Creationism Vs. Evolution

[Norstal]

So lets for a second pretend were all believe in creationism. OK so the earth was created in 7, says the bible. 7 earth days or is "days" a wild card. If earth wasn't created yet, then could a day could be any period of time. Could that mean the a day could be 7 million earth years. When the bible says" In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters". That's Day one. Now i know that most of you don't believe in this.

Now lets all pretend we believe in evolution. Hear is part of of Darwins theory of evolution" In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).

debate about it

If you see any holes in my idea please feel free to flame as long as its constructive criticism, i don't care if you cures my family's guts, just i want to make this theory creditable with little holes.

i left it opened ended because you believe what you believe.

thanks and if you like stuff like this Google Tim Scott, Hammond WI
(for the forum moderators, the Tim Scott thing it isn't advertising its me helping people0. btw IM NOT TIM SCOTT

For one, evolution cannot be compared to god making the Earth. The formation of planets must be compared to Nebular Hypothesis, something completely different. The comparison here, is red herring.

[The Alma Mater]

So lets for a second pretend were all believe in creationism. OK so the earth was created in 7, says the bible. 7 earth days or is "days" a wild card. If earth wasn't created yet, then could a day could be any period of time. Could that mean the a day could be 7 million earth years. When the bible says" In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters". That's Day one.

Genesis claims there were fruit bearing trees on earth before the sun was made.
All evidence we have suggests that the sun is older than the earth, let alone fuit bearing trees on earth.

How can we make these two facts stop conflicting ?

[The Alma Mater]

Scientific is the key word.

Of course it is. But if you want to start teaching religion in a science subject at school, you should better be exact on the differences. Darwin should not tell you that you should not marry your cousin in front of God, and your priest should not tell an astrodynamics expert that angels are keeping his satellite in place. Such claims make people feel a bit uneasy, when it had been before just as easy as keeping radius and velocity vector under control.

Well, why not ? We must "teach the controversy" after all.

So, in exchange for giving creationism equal time in science class, let us require that all churches give the theory that Jesus was an insane childfucking cannibal the same amount of attention as the more popular "saviour of mankind" view. Teach the controversy ! All opinions have the same value, regardless of evidence !

[Farnhamia]

So lets for a second pretend were all believe in creationism. OK so the earth was created in 7, says the bible. 7 earth days or is "days" a wild card. If earth wasn't created yet, then could a day could be any period of time. Could that mean the a day could be 7 million earth years. When the bible says" In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters". That's Day one.

Genesis claims there were fruit bearing trees on earth before the sun was made.
All evidence we have suggests that the sun is older than the earth, let alone fuit bearing trees on earth.

How can we make these two facts stop conflicting ?

Gosh. We might accept Genesis as the collection of ancient Middle Eastern myths and legends it is, and stop taking it as factual description of how the universe came to be. That would be a good start.

[Norstal]

Of course it is. But if you want to start teaching religion in a science subject at school, you should better be exact on the differences. Darwin should not tell you that you should not marry your cousin in front of God, and your priest should not tell an astrodynamics expert that angels are keeping his satellite in place. Such claims make people feel a bit uneasy, when it had been before just as easy as keeping radius and velocity vector under control.

Well, why not ? We must "teach the controversy" after all.

So, in exchange for giving creationism equal time in science class, let us require that all churches give the theory that Jesus was an insane childfucking cannibal the same amount of attention as the more popular "saviour of mankind" view. Teach the controversy ! All opinions have the same value, regardless of evidence !

I want Quantum Mechanics to be taught at churches, mosques, and temples. And human anatomy lessons on Sundays. It's only fair.

[Farnhamia]

Well, why not ? We must "teach the controversy" after all.

So, in exchange for giving creationism equal time in science class, let us require that all churches give the theory that Jesus was an insane childfucking cannibal the same amount of attention as the more popular "saviour of mankind" view. Teach the controversy ! All opinions have the same value, regardless of evidence !

