliver the product you order.

Then we could fly to Redman Washington and visit the programmers who wrote the code used for much of the software used to run the machine.

Nothing “unscientific” about it.


And secondly, that's the best explanation "atheistic* scientists" have?

Actually there are quite a few scientists who are religious that work in the biological sciences. One of the most famous is Kenneth Miller who wrote “Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (P.S.)”


…using your science books terminology) would tell you that is impossible and therefore unscientific and that creation has hard tangible evidence in practice as we speak.

I doubt if you will find one science book (peer reviewed and not by someone writing propaganda for the masses like those at the Discovery Institute) written by a real scientist that says abiogenists is “impossible”. “Improbable”? Maybe. But considering the billions of years involved, and the billions of planets in the Universe, and the billions of environments existing in the billions of years on those billions of planets, “improbable” isn’t even a good word.


As an example, lets say my home state has a lottery. The value of the Lottery is $150,000,000 and the odds of my winning the lottery are 1:200,000,000. My winning the lottery is pretty improbable also. However, if I’m the one that did win the lottery, then the probability of my having already won it becomes 100%.


*I say atheistic scientists because according to your books definition scientists have the same view as atheists


Please highlight the part of the definition provided in my previous citation from my daughters book where it says “Got Does Not Exist” (which would be the atheistic point of view).


I could have sworn my citation said: “There are several ideas about the Origin of Life. Trying to explain how life might have originated on Earth is a difficult but fascinating quest and one that has been pursued by philosophers, theologians, and scientists alike.”



>>>>

[WorldWatcher]

Evolution hasn't been proven either, so what is the difference in the two ?


One is science the other is theology. I have no issue with teaching science as science and theology as theology.


>>>>

[WorldWatcher]

Imagine that. The evolutionists who tell us that our brains are nothing more than a chemical brew telling us that we don't know what is belief and what is scientific theory. What makes your random chemical reation in your brain more right than mine? :think:


Nothing.

The conflict usually arises when some try to inject their theology into a public school science classroom. That I disagree with.

I would also disagree with anyone that tried to make a law (or official government action) that required that synagogues teach science as part of their worship services to retain their tax-exempt status.


>>>>

[Scruffy]

Creationism should be taught in science class because there is scientific evidence to support it.

Students should be allowed to make up their own mind which theory they believe.

[I am the Eggman]

Imagine that. The evolutionists who tell us that our brains are nothing more than a chemical brew telling us that we don't know what is belief and what is scientific theory. What makes your random chemical reation in your brain more right than mine? :think:

No, the question told me there was a misunderstanding of the difference between scientific theory and belief. The question would have been completely unnecessary if the understanding was there.

[THE LIGHT]

Nothing.

The conflict usually arises when some try to inject their theology into a public school science classroom. That I disagree with.

I would also disagree with anyone that tried to make a law (or official government action) that required that synagogues teach science as part of their worship services to retain their tax-exempt status.


>>>>

They do teach science in churches, it's called the Bible. But my question went unanswered. What makes what you say as a chemical blob (by textbook definition) trustworthy?

[WorldWatcher]

But my question went unanswered.


Go back and read again, I did answer your question.


What makes what you say as a chemical blob (by textbook definition) trustworthy?


I repeat, nothing.


I don't find all chemical blobs trustworthy.



They do teach science in churches, it's called the Bible.


With that you show you are not attempting to discuss and differentiate between religion and science.

Have a good day.

[THE LIGHT]

Not in the least as that would be silly. Of course you and I could hop on a plan and I could show you the raw materials used (metal, plastic, etc…). Then we could tour the production facility and we could examine the machines used to manufacture the parts from the Central Processing Unit to the Video and Memory Chips, the injection molding equipment used to make the plastic parts, the sheet metal stampers used to press the metal parts. Then we could tour the production facility where people assemble the parts in a customer order to deliver the product you order.

Then we could fly to Redman Washington and visit the programmers who wrote the code used for much of the software used to run the machine.

Nothing “unscientific” about it.

Do you have to visit every plant for each product that you consume to know that it wasn't a product of an evolutionary process? Or at what point do you begin to believe the people that sent you the computer that it didn't just evolve out of the sewage treatment plant out back? Let me make a wild guess. You have never toured the factory that made your refrigerator? But somehow you believe that it was CREATED. Why is that? You can believe them but you cannot believe the Bible?



