Creationism Vs. Evolution

[Little Italy-Pornolia]

Well look, if you don't agree with me that is allright, but don't go around saying something that is clearly not found in my writing!

[Farnhamia]

Well look, if you don't agree with me that is allright, but don't go around saying something that is clearly not found in my writing!

Such as what?

[DaWoad]

Well look, if you don't agree with me that is allright, but don't go around saying something that is clearly not found in my writing!

who are you replying to?

[Coccygia]

That's like saying schools shouldn't teach Heliocentrism or Geocentrism. Evolution is a core idea in biology. Not to teach it would be irresponsible, like not teaching the Periodic Table in chemistry. Too bad if some idiots are offended by it. Grow up.

My point exactly, a polarizing topic.
Heliocentrism and geocentrism have both been disproved by the way, so, no, neither of those should be taught either. .
The universe has no absolute center we can be sure of, but we know its not our sun. Though assuming you meant the concept "The center of the universe being at our earth vs elsewhere, then if i may point out that is wdiely ignored issue today, and far more people would find the Heliocentrism vs Geocentrism debate idiotic then the Evolution Vs. Creationism debate.

Perhaps you should check your facts before you call others idiots, or tell me to grow up.

Check my facts? I am aware that the Sun is not the center of the Universe, but it is the center* of the Solar System. That's what I mean by Heliocentrism**. I am likewise aware that there is no longer any debate (except for a few ultra-fundamentalist idiots) about whether the Earth orbits the Sun. (Did you really think I wasn't?) I am also aware that the Evolution vs. Cretinism Creationism debate is controversial. (Again, did you think I wasn't?) That does NOT make Cretinism Creationism any more of a valid or even plausible scientific theory. It thus has no right to be taught as science, and especially not because some idiots people object to it on religious grounds. Which I think is what was meant by the post LOLing at the idea Cretinism Creationism is a Theory.
BTW "Grow up" was intended as a general statement directed at Cretins Creationists, not at you specifically. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

So there.


*Yes, I know, Mr. Nitpicker, the actual center is the center of mass of the Solar System, but given the far greater mass of the Sun, that's practically the same thing. Not that this will stop somebody from saying otherwise.
**I am also aware that to Copernicus and Kepler, Solar System=Universe. Just as before Hubble and Slipher, Milky Way=Universe.

[Caecili]

Are there even any creationists on this forum?

To paraphrase my priest, the whole purpose of the book of Genesis is to provide an idea of the relationship between God and man. If you are seeing anything else or thinking it is about something else entirely, you're sadly missing the point.

I was pretty sure that Genesis was meant to explain the origins of earth. Not as if they had any other idea at the time it was written.

[The Alma Mater]

Are there even any creationists on this forum?

To paraphrase my priest, the whole purpose of the book of Genesis is to provide an idea of the relationship between God and man. If you are seeing anything else or thinking it is about something else entirely, you're sadly missing the point.

I was pretty sure that Genesis was meant to explain the origins of earth. Not as if they had any other idea at the time it was written.

They had plenty. The Jews were far from the first to make up a story on where we all came from.
As I have mentioned ad nauseam at these fora - I still love the Egyptian idea of god creating life by giving himself a blowjob - and think that should be taught in schools

[Seperates]

whereas creationism is where a superior being created life and evolution is Darwin's theory on life.

FUCK OFF!!!

FOR THE LOVE OF COSMOS, FUCK, FUCK, FUCKITY FUCK, OFF!!

Darwin didn't say ANYTHING regarding the orgin of life. He merely explained it's diversity. Abiogenisis explains the orgin of life, and furthermore it is not a debate on whether it happened or not. Creationism has been crushed thousands of times in thousands of forums, and the other reason that it is still around is because religious fuckwits have the audacity of attempting to bullshit the public with lies, religious nonsense, and conclusions not supported by data.

