Creationism vs. Evolution in School

[The Rich Port]

Maybe (and this is just a wild guess), she provided generousness bribe donation to buy the degree support education and promotion of talent?

No. The question of money in this case is not at issue. The bestowing of honourary degrees is usually a recognition of a public figure and what they have achieved.

I'm not really bothered about the degree...its the commencement speech role she been given that has really irked me.

"Y'see, kids, holistic medicine is WAY better than all that Obamacare stuff!"

[Farnhamia]

No. The question of money in this case is not at issue. The bestowing of honourary degrees is usually a recognition of a public figure and what they have achieved.

I'm not really bothered about the degree...its the commencement speech role she been given that has really irked me.

"Y'see, kids, holistic medicine is WAY better than all that Obamacare stuff!"

"And if good things don't happen to you, well, you're just not trying hard enough."

[The Rich Port]

"Y'see, kids, holistic medicine is WAY better than all that Obamacare stuff!"

"And if good things don't happen to you, well, you're just not trying hard enough."

"Obamacare is REALLY EXPENSIVE. HARUMPH. EVERYBODY HARUMPH. HARUMPH. HARUMPH. Hey, that cancer kid didn't give me a Harumph"

"Give Oprah Harumph, you piece of shit kid"

"*wheeeeeeeeeze* Ha... Harumph..."

"You watch your ass"

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

"Y'see, kids, holistic medicine is WAY better than all that Obamacare stuff!"

"And if good things don't happen to you, well, you're just not trying hard enough."

Yeah...pretty much all this.

[Ovisterra]

"Y'see, kids, holistic medicine is WAY better than all that Obamacare stuff!"

"And if good things don't happen to you, well, you're just not trying hard enough."

I thought of this.

[Farnhamia]

"And if good things don't happen to you, well, you're just not trying hard enough."

Yeah...pretty much all this.

Oh, and we can thank her for giving us Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

"And if good things don't happen to you, well, you're just not trying hard enough."

"Obamacare is REALLY EXPENSIVE. HARUMPH. EVERYBODY HARUMPH. HARUMPH. HARUMPH. Hey, that cancer kid didn't give me a Harumph"

"Give Oprah Harumph, you piece of shit kid"

"*wheeeeeeeeeze* Ha... Harumph..."

"You watch your ass"

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Yeah...pretty much all this.

Oh, and we can thank her for giving us Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz.

Oh fucking hell. Reason enough to remove any honourary anything she's been given. Including tax breaks.

[Individuality-ness]

Yeah...pretty much all this.

Oh, and we can thank her for giving us Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz.

At least Dr. Oz has some credentials and is apparently one of the best practicing heart surgeons in the US. Dr. Phil doesn't have that.

[The Rich Port]

Oh, and we can thank her for giving us Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz.

At least Dr. Oz has some credentials and is apparently one of the best practicing heart surgeons in the US. Dr. Phil doesn't have that.

What the fuck DOES Dr. Phil had?

I watched his show one time and as a will-be psychological professional, I was offended by how terrible of a psychologist he is.

[Individuality-ness]

At least Dr. Oz has some credentials and is apparently one of the best practicing heart surgeons in the US. Dr. Phil doesn't have that.

What the fuck DOES Dr. Phil had?

I watched his show one time and as a will-be psychological professional, I was offended by how terrible of a psychologist he is.

Nothing. That's the point. Dr. Phil has absolutely no credentials and whatever he says is pretty much bullshit out of his ass.

Dr. Oz has credentials, and he is also still currently practicing as a cardiologist. So that gives him SOME credibility.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

What the fuck DOES Dr. Phil had?

I watched his show one time and as a will-be psychological professional, I was offended by how terrible of a psychologist he is.

Nothing. That's the point. Dr. Phil has absolutely no credentials and whatever he says is pretty much bullshit out of his ass.

Dr. Oz has credentials, and he is also still currently practicing as a cardiologist. So that gives him SOME credibility.

Huh...I was channel hopping and came across this Dr Oz character. Obviously struck a chord as I cannot for the life of me remember what he was babbling on about. Shocking that he's a surgeon though.

[Individuality-ness]

Nothing. That's the point. Dr. Phil has absolutely no credentials and whatever he says is pretty much bullshit out of his ass.

Dr. Oz has credentials, and he is also still currently practicing as a cardiologist. So that gives him SOME credibility.

Huh...I was channel hopping and came across this Dr Oz character. Obviously struck a chord as I cannot for the life of me remember what he was babbling on about. Shocking that he's a surgeon though.

He shows up as #6 on this list.

[Salandriagado]

I'm neither creationist or evolutionist, and that puts me in a position to call both flawed. Evolution doesn't work unless there is a starting organism, and the only excepted idea is one that was laughed out of science decades ago: spontaneous generation.

This is wrong. Abiogenesis is a thing.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Huh...I was channel hopping and came across this Dr Oz character. Obviously struck a chord as I cannot for the life of me remember what he was babbling on about. Shocking that he's a surgeon though.

He shows up as #6 on this list.

Hmmm obviously a brilliant surgeon...yet seems to peddle bollocks (that'll be the MBA then) like "alternative medicine" and arsenic in apples...

http://open.salon.com/blog/emagill/2012 ... ts_of_2011 <--- number 4

[Individuality-ness]

He shows up as #6 on this list.

Hmmm obviously a brilliant surgeon...yet seems to peddle bollocks (that'll be the MBA then) like "alternative medicine" and arsenic in apples...

http://open.salon.com/blog/emagill/2012 ... ts_of_2011 <--- number 4

To be fair, 1. the link's a blog, and 2. specialty in one subject in medicine =! specialty in all topics in medicine.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Hmmm obviously a brilliant surgeon...yet seems to peddle bollocks (that'll be the MBA then) like "alternative medicine" and arsenic in apples...

http://open.salon.com/blog/emagill/2012 ... ts_of_2011 <--- number 4

To be fair, 1. the link's a blog, and 2. specialty in one subject in medicine =! specialty in all topics in medicine.

Yet...that was the link in the cracked article you posted

Anyway there are blogs and then there are blogs...and then....

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ind ... ame-dr-oz/

[Salandriagado]

Oh? Have you? Because nothing you've said there is actually true:

Science is not fact? I assume you mean nothing in science is ever fact... even though they are. The earth is an oblong sphereoid: fact. The average human has 5 fingers: fact. Carbon has 6 electrons: fact. Clearly, you don't even know what the word fact means.

Science is not assumptions based on observations: its conclusions drawn from empirical evidence, which need not be observed.

I was wrong on one thing: you're right that theory is not fact. A theory is MUCH better. A scientific theory is not a "well supported hypothesis". A theory is an explanation based on facts and evidence, and is the highest honor achievable by an idea in science. We have gravitational THEORY, atomic THEORY, cell THEORY. Are you saying gravity, atoms, and cells don't exist?
Seriously... you are woefully uneducated in science and are a prime example of why this debate is necessary.

Go read a science textbook, then reread your post, and you will see how ridiculous that statement of yours is. Oh, btw, anyone who can coun could tell you that humans have five fingers, you don't need a scientist to tell you that.
There. Fixed

That is still not a proof. If it isn't a statement within a formal deductive system (which science isn't), you can't prove it. Period.

Evolution is a theory, because it has not been proven by science.
Creationism is a theory, because it has not be proven by science.

If we teach one theory, we should teach other. If you don't, then you aren't being scientific because in science you must keep an open mind and be open to all theories.

Creationism should be taught in school exactly how evolution is taught, as a theory..

Science does not deal with "proof". Creationism is not a theory. It is not even a hypothesis. It makes no testable predictions.

:rofl: Science is not ever fact. Science is humans making assumptions based on what we can observe. Theory is not the same as fact. Theories are well supported hypotheses, nothing more. I've been through the definitions quite recently. As for evolution being proven, then where are all the missing links and why has the Cambrian Explosion not been explained?

There are no "missing links". Every single fossil every found is a missing link. The Cambrian Explosion has been explained.

Spontaneous generation was an early idea and, as you say, has been discarded. That's how science works. We have a bunch of ideas about the origins of life, or abiogenesis. You may not like them, you may not understand them, but they are valid ideas and they are better than "God did it" (not that you said that, of course, but many people do). Oh, and the theory of evolution doesn't deal with the origins of life, so your attempt to call it "flawed" using the origins of life is ... flawed.

I probably should have said "Atheistic Evolution" and as for "abiogenesis", that's actually just a fancy name for spontaneous generation. I have read about it before. FYI, the Miller–Urey experiment got discarded as false. It turns out that they had an incorrect gas mix.

Yes. Then somebody did it with the correct mix. You know what happened? It worked better. Your fundamental problem here is that you are arguing with

Yeah...except none of that has actually undergone the scientific method. Has not been peer reviewed, replicated experimentally and has been totally debunked by real proper scientists.

Also biased sources are biased sources.

And Evolution has no bias? There is no way that the so-called "scientific method" for the world forming could have happened,

Wrong.

and we would only be beginning to see stars forming now, were we here, and the universe would be
slowing down in its expansion, etcetera.