I want Quantum Mechanics to be taught at churches, mosques, and temples. And human anatomy lessons on Sundays. It's only fair.

I think that they should play some of Feynman's lectures after the sermon. They're available on CD.

[Norstal]

I want Quantum Mechanics to be taught at churches, mosques, and temples. And human anatomy lessons on Sundays. It's only fair.

I think that they should play some of Feynman's lectures after the sermon. They're available on CD.

Hell yes! And you'll need to pass an exam to get baptized or get a communion. They''ll also need to do labs and write lab reports or they'll be ex-communicated.

[Volmachtia]

I am myself a creationist. I support teaching evolution in schools as a theory, but portraying it as though it's the only explanation shouldn't be allowed. People should be permitted to believe whatever they choose, and forcing evolutionism onto children not yet able to understand both sides is something I take offense to. That said, creationism shouldn't be taught in schools- it's the job of churches and priests to do that, not teachers. All in all, leave it up to the individual.

[Norstal]

I am myself a creationist. I support teaching evolution in schools as a theory, but portraying it as though it's the only explanation shouldn't be allowed. People should be permitted to believe whatever they choose, and forcing evolutionism onto children not yet able to understand both sides is something I take offense to. That said, creationism shouldn't be taught in schools- it's the job of churches and priests to do that, not teachers. All in all, leave it up to the individual.

Oh my Buddha, I should get a dollar for every time someone says "it's only a theory!" It's a provable theory, unlike the Christian god.

And you take offense to learning? Evolution is REQUIRED for learning basic biology. Without it, you'd know fuck all about why Europeans get tanned in the sun. Creationism doesn't explain that does it now?

[The Alma Mater]

I am myself a creationist. I support teaching evolution in schools as a theory

Explain what the word "theory" means according to you.
You might wish to read the rest of the topic, or a basic science textbook before making yourself look incredibly stupid though. Just a friendly tip

but portraying it as though it's the only explanation shouldn't be allowed. People should be permitted to believe whatever they choose, and forcing evolutionism onto children not yet able to understand both sides is something I take offense to. .

"Both" sides ? So other religions do not exist according to you ?
I find that offensive.

[Volmachtia]

I am myself a creationist. I support teaching evolution in schools as a theory, but portraying it as though it's the only explanation shouldn't be allowed. People should be permitted to believe whatever they choose, and forcing evolutionism onto children not yet able to understand both sides is something I take offense to. That said, creationism shouldn't be taught in schools- it's the job of churches and priests to do that, not teachers. All in all, leave it up to the individual.

Oh my Buddha, I should get a dollar for every time someone says "it's only a theory!" It's a provable theory, unlike the Christian god.

And you take offense to learning? Evolution is REQUIRED for learning basic biology. Without it, you'd know fuck all about why Europeans get tanned in the sun. Creationism doesn't explain that does it now?

*Ahem* Since you clearly didn't get my point, I'll say it again. You can't really prove evolution until it's physically shown and observed. Yes, there's evidence, but evidence alone doesn't always cut the cake. And I believe quite strongly that God exists. Can I prove it for certain? No. Can I believe it nonetheless? Yes. And as for biology, I don't take offense to learning. I take offense to teachers impressing their personal views onto children when they can't decide for themselves yet. I understand biology quite well, and I don't need evolution for it. If anything, I think the unimaginable complexity- and yet, efficient functionality- of life itself is testament to God's work. This is my own opinion, and shouting at me for it won't change it.

[Farnhamia]

I am myself a creationist. I support teaching evolution in schools as a theory, but portraying it as though it's the only explanation shouldn't be allowed. People should be permitted to believe whatever they choose, and forcing evolutionism onto children not yet able to understand both sides is something I take offense to. That said, creationism shouldn't be taught in schools- it's the job of churches and priests to do that, not teachers. All in all, leave it up to the individual.

You can absolutely believe whatever you like. Evolution, however, is the only scientific description of how life has developed on Earth. The Theory of Evolution is the explanation of the evidence - fossils, DNA, direct observation. Creationism is merely one of a number of mythological stories about how everything was created. There is no science in Creationism.

You speak of "forcing evolutionism onto children not yet able to understand both sides." There are two mistakes here. First, there's no such thing as "evolutionism." It's a word made up by Creationists to disparage people who accept the scientific view of the world. Second, "two sides" do not exist. Evolution is science. Creationism is religion. They are not the same kind of thing in the least. So children are in no danger of having anything forced on them.

[Volmachtia]

I am myself a creationist. I support teaching evolution in schools as a theory

Explain what the word "theory" means according to you.
You might wish to read the rest of the topic, or a basic science textbook before making yourself look incredibly stupid though. Just a friendly tip

but portraying it as though it's the only explanation shouldn't be allowed. People should be permitted to believe whatever they choose, and forcing evolutionism onto children not yet able to understand both sides is something I take offense to. .

"Both" sides ? So other religions do not exist according to you ?
I find that offensive.

I studied Biology last year, and got an A. Your point is? I can describe the workings of a cell, if you want. And as for the "both sides" bit, this is evolution vs creationism, is it not? As for that, both sides implies those two sides. Are there others? Of course. But they're not in this debate, I don't recall.

[Norstal]

Oh my Buddha, I should get a dollar for every time someone says "it's only a theory!" It's a provable theory, unlike the Christian god.

And you take offense to learning? Evolution is REQUIRED for learning basic biology. Without it, you'd know fuck all about why Europeans get tanned in the sun. Creationism doesn't explain that does it now?

*Ahem* Since you clearly didn't get my point, I'll say it again. You can't really prove evolution until it's physically shown and observed. Yes, there's evidence, but evidence alone doesn't always cut the cake. And I believe quite strongly that God exists. Can I prove it for certain? No. Can I believe it nonetheless? Yes. And as for biology, I don't take offense to learning. I take offense to teachers impressing their personal views onto children when they can't decide for themselves yet. I understand biology quite well, and I don't need evolution for it. If anything, I think the unimaginable complexity- and yet, efficient functionality- of life itself is testament to God's work. This is my own opinion, and shouting at me for it won't change it.

Geez, I would've thought you read the thread first. I give way too much credit to people these days. And yes you do need evolution for biology. What the fuck are you smoking?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Scientific_theories

Like THE THEORY OF GRAVITY. But that can't be physically shown and observed.

So, impress me, what do you know about biology through creationism?

[The Alma Mater]

Explain what the word "theory" means according to you.
You might wish to read the rest of the topic, or a basic science textbook before making yourself look incredibly stupid though. Just a friendly tip



"Both" sides ? So other religions do not exist according to you ?
I find that offensive.

I studied Biology last year, and got an A. Your point is?

Just give me the definition of a scientific theory. As you just stated the theory of evolution should be taught.
I wonder if you realise what you just said

this is evolution vs creationism, is it not?

Correct. But to make a fair comparison, we need to estabilsh the criteria to value them. That requires acknowledging there are millions of religious and nonreligoous tales about how us humans came to be - most of them probably superior to the Genesis story.

[Volmachtia]

I am myself a creationist. I support teaching evolution in schools as a theory, but portraying it as though it's the only explanation shouldn't be allowed. People should be permitted to believe whatever they choose, and forcing evolutionism onto children not yet able to understand both sides is something I take offense to. That said, creationism shouldn't be taught in schools- it's the job of churches and priests to do that, not teachers. All in all, leave it up to the individual.

You can absolutely believe whatever you like. Evolution, however, is the only scientific description of how life has developed on Earth. The Theory of Evolution is the explanation of the evidence - fossils, DNA, direct observation. Creationism is merely one of a number of mythological stories about how everything was created. There is no science in Creationism.

You speak of "forcing evolutionism onto children not yet able to understand both sides." There are two mistakes here. First, there's no such thing as "evolutionism." It's a word made up by Creationists to disparage people who accept the scientific view of the world. Second, "two sides" do not exist. Evolution is science. Creationism is religion. They are not the same kind of thing in the least. So children are in no danger of having anything forced on them.

There's scientific reason to believe in God, if you want me to start listing them off. Religion isn't meant to be taught in schools, the vision of America's founders were quite clear on that. (If you live in Europe or somewhere else, whatev) However, scientific proof is always subjective. Many, many scientists hammered at Einstein's theory for example, citing countless other sources and studies. In spite of his opposition, Einstein's theory worked out to be true. Einstein himself believed in a god- not the Christian or Jewish God, but rather an impersonal higher power. You can look it up, if you want. The point is, and this'll be the last time I say it (since I gotta go to bed in a few minutes), is that Evolution and Creation are two opposed- but not necessarily contradictory- ideas. I believe that intelligently-guided evolution could have potentially occured, and I'm sorry if my views anger you, but that's just what I myself think.

[Nullivan]

Students should be taught Evolution and scientific theory with no mention of creationism or God up until the age of about 15, when they should then be taught about it.
See how many of them fall about in hysterical laughter.

[Farnhamia]

You can absolutely believe whatever you like. Evolution, however, is the only scientific description of how life has developed on Earth. The Theory of Evolution is the explanation of the evidence - fossils, DNA, direct observation. Creationism is merely one of a number of mythological stories about how everything was created. There is no science in Creationism.

You speak of "forcing evolutionism onto children not yet able to understand both sides." There are two mistakes here. First, there's no such thing as "evolutionism." It's a word made up by Creationists to disparage people who accept the scientific view of the world. Second, "two sides" do not exist. Evolution is science. Creationism is religion. They are not the same kind of thing in the least. So children are in no danger of having anything forced on them.

There's scientific reason to believe in God, if you want me to start listing them off. Religion isn't meant to be taught in schools, the vision of America's founders were quite clear on that. (If you live in Europe or somewhere else, whatev) However, scientific proof is always subjective. Many, many scientists hammered at Einstein's theory for example, citing countless other sources and studies. In spite of his opposition, Einstein's theory worked out to be true. Einstein himself believed in a god- not the Christian or Jewish God, but rather an impersonal higher power. You can look it up, if you want. The point is, and this'll be the last time I say it (since I gotta go to bed in a few minutes), is that Evolution and Creation are two opposed- but not necessarily contradictory- ideas. I believe that intelligently-guided evolution could have potentially occured, and I'm sorry if my views anger you, but that's just what I myself think.

You can list the scientific reasons for believing in God - I assume you mean Yahweh - when you come back. I will be interested to see what they are.

I fail to see what your bringing Einstein into the discussion is about.

And I'm not angry, not at all. You've mentioning being offended at least twice already, however. Perhaps a good night's sleep will improve your mood.

[The Alma Mater]

You can absolutely believe whatever you like. Evolution, however, is the only scientific description of how life has developed on Earth. The Theory of Evolution is the explanation of the evidence - fossils, DNA, direct observation. Creationism is merely one of a number of mythological stories about how everything was created. There is no science in Creationism.

You speak of "forcing evolutionism onto children not yet able to understand both sides." There are two mistakes here. First, there's no such thing as "evolutionism." It's a word made up by Creationists to disparage people who accept the scientific view of the world. Second, "two sides" do not exist. Evolution is science. Creationism is religion. They are not the same kind of thing in the least. So children are in no danger of having anything forced on them.

There's scientific reason to believe in God

That is by definition impossible. The scientific method cannot take entities that can change the rules of nature into account.
That does not mean there can be no God btw.

You seem to have a fine brain, but lying scumbags have managed to corrupt you. Please, take some time to educate yourself without listening to those people.