[Free Soviets]

To paraphrase my priest, the whole purpose of the book of Genesis is to provide an idea of the relationship between God and man. If you are seeing anything else or thinking it is about something else entirely, you're sadly missing the point.

yeah, no. that's some bullshit that liberal christianity came up with when science showed their origin story couldn't be true. the other response was to deny that science was a worthwhile source of knowledge.

[Sociobiology]

sorry? we're meant to ask criminals about the importance of religion?

If it can help take nutjobs and get them to where they can function in society then it is not useless.

more secular countries like Norway have a much much better record of rehabilitating criminals than the US. so you may want to ask why their criminals do better without faith, than our's do with it.

[Sociobiology]

whereas creationism is where a superior being created life and evolution is Darwin's theory on life.

FUCK OFF!!!

FOR THE LOVE OF COSMOS, FUCK, FUCK, FUCKITY FUCK, OFF!!

Darwin didn't say ANYTHING regarding the orgin of life. He merely explained it's diversity. Abiogenisis explains the orgin of life, and furthermore it is not a debate on whether it happened or not. Creationism has been crushed thousands of times in thousands of forums, and the other reason that it is still around is because religious fuckwits have the audacity of attempting to bullshit the public with lies, religious nonsense, and conclusions not supported by data.

OK calm down before you give yourself a stroke, you're right, but snapping just makes it seem like your in the wrong.

[Grandtaria]

My point exactly, a polarizing topic.
Heliocentrism and geocentrism have both been disproved by the way, so, no, neither of those should be taught either. .
The universe has no absolute center we can be sure of, but we know its not our sun. Though assuming you meant the concept "The center of the universe being at our earth vs elsewhere, then if i may point out that is wdiely ignored issue today, and far more people would find the Heliocentrism vs Geocentrism debate idiotic then the Evolution Vs. Creationism debate.

Perhaps you should check your facts before you call others idiots, or tell me to grow up.

Check my facts? I am aware that the Sun is not the center of the Universe, but it is the center* of the Solar System. That's what I mean by Heliocentrism**. I am likewise aware that there is no longer any debate (except for a few ultra-fundamentalist idiots) about whether the Earth orbits the Sun. (Did you really think I wasn't?) I am also aware that the Evolution vs. Cretinism Creationism debate is controversial. (Again, did you think I wasn't?) That does NOT make Cretinism Creationism any more of a valid or even plausible scientific theory. It thus has no right to be taught as science, and especially not because some idiots people object to it on religious grounds. Which I think is what was meant by the post LOLing at the idea Cretinism Creationism is a Theory.
BTW "Grow up" was intended as a general statement directed at Cretins Creationists, not at you specifically. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

So there.


*Yes, I know, Mr. Nitpicker, the actual center is the center of mass of the Solar System, but given the far greater mass of the Sun, that's practically the same thing. Not that this will stop somebody from saying otherwise.
**I am also aware that to Copernicus and Kepler, Solar System=Universe. Just as before Hubble and Slipher, Milky Way=Universe.

To follow in the footsteps of some very funny Monty Python shout outs: 'The right don't enter into it!'

My entire point was that, despite Creationism being invalid, the debate has drawn so much flack that it this point I'm just too tired of hearing it to care anymore then to just shut the whole thing up. Though Evolution is effectively the only true possibility, it causes so much debate and argument that I wish we could ignore it until it goes the same way of the Flat earth Vs Round earth, or Heliocentric, Vs Geocentric, Vs Acentric, debates.

And it's not a problem, I've been in a rather poor mood lately and take things the wrong way or out of context. Sorry for being rude and quick to snap to a misunderstanding.

On a side note, this is NSG. If your not a nitpicker, something is wrong.

[Coccygia]

On a side note, this is NSG. If your not a nitpicker, something is wrong.

Well, you got that right...sometimes I like to preempt them, that's all.

[Caecili]

I was pretty sure that Genesis was meant to explain the origins of earth. Not as if they had any other idea at the time it was written.