Also wrong.

Then, getting onto life, the idea that energy hit a pool of chemicals, thus turning it into life, it's just ludicrous. I suppose the DNA was just waiting there, saying, "HIT ME BOLT OF LIGHTNING!!!"

That isn't what abiogenesis is.

Whereas it couldn't have formed.

Except that RNA abiogenesis is an observed phenomenon.

And then, going onto the idea of one common ancestor, it just makes no sense. As in, why do we all have different numbers of chromosomes to other animals?

Because chromosomes are capable of merging/duplicating. This is also an observed phenomenon.

Creationism is not a scientific theory. The word "theory" pretty much means "explanation." The Theory of Evolution explains the evidence of evolution we find in nature. There is no corresponding evidence for the supernatural creation of life or for supernatural intervantion in its development.

http://www.icr.org/article/177/
http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm
If you need more, just shout.

Science doesn't work that way; only things that have been examined via the scientific method may be called a theory. Creationism is not, cannot be a theory.

Again, look above.

Neither of those are peer reviewed.

I think that both theories should be taught. I mean, they are both theories (despite all that evolutionists claim...) and in Science, scientific reasoning says that we should examine all possible theories and make an educated decision. If a person wants to choose Evolution, then at least they have learned Creationism and can make an educated opinion. I don't like the idea of one or the other being exclusively taught.

Creationism is not a theory.

[Lemonius]

There's no evidence in the slightest for creationism, there is reams for evolution (Which has nothing to do with the big bang). You're right, we need to put things in front of kids that have scientific backing and creationism has none, nada, zero, 零.

Very much this.

In Primary School, I went to a C of E school and learnt all about how God created humans in his image from the clay of the earth etc. etc.
In secondary schoo, I was taught (and researched myself) about Darwin and all that business...

Creationism is a nice story to keep the young-uns entertained until they can fathom reality

[Individuality-ness]

To be fair, 1. the link's a blog, and 2. specialty in one subject in medicine =! specialty in all topics in medicine.

Yet...that was the link in the cracked article you posted

Anyway there are blogs and then there are blogs...and then....

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ind ... ame-dr-oz/

This is also true.

And yes, it's not perfect. He's not a total idiot, and for this reason he should know better then to peddle pesudoscience.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Yet...that was the link in the cracked article you posted

Anyway there are blogs and then there are blogs...and then....

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ind ... ame-dr-oz/

This is also true.

And yes, it's not perfect. He's not a total idiot, and for this reason he should know better then to peddle pesudoscience.

Well that's where the MBA comes into play

[Diopolis]

Yet...that was the link in the cracked article you posted

Anyway there are blogs and then there are blogs...and then....

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ind ... ame-dr-oz/

This is also true.

And yes, it's not perfect. He's not a total idiot, and for this reason he should know better then to peddle pesudoscience.

You're assuming his priority is helping people rather than lining his pockets.

[Elmorica]

And Evolution has no bias? There is no way that the so-called "scientific method" for the world forming could have happened, and we would only be beginning to see stars forming now, were we here, and the universe would be slowing down in its expansion, etcetera. Then, getting onto life, the idea that energy hit a pool of chemicals, thus turning it into life, it's just ludicrous. I suppose the DNA was just waiting there, saying, "HIT ME BOLT OF LIGHTNING!!!" Whereas it couldn't have formed. And then, going onto the idea of one common ancestor, it just makes no sense. As in, why do we all have different numbers of chromosomes to other animals?

Oh your god, who taught you science?
Nothing in that statement reflects anything in science.
Of course science doesn't make any sense to you, you don't understand the first thing about science.
You have obviously never been taught science.

[sarcasm]Oh wow, that really cut deep.[/sarcasm]
Seriously, if you don't believe it, it is your own downfall.

[Salandriagado]

Oh your god, who taught you science?
Nothing in that statement reflects anything in science.
Of course science doesn't make any sense to you, you don't understand the first thing about science.
You have obviously never been taught science.

[sarcasm]Oh wow, that really cut deep.[/sarcasm]
Seriously, if you don't believe it, it is your own downfall.

HINT: this is not going to go well for you.

[Individuality-ness]

Oh your god, who taught you science?
Nothing in that statement reflects anything in science.
Of course science doesn't make any sense to you, you don't understand the first thing about science.
You have obviously never been taught science.

[sarcasm]Oh wow, that really cut deep.[/sarcasm]
Seriously, if you don't believe it, it is your own downfall.

You do realize that you are one of the poster children on WHY we need better scientific education, right?