[Norstal]

There's scientific reason to believe in God, if you want me to start listing them off. Religion isn't meant to be taught in schools, the vision of America's founders were quite clear on that. (If you live in Europe or somewhere else, whatev)[1] However, scientific proof is always subjective. Many, many scientists hammered at Einstein's theory for example, citing countless other sources and studies. In spite of his opposition, Einstein's theory worked out to be true. Einstein himself believed in a god- not the Christian or Jewish God, but rather an impersonal higher power. You can look it up, if you want.[2] The point is, and this'll be the last time I say it (since I gotta go to bed in a few minutes), is that Evolution and Creation are two opposed- but not necessarily contradictory- ideas.[3] I believe that intelligently-guided evolution could have potentially occured, and I'm sorry if my views anger you, but that's just what I myself think.

No. There. Isn't. God is not provable just as you can't disprove Farnhamia is a god. The end.

He worked his theory to be true using math, something that isn't really physical. What now? You say that Evolution is a theory because there's no physical proof. That just makes as much sense as rejecting Einsteinian theory of relativity, because you can't fucking touch it.

With creationism, I can CONCLUDE, the last step in the scientific method, for everything: God made it. That's what all research paper will end with. God did it. Frankly, I think that would just suck knowing about everything. But that's me. You're free to be ignorant.

[Don Linguini]

Yes, there's evidence, but evidence alone doesn't always cut the cake.

Please don't tell me you have anything to do with educating children.

[The Steel Commonwealth]

I believe in the theory of evolution for the obvious reasons which have undoubtedly been posted in this thread already.

[Norstal]

There's scientific reason to believe in God, if you want me to start listing them off. Religion isn't meant to be taught in schools, the vision of America's founders were quite clear on that. (If you live in Europe or somewhere else, whatev) However, scientific proof is always subjective. Many, many scientists hammered at Einstein's theory for example, citing countless other sources and studies. In spite of his opposition, Einstein's theory worked out to be true. Einstein himself believed in a god- not the Christian or Jewish God, but rather an impersonal higher power. You can look it up, if you want. The point is, and this'll be the last time I say it (since I gotta go to bed in a few minutes), is that Evolution and Creation are two opposed- but not necessarily contradictory- ideas. I believe that intelligently-guided evolution could have potentially occured, and I'm sorry if my views anger you, but that's just what I myself think.

You can list the scientific reasons for believing in God - I assume you mean Yahweh - when you come back. I will be interested to see what they are.

I fail to see what your bringing Einstein into the discussion is about.

And I'm not angry, not at all. You've mentioning being offended at least twice already, however. Perhaps a good night's sleep will improve your mood.

There's also someone here (Bottle) willing to pay her monthly paycheck to anyone who can make a provable hypothesis concerning gods and religion.

[Farnhamia]

You can list the scientific reasons for believing in God - I assume you mean Yahweh - when you come back. I will be interested to see what they are.

I fail to see what your bringing Einstein into the discussion is about.

And I'm not angry, not at all. You've mentioning being offended at least twice already, however. Perhaps a good night's sleep will improve your mood.

There's also someone here (Bottle) willing to pay her monthly paycheck to anyone who can make a provable hypothesis concerning gods and religion.

I imagine the words "irreducibly complex" will figure prominently. And some reference to our planet is in an orbit that is "just right" for life.

[The Alma Mater]

You can list the scientific reasons for believing in God - I assume you mean Yahweh - when you come back. I will be interested to see what they are.

I fail to see what your bringing Einstein into the discussion is about.

And I'm not angry, not at all. You've mentioning being offended at least twice already, however. Perhaps a good night's sleep will improve your mood.

There's also someone here (Bottle) willing to pay her monthly paycheck to anyone who can make a provable hypothesis concerning gods and religion.

As long as one does not define the gods as something supernatural, that is in fact quite easily done
The God of Abraham sadly is harder