They had plenty. The Jews were far from the first to make up a story on where we all came from.
As I have mentioned ad nauseam at these fora - I still love the Egyptian idea of god creating life by giving himself a blowjob - and think that should be taught in schools

It should. Egyptian mythology is the best mythology. Hail Horus!
What I meant was, they had no better idea at the time.

[Seperates]

FUCK OFF!!!

FOR THE LOVE OF COSMOS, FUCK, FUCK, FUCKITY FUCK, OFF!!

Darwin didn't say ANYTHING regarding the orgin of life. He merely explained it's diversity. Abiogenisis explains the orgin of life, and furthermore it is not a debate on whether it happened or not. Creationism has been crushed thousands of times in thousands of forums, and the other reason that it is still around is because religious fuckwits have the audacity of attempting to bullshit the public with lies, religious nonsense, and conclusions not supported by data.

OK calm down before you give yourself a stroke, you're right, but snapping just makes it seem like your in the wrong.

No, snapping at stupidity is perfectly fine. Especially when I explain my reasons calmly. Perhaps the caps were not needed but... it's posted now so there is really nothing I can do about it. We've already explained it to them many times calmly, no?

[Coccygia]

As I have mentioned ad nauseam at these fora - I still love the Egyptian idea of god creating life by giving himself a blowjob - and think that should be taught in schools

Oh, please tell me you have a source!

[Farnhamia]

As I have mentioned ad nauseam at these fora - I still love the Egyptian idea of god creating life by giving himself a blowjob - and think that should be taught in schools

Oh, please tell me you have a source!

I always heard it was a hand job. But the Egyptians had a few different creation stories, some of which conflict. You can look this up.

[New Alaxia]

Excuse me, explain that better?

scientist who belive this think there is no god and that evolution is god

If they don't believe in god, then how can evolution be god to them?

[Kyraina]

who ever said evolution is cold hard facts is wrong because its a theory and in theory humans can fly with out a plane or a heli or anything that glides or anything along those lines

[Tekania]

who ever said evolution is cold hard facts is wrong because its a theory and in theory humans can fly with out a plane or a heli or anything that glides or anything along those lines

Evolution is both cold hard facts and a scientific theory... Which is a very different usage and meaning of the word "theory" from the context you attempt to use "theory" in.

[Kyraina]

but it is a theory and in theory humans can fly and in theory and cold hard facts there is a god

[Caecili]

who ever said evolution is cold hard facts is wrong because its a theory and in theory humans can fly with out a plane or a heli or anything that glides or anything along those lines

Actually, a scientific theory is based upon facts.
How many times do I have to say this? I'll let you go enlighten yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

[Kyraina]

who ever said evolution is cold hard facts is wrong because its a theory and in theory humans can fly with out a plane or a heli or anything that glides or anything along those lines

Actually, a scientific theory is based upon facts.
How many times do I have to say this? I'll let you go enlighten yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

It is still a theory and there are facts pointing to a god Like God

[Tekania]

but it is a theory and in theory humans can fly and in theory and cold hard facts there is a god

Human independent flight is not a scientific theory. Like I said, two different contexts of the same word, that bear different core meanings. When science uses the term "Theory" it's far stronger a word than when it is thrown about in your context, which would be better expressed as a supposition.

[Kyraina]

but it is a theory and in theory humans can fly and in theory and cold hard facts there is a god

Human independent flight is not a scientific theory. Like I said, two different contexts of the same word, that bear different core meanings. When science uses the term "Theory" it's far stronger a word than when it is thrown about in your context, which would be better expressed as a supposition.

but it is still a theory non the less

[Tekania]

Human independent flight is not a scientific theory. Like I said, two different contexts of the same word, that bear different core meanings. When science uses the term "Theory" it's far stronger a word than when it is thrown about in your context, which would be better expressed as a supposition.

but it is still a theory non the less

A scientific theory, yes. Much like how Gravity is a scientific theory. An explanation of processes which presents accurate answers to tests and observed evidence.

In short, that life evolves isn't in question (it's a fact), it's the mechanics and systems by which the evolution occurs that is the scientific theory.