Actually there are quite a few scientists who are religious that work in the biological sciences. One of the most famous is Kenneth Miller who wrote “Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (P.S.)”

So that is the best you have?



I doubt if you will find one science book (peer reviewed and not by someone writing propaganda for the masses like those at the Discovery Institute) written by a real scientist that says abiogenists is “impossible”. “Improbable”? Maybe. But considering the billions of years involved, and the billions of planets in the Universe, and the billions of environments existing in the billions of years on those billions of planets, “improbable” isn’t even a good word.

That is interesting. What makes DI "propaganda and Richard Dawkins "fact"? :think:


As an example, lets say my home state has a lottery. The value of the Lottery is $150,000,000 and the odds of my winning the lottery are 1:200,000,000. My winning the lottery is pretty improbable also. However, if I’m the one that did win the lottery, then the probability of my having already won it becomes 100%.

Let's try this one. You are in a room with 4 walls a floor and a ceiling and absolutely nothing in there. What are the odds of finding a Porsche in that room?

And don't tell me a Porsche comes driving through the wall either. :D



Please highlight the part of the definition provided in my previous citation from my daughters book where it says “Got Does Not Exist” (which would be the atheistic point of view).


I could have sworn my citation said: “There are several ideas about the Origin of Life. Trying to explain how life might have originated on Earth is a difficult but fascinating quest and one that has been pursued by philosophers, theologians, and scientists alike.”

Precisely my point! It doesn't mention atheists anywhere but it does mention theologians.

[Marleysdaddy]

Please correct me if I am wrong. It is my understanding that the evolutionist believes that evolutionism and creationism are BOTH man made theories.
Other than starting this thread in the wrong forum, you made one mistake here...scientifically speaking, creationism is not a theory.

The evolutionist believes that the theory of evolution and only the theory of evolution should be taught in schools.
Incorrect - most scientists think that the theory which best explains the diversity of life on this planet should be taught in Biology class...right now, that is the theory of evolution. In 50 years, or 150 years, it may not be.

If that is the case, then from a scholastic standpoint why should one man made theory be valued more than another?
It's not a question of "value" - creationism is not a scientific theory, so it has no place in science class.

[Marleysdaddy]

evolution - creation threads do not beling on this forum, unless they go here:

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1377231

I have notified the moderators and asked that this thread be moved to GI

[Marleysdaddy]

Evolution hasn't been proven either, so what is the difference in the two ?

Scientific theories can not be proven

But the most important difference between evolution and creationism is that evolution could be disproven

[Marleysdaddy]

I understand perfectly . and a theory is all it is. :)

'Theory' is the highest level to which an idea in science can aspire...so you are paying evolution a compliment :)

[I am the Eggman]

I could have sworn my citation said: “There are several ideas about the Origin of Life. Trying to explain how life might have originated on Earth is a difficult but fascinating quest and one that has been pursued by philosophers, theologians, and scientists alike.”


Oh, but don't you know, "scientist" is a code word for atheist. We should all stop all scientific examination and expermentation and read the bible, after all, it is a science book. :rolleyes:

[THE LIGHT]

Go back and read again, I did answer your question.





I repeat, nothing.


I don't find all chemical blobs trustworthy.

How do you differentiate? ;)






With that you show you are not attempting to discuss and differentiate between religion and science.

Have a good day.

No I am not attempting to differentiate between reliegion and science. All scientists are religious. It just depends on what theory they put their faith in. I cannot differentiate between the Bible and science yet because I have been given no reason to. The Bible is correct every time when it comes to science.

Again, I say it is, you say it isn't. Which chemical are we to believe?:D

[BillyBobUSA]

Please correct me if I am wrong. It is my understanding that the evolutionist believes that evolutionism and creationism are BOTH man made theories.

The evolutionist believes that the theory of evolution and only the theory of evolution should be taught in schools.

If that is the case, then from a scholastic standpoint why should one man made theory be valued more than another?


because evolution is backed by the scientific evidence in an overwhelming manner, while Creationism is really a theological position that may or may not be supported by science, but is not itself science.

[captusa]

Please correct me if I am wrong. It is my understanding that the evolutionist believes that evolutionism and creationism are BOTH man made theories.

The evolutionist believes that the theory of evolution and only the theory of evolution should be taught in schools.

If that is the case, then from a scholastic standpoint why should one man made theory be valued more than another?

Evidence.

[captusa]

Imagine that. The evolutionists who tell us that our brains are nothing more than a chemical brew telling us that we don't know what is belief and what is scientific theory. What makes your random chemical reation in your brain more right than mine? :think:

The random chemical electronic brew that is the human mind develops through education.
You have noticed that an infant acquires knowledge as it interacts and matures.
The accumulation of knowledge and experience along with the collected recorded history is absorbed by the brain.
I have not acquired the ability to dismantle an automatic transmission of Buick nor speak Armenian and some people have not grasped the understandiong of the nature of a scientific theory.

[captusa]

Creationism should be taught in science class because there is scientific evidence to support it.

Students should be allowed to make up their own mind which theory they believe.

What evidence is there for Creationism that would raise it to the level of a scientific theory like evolution or light or gravity ?

[BillyBobUSA]

The random chemical electronic brew that is the human mind ...


There is NOTHING random about this at all.

[BigJimSlade]

Scholastically, I think it's safe to assume mythology/theology courses would cover creation myths while science classes would cover evolution/biology. How are you getting these two mixed up? I believe I'm Superman, should that be taught in school, too? Why value evolution or creationism more than me being Superman? My superpowers are pretty important!

You can't jump into an debate like science versus mythology with only "oh yeah, how do you know?" as your primary argument.

My biology classes in college didn't cover any creation myths nor would I see a reason why they would. There are so many different creation myths to choose from, some people simply choose the belief they inherited from mommy/daddy without any spiritual search of their own... Creation myths are a fascinating way to learn about the beliefs of ancient cultures but they are starting to look a little dated by today's standards.

Somebody suggested there are ancient religious texts that are scientifically relevant. I'm willing to bet books with talking snakes aren't in that list of books.

In science class when discussing the law of gravity should a professor suggest there's a possibility that gravity doesn't exist and that there are actually gods acting as invisible paperweights, holding everything down to Earth?

That's what I believe in and you can't prove otherwise! Until schools start teaching that theory I'm schooling my kid from home...

[Marleysdaddy]

The Bible is correct every time when it comes to science.


The Bible is a fantastic collection of writings, but one thing is is not is a science text...because as far as science is concerned, bats are not birds and demons are not the cause of disease or insanity

[Haplo]

At least they got taught both sides on this matter in a christian school.I have no problem with both being taught but they don't belong in the same classroom. No more so then astronomy and astrology should be taught in the same class.

[Marleysdaddy]

The evolutionists who tell us that our brains are nothing more than a chemical brew...
Those people happen to be made of straw.

[Greyclouds]

Please correct me if I am wrong. It is my understanding that the evolutionist [1] believes that evolutionism and creationism are BOTH man made theories [2].

The evolutionist believes that the theory of evolution and only the theory of evolution should be taught in schools.[3]

If that is the case, then from a scholastic standpoint why should one man made theory be valued more than another?[4]

Several big things to address here. I have added bracketed numbers for each of my points:

[1] There is no such thing as an "evolutionist" in the context of scientific knowledge. Scientists are constantly skeptical of all findings and theories, and constantly test them in the light of new data. Given that the Theory of Evolution is the only scientific theory on the heredity of alleles in a population and the diversity of phenotypes of species, it is the only scientific theory that can be recognized. There are no SCIENTIFIC alternatives.

[2] Your use of the word "theories" is not the term that scientists use. Instead, the popular lexicon dictates that a "theory" is far more prone to error than that of a Scientific Theory. Lets go through the generation of a new scientific theory and see if this clears things up a bit:
1. Data is generated from an experiment or observation of a natural process.
2. A hypothesis is created based on an interpretation of this data. This is an educated "guess" as to a universal mechanism underlying the initial observations.
3. More data is gathered and compared to the initial hypothesis.
4. If the hypothesis failed to predict the data that you collected in step 3, reject or modify the hypothesis. If the hypothesis DID predict the data, then keep it.
5. After several datasets have been found to conform to the hypothesis' predictions, it becomes a Scientific Theory.
6. It remains a valid Scientific Theory (even in the face of viable alternative theories!!!) until a dataset is found that defies its prediction.
So, a scientific theory CAN and MUST be falsifiable. This does not shroud the theory in a perpetual state of doubt, as you would grant to a co-worker exclaiming, "I have a theory on this..." Instead, a scientific theory has borne out the test of time, and has not yet been refuted by the data.

[3] In this case, the Theory of Evolution is the ONLY scientific theory on the diversity of alleles in host populations. There are no scientific alternatives. Sure, there are religious, philosophical and fantastical alternatives, but do they belong in a science class.

[4] Again, it is science vs. non-science that is the core of the issue here. In a philosophy class? You'd be correct, but ALL alternative avenues would have to be explored.

[badkarma]

let me make thios thread shorter for all involved.

Creationist: But Both ID and evolution are both theories! Why can we teach one and not the other?
Evolutionary theory proponent: A scientific theory is different than a theory as defined in every day usage.
Creationist: evolution is wrong, it is just impossible!
Evolutionary theory proponent: Incredulity is not a sound basis to disprove a theory
Creationist: See? even you call it a theory!
Evolutionary theory proponent: A scientific theory, which can be disproved and which has evidence backing it up as opposed to intelligent design which has none.
Creationist: We did not come from monkeys! But since you say we did, why are there still monkeys huh?
Evolutionary theory proponent: You have no understanding of the theory of evolution. It does not state that we came from monkeys.
Creationist: There is no evidence of speciation, see?
Evolutionary theory proponent:<provides links and evidence of such>
Creationist: That is Micro evolution, changes within a species, not macro evolution!
Evolutionary theory proponent: At what point would you distinguish between the two?
Creationist: Micro is not macro!
Evolutionary theory proponent: Fine, if you can not disprove the stated theory of evolution, could you please provide us with the evidence for creationism?
Creationist: we weren't created in a mud puddle!
Evolutionary theory proponent: that is abiogenesis that you are misrepresenting there, not evolution, and it has nothing to do with providing evidence that the theory of intelligent design has some scientific merit and should be taught in a science class along side of the theory of evolution.
Creationist: If we can't teach Intelligent Design then you shouldn't be able to teach evolution as fact, because both are just theories!
Evolutionary theory proponent: Gravity is also just a theory. Do you want to teach intelligent falling along side of it?
Creationist: But Both ID and evolution are both theories! Why can we teach one and not the other?

Repeat for 30 or 40 pages with various people playing the various roles and you have pretty much every ID/Evo thread ever posted on these forums.

[Greyclouds]

Ummmmm, first of all you are going to tell me that because your computer that you type on was CREATED it came about in an "unscientific" manner?

No, that wasn't what he said at all.


And secondly, that's the best explanation "atheistic* scientists" have? That non living matter turned into living matter. That we came from chemical soup? That's scientific? huh? wha? "Tangible" evidence (yep using your science books terminology) would tell you that is impossible and therefore unscientific and that creation has hard tangible evidence in practice as we speak.

We have reproducible experiments that show organic chemicals being produced in simulations of early Earth's atmosphere, as well as observable studies of enzyme kinetics showing that RNA molecules that self-assemble can also reproduce themselves.


*I say atheistic scientists because according to your books definition scientists have the same view as atheists

I'm not an atheist, nor does one have to be an atheist in order to accept the Theories of Evolution, Abiogenesis and Common Ancestry. Philosophy can answer the "why" questions that science intentionally ignores.

It's harder to obtain evidence for "why" questions.

[Greyclouds]

let me make thios thread shorter for all involved.

Creationist: But Both ID and evolution are both theories! Why can we teach one and not the other?
Evolutionary theory proponent: A scientific theory is different than a theory as defined in every day usage.
Creationist: evolution is wrong, it is just impossible!
Evolutionary theory proponent: Incredulity is not a sound basis to disprove a theory
Creationist: See? even you call it a theory!
Evolutionary theory proponent: A scientific theory, which can be disproved and which has evidence backing it up as opposed to intelligent design which has none.
Creationist: We did not come from monkeys! But since you say we did, why are there still monkeys huh?
Evolutionary theory proponent: You have no understanding of the theory of evolution. It does not state that we came from monkeys.
Creationist: There is no evidence of speciation, see?
Evolutionary theory proponent:<provides links and evidence of such>
Creationist: That is Micro evolution, changes within a species, not macro evolution!
Evolutionary theory proponent: At what point would you distinguish between the two?
Creationist: Micro is not macro!
Evolutionary theory proponent: Fine, if you can not disprove the stated theory of evolution, could you please provide us with the evidence for creationism?
Creationist: we weren't created in a mud puddle!
Evolutionary theory proponent: that is abiogenesis that you are misrepresenting there, not evolution, and it has nothing to do with providing evidence that the theory of intelligent design has some scientific merit and should be taught in a science class along side of the theory of evolution.
Creationist: If we can't teach Intelligent Design then you shouldn't be able to teach evolution as fact, because both are just theories!
Evolutionary theory proponent: Gravity is also just a theory. Do you want to teach intelligent falling along side of it?
Creationist: But Both ID and evolution are both theories! Why can we teach one and not the other?

Repeat for 30 or 40 pages with various people playing the various roles and you have pretty much every ID/Evo thread ever posted on these forums.

Spot on :))

I have to admit though, the repetition is soothing... almost like meditation :cool:

[Marleysdaddy]

Badkarma hit the nail on the head...except, I will point out that there are some creationists on these forums (especially some of those of the Catholic persuasion) who think that the theory of evolution can explain the diversity of life on earth, but not the origin of the human soul - thus the need for a creator.

[Haplo]

Badkarma hit the nail on the head...except, I will point out that there are some creationists on these forums (especially some of those of the Catholic persuasion) who think that the theory of evolution can explain the diversity of life on earth, but not the origin of the human soul - thus the need for a creator.
And the idea of the human soul is not something that is addressed one way or the other by the theory of evolution. Darn you Catholics for being so agreeable

[sironin]

let me make thios thread shorter for all involved.

Creationist: But Both ID and evolution are both theories! Why can we teach one and not the other?
Evolutionary theory proponent: A scientific theory is different than a theory as defined in every day usage.
Creationist: evolution is wrong, it is just impossible!
Evolutionary theory proponent: Incredulity is not a sound basis to disprove a theory
Creationist: See? even you call it a theory!
Evolutionary theory proponent: A scientific theory, which can be disproved and which has evidence backing it up as opposed to intelligent design which has none.
Creationist: We did not come from monkeys! But since you say we did, why are there still monkeys huh?
Evolutionary theory proponent: You have no understanding of the theory of evolution. It does not state that we came from monkeys.
Creationist: There is no evidence of speciation, see?
Evolutionary theory proponent:<provides links and evidence of such>
Creationist: That is Micro evolution, changes within a species, not macro evolution!
Evolutionary theory proponent: At what point would you distinguish between the two?
Creationist: Micro is not macro!
Evolutionary theory proponent: Fine, if you can not disprove the stated theory of evolution, could you please provide us with the evidence for creationism?
Creationist: we weren't created in a mud puddle!
Evolutionary theory proponent: that is abiogenesis that you are misrepresenting there, not evolution, and it has nothing to do with providing evidence that the theory of intelligent design has some scientific merit and should be taught in a science class along side of the theory of evolution.
Creationist: If we can't teach Intelligent Design then you shouldn't be able to teach evolution as fact, because both are just theories!
Evolutionary theory proponent: Gravity is also just a theory. Do you want to teach intelligent falling along side of it?
Creationist: But Both ID and evolution are both theories! Why can we teach one and not the other?

Repeat for 30 or 40 pages with various people playing the various roles and you have pretty much every ID/Evo thread ever posted on these forums.

oooo good summation!

[James Juno]

let me make thios thread shorter for all involved.

Creationist: But Both ID and evolution are both theories! Why can we teach one and not the other?
Evolutionary theory proponent: A scientific theory is different than a theory as defined in every day usage.
Creationist: evolution is wrong, it is just impossible!
Evolutionary theory proponent: Incredulity is not a sound basis to disprove a theory
Creationist: See? even you call it a theory!
Evolutionary theory proponent: A scientific theory, which can be disproved and which has evidence backing it up as opposed to intelligent design which has none.
Creationist: We did not come from monkeys! But since you say we did, why are there still monkeys huh?
Evolutionary theory proponent: You have no understanding of the theory of evolution. It does not state that we came from monkeys.
Creationist: There is no evidence of speciation, see?
Evolutionary theory proponent:<provides links and evidence of such>
Creationist: That is Micro evolution, changes within a species, not macro evolution!
Evolutionary theory proponent: At what point would you distinguish between the two?
Creationist: Micro is not macro!
Evolutionary theory proponent: Fine, if you can not disprove the stated theory of evolution, could you please provide us with the evidence for creationism?
Creationist: we weren't created in a mud puddle!
Evolutionary theory proponent: that is abiogenesis that you are misrepresenting there, not evolution, and it has nothing to do with providing evidence that the theory of intelligent design has some scientific merit and should be taught in a science class along side of the theory of evolution.
Creationist: If we can't teach Intelligent Design then you shouldn't be able to teach evolution as fact, because both are just theories!
Evolutionary theory proponent: Gravity is also just a theory. Do you want to teach intelligent falling along side of it?
Creationist: But Both ID and evolution are both theories! Why can we teach one and not the other?

Repeat for 30 or 40 pages with various people playing the various roles and you have pretty much every ID/Evo thread ever posted on these forums.

Exactly right.

[Marleysdaddy]

And the idea of the human soul is not something that is addressed one way or the other by the theory of evolution. Darn you Catholics for being so agreeable

not a Catholic, nor a creationist...just sticking up for a few members of the RF :)

[WorldWatcher]

Creationist: But Both ID and evolution are both theories! Why can we teach one and not the other?
Creationist: evolution is wrong, it is just impossible!
Creationist: See? even you call it a theory!
Creationist: We did not come from monkeys! But since you say we did, why are there still monkeys huh?
Creationist: There is no evidence of speciation, see?
Creationist: That is Micro evolution, changes within a species, not macro evolution!
Creationist: Micro is not macro!
Creationist: we weren't created in a mud puddle!
Creationist: If we can't teach Intelligent Design then you shouldn't be able to teach evolution as fact, because both are just theories!
Creationist: But Both ID and evolution are both theories! Why can we teach one and not the other?



Wayne?


...........Wayne is that you?















(OK, you had to have been around during the Dover Trial to understand this post.)


>>>>

[markd]

Wayne?


...........Wayne is that you?















(OK, you had to have been around during the Dover Trial to understand this post.)


>>>>I got seizures from banging my head so much talkiing to wayne about dover.

[WorldWatcher]

I got seizures from banging my head so much talkiing to wayne about dover.


:))


Patience is a virture. :angel:



>>>>

[pictor]

The problem with that is that there are hundreds of creation mythologies. Even among the Abrahamic religions there are dozens of variants of the creation story. Which one do you teach?
Do you teach it as fact? Do you teach it as myth? How can you academically say this one is myth and that one is not? If you call one a myth, you must call all a myth - and that isn't going to sit too well with Reverend Bubba.
A) You do your best to teach them all.
B) You do not teach it as fact. You teach it as a belief that many people have.

For the record, you don't teach evolution as fact either, but as a theory with a substantial amount of empirical evidence currently supporting it.

[Marleysdaddy]

A) You do your best to teach them all.
B) You do not teach it as fact. You teach it as a belief that many people have.

For the record, you don't teach evolution as fact either, but as a theory with a substantial amount of empirical evidence currently supporting it.

To be nit-picky...evolution is both a fact, and a theory, so you could teach it as fact, kinda-sorta :razz:

[pictor]

To be nit-picky...evolution is both a fact, and a theory, so you could teach it as fact, kinda-sorta :razz:
Well fine, I understand the difference, but people take a particular meaning to a word like fact, and trying to call it a fact necessitates someone who knows what you mean when you say it.

I am generally happy not calling it a fact as it gets to be too loaded a word on forums such as this.

[Apatriot]

Please correct me if I am wrong. It is my understanding that the evolutionist believes that evolutionism and creationism are BOTH man made theories.

The evolutionist believes that the theory of evolution and only the theory of evolution should be taught in schools.

If that is the case, then from a scholastic standpoint why should one man made theory be valued more than another?

Creationism isn't based on the scientific method, hence, it shouldn't be taught in science class.

We don't teach astrology in science class either.

[captusa]

Well fine, I understand the difference, but people take a particular meaning to a word like fact, and trying to call it a fact necessitates someone who knows what you mean when you say it.

I am generally happy not calling it a fact as it gets to be too loaded a word on forums such as this.
As an aside.
It is amazing that so many disproven theories are still extremely useful.
The Bohr atom is still used as a model dispite the contradiction of quantum mechanics and Newtonian physics is used where the Einsteinian contradictions are not particularly relevent.
It took over 2 millenia to find out thaty the Euclidean postulate was not essential.
What is provable about the sum of the angles in a triangle ?

[Marleysdaddy]

Well fine, I understand the difference, but people take a particular meaning to a word like fact, and trying to call it a fact necessitates someone who knows what you mean when you say it.

I am generally happy not calling it a fact as it gets to be too loaded a word on forums such as this.

No defense was needed...I was totally pestering you. :)