Creationism vs. Evolution in School

[Nationalist State of Knox]

It's rather humorous how most creationists assume Abiogenesis = Evolution.

BUT THEN HOW WAS OF LIFE INTO STARTING ATHEIST COMMIES? CHECKMATES.

JESUS LAWD ALL MIGHTY: 1
PEASANTS: 0

*Drops copy of "The Origin of the Species"*

Oh God... what... what lie have I devoted my life to?

*runs out crying evolutionist crocodile tears*

[Nadkor]

Oh, yeah, just distraught.

Sorry, you just sorta jumped down my throat a couple times.

I have no idea who you are, so I have no idea if this is true or not.

But if I did it was presumably because you were saying stupid things.

Stop saying stupid things.

[Ifreann]

Okay, jokes aside, let's do this thing. *cracks knuckles*

I (personally) believe that yes, the world was in fact created by someone (God), however that does not mean that a large portion of evolution is in fact true.

I hope you understand that evolution has nothing to do with where the world, Universe, or life came from.

Micro evolution, anyway. I have no clue how anyone can honestly believe in macro evolution, there is NO proof that this is even possible, and plenty that it is not. (Namely, hybrids between different animals. And genetic mutation always equaling damage)

Literally everything you've just said is wrong. Micro- and macro-evolution are the same thing. You may as well say that you believe that 1+1=2, but 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=/=10. Any distinction drawn between them is a lie made up by creationists. Simple as.

Quite frankly, I would like to see evolution taught as what it is, a theory (Not the fact that everyone claims it is, but just a very good, partially true, theory),

Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection explains that fact. Teaching anything else in science classes would be doing students a great disservice.

AND creationism taught as a counterpoint, another theory if you will.

Creationism is neither a counterpoint nor a theory. It is mythology disguising itself as science, and it has no place being taught as anything else.

And although in my opinion creationism is the truth, both should be taught, without anyone saying that this or that is the truth. Let those actually taking the class decide, then don't chastise them for their decision, as it would be their own to make and no one else's.

Children are perfectly free to deny reality if they want, but teachers should not be free to lie about what is and isn't the truth.

Because both view points have scientific proof to them (although one more than the other), and both deserve to be offered equally in a class that will give both as counter points to each other.

There is no support for creationism beyond the fervent beliefs of its proponents. Creationism does not deserve to be equal to the countless hours of toil by some of the brightest minds of their times that have given us our current understanding of evolution, and to suggest otherwise is grossly insulting to anyone who has ever worked for anything in their life.

(Also, I would love it if someone were to explain to me how, if every single word of the theory of evolution was true, we manged to beat the LITERIALLY IMPOSSIBLE ODDS to even exist at all.

I'd love to, if you could show me the maths used to calculate these odds.

Again, I personally believe that there IS a God and that He/She/It built the universe so it might be a tough sell, although I do believe that micro evolution is in fact real and it is in fact happening as I type this.

You are, of course, perfectly entitled to your own beliefs. You are not, however, entitled to your own facts.

However I demand logical answers, and I defy you to make it sounds like less of a religion than I get the picture of it being. Because it isn't any more crazy or insane for me to believe that there is a God, than for you to believe we come from primordial ooze. It might even be a bit more crazy)

If evolution sounds like a religion that is because creationist propaganda is working. Their beliefs cannot compare to evolution in terms of factual support, so they try to drag evolution down and make it seem equal to them. The term "evolutionism", for example.

Random thought: Has anyone noticed that, when asked, those who say evolution in total is true say "I believe evolution is true"?

Because creationists phrase the question that way, and not everyone is always on the ball enough to reply "No, I don't believe in evolution, I accept it as a fact".

[DuThaal Craftworld]

Can I just say I love it when Divair posts lists like these?

Pretty much enough links to shut anyone up.

Hopefully.

Overly Religious Anti Science man used Bible!
It's not very affective.
Divair is annoyed!
Divair used Link Flood!
It's Super Effective!
Overly Religious Anti Science Guy shut up and let everyone else get on with their lives!

[Nationalist State of Knox]

I (personally) believe that yes, the world was in fact created by someone (God), however that does not mean that a large portion of evolution is in fact true. Micro evolution, anyway. I have no clue how anyone can honestly believe in macro evolution, there is NO proof that this is even possible, and plenty that it is not. (Namely, hybrids between different animals. And genetic mutation always equaling damage)
Quite frankly, I would like to see evolution taught as what it is, a theory (Not the fact that everyone claims it is, but just a very good, partially true, theory), AND creationism taught as a counterpoint, another theory if you will. And although in my opinion creationism is the truth, both should be taught, without anyone saying that this or that is the truth. Let those actually taking the class decide, then don't chastise them for their decision, as it would be their own to make and no one else's.

Because both view points have scientific proof to them (although one more than the other), and both deserve to be offered equally in a class that will give both as counter points to each other.

(Also, I would love it if someone were to explain to me how, if every single word of the theory of evolution was true, we manged to beat the LITERIALLY IMPOSSIBLE ODDS to even exist at all.
Again, I personally believe that there IS a God and that He/She/It built the universe so it might be a tough sell, although I do believe that micro evolution is in fact real and it is in fact happening as I type this. However I demand logical answers, and I defy you to make it sounds like less of a religion than I get the picture of it being. Because it isn't any more crazy or insane for me to believe that there is a God, than for you to believe we come from primordial ooze. It might even be a bit more crazy)

Random thought: Has anyone noticed that, when asked, those who say evolution in total is true say "I believe evolution is true"?

I can't... I don't even... what? Do you even read what you type?

How else do you think creationists "win" arguments?

Do tell.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/brung

I told.

Dialects have nee place owa here.

[Len Hyet]

Sorry, you just sorta jumped down my throat a couple times.

I have no idea who you are, so I have no idea if this is true or not.

But if I did it was presumably because you were saying stupid things.

Stop saying stupid things.

See, the nicer way to say what you say is "Actually you're wrong and here's why"
You just say "You're an idiot shut the hell up"

[Divair]

Divair is annoyed!
Divair used Link Flood!

I can confirm this is accurate.

[Ifreann]

It's rather humorous how most creationists assume Abiogenesis = Evolution.

It's essentially an enormous strawman fallacy.

[Divair]

BUT THEN HOW WAS OF LIFE INTO STARTING ATHEIST COMMIES? CHECKMATES.

JESUS LAWD ALL MIGHTY: 1
PEASANTS: 0

*Drops copy of "The Origin of the Species"*

Oh God... what... what lie have I devoted my life to?

*runs out crying evolutionist crocodile tears*

Damn it, the crocodile tears are going to flood the room. Abandon ship!

[Ifreann]

*Drops copy of "The Origin of the Species"*

Oh God... what... what lie have I devoted my life to?

*runs out crying evolutionist crocodile tears*

Damn it, the crocodile tears are going to flood the room. Abandon ship!

It's okay, guys, I have an ark. You can come on board if you bring some crocodiles.

[Len Hyet]

Damn it, the crocodile tears are going to flood the room. Abandon ship!

It's okay, guys, I have an ark. You can come on board if you bring some crocodiles.

Are Komodo Dragons okay?

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Damn it, the crocodile tears are going to flood the room. Abandon ship!

It's okay, guys, I have an ark. You can come on board if you bring some crocodiles.

Manatees are a type of crocodile, right?

[Ifreann]

It's okay, guys, I have an ark. You can come on board if you bring some crocodiles.

Are Komodo Dragons okay?

Big scaly things are all interchangeable in my experience.

[Len Hyet]

Are Komodo Dragons okay?

Big scaly things are all interchangeable in my experience.

But not actual Dragons
Those things scare the shit out of me

[DuThaal Craftworld]

Divair is annoyed!
Divair used Link Flood!

I can confirm this is accurate.

SCORE!
Also, can anyone explain to me the difference between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution? Both rely upon the same mechanic, as far as I know, and both have sinilar results, albeit on different scales.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Are Komodo Dragons okay?

Big scaly things are all interchangeable in my experience.

*nods*

[Josh Beaty]

How can you go around talking about "how we got here" without trying to explain where we came from? Those LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE ODDS that you people keep trying to avoid. Supposedly random elements (carbon, hydrogen, etc.) form together just exactly to form a single celled organism. Then after "millions" of years some single-celled organisms realized it would be cool to work together and became multicellular organisms. The after "billions" of years humans happen to be here after mutating and changing... Can someone please explain this?

I do not doubt that organisms have to adapt to their surroundings. I do, however, do not understand how complex organisms just happen to be existing on a planet that has just he right criteria for life as we know it.

[Len Hyet]

I can confirm this is accurate.

SCORE!
Also, can anyone explain to me the difference between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution? Both rely upon the same mechanic, as far as I know, and both have sinilar results, albeit on different scales.

Basically the different scales as near as I can tell

Micro is a mutation that stays within the species but makes some better than others
Macro is a mutation that makes a separate species

[Divair]

I can confirm this is accurate.

SCORE!
Also, can anyone explain to me the difference between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution? Both rely upon the same mechanic, as far as I know, and both have sinilar results, albeit on different scales.

There's literally no difference. It's a bullshit concept created by fundamentalists.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

How can you go around talking about "how we go there" without trying to explain where we came from? Those LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE ODDS that you people keep trying to avoid. Supposedly random elements (carbon, hydrogen, etc.) form together just exactly to form a single celled organism. Then after "millions" of years some single-celled organisms realized it would be cool to work together and became multicellular organisms. The after "billions" of years humans happen to be here after mutating and changing... Can someone please explain this?

I do not doubt that organisms have to adapt to their surroundings. I do, however, do not understand how complex organisms just happen to be existing on a planet that has just he right criteria for life as we know it.

Are you aware of the existence of amino acids and RNA?

[Ifreann]

I can confirm this is accurate.

SCORE!
Also, can anyone explain to me the difference between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution? Both rely upon the same mechanic, as far as I know, and both have sinilar results, albeit on different scales.

There isn't a difference, really.

[Tsuntion]

I can confirm this is accurate.

SCORE!
Also, can anyone explain to me the difference between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution? Both rely upon the same mechanic, as far as I know, and both have sinilar results, albeit on different scales.

They're exactly the same process. Identical. Completely. There is no difference in how they work. To accept micro but not macro is nonsensical.

There, that out of the way... Macroevolution refers to evolution's effect at and above the species level. Microevolution is the little everyday stuff. Macroevolution happens because of lots of microevolution. They are actually legitimate terms, but have been horribly hijacked by creationists and used in the context of "micro happens but macro doesn't".

[Enadail]

How can you go around talking about "how we go there" without trying to explain where we came from? Those LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE ODDS that you people keep trying to avoid. Supposedly random elements (carbon, hydrogen, etc.) form together just exactly to form a single celled organism. Then after "millions" of years some single-celled organisms realized it would be cool to work together and became multicellular organisms. The after "billions" of years humans happen to be here after mutating and changing... Can someone please explain this?

I do not doubt that organisms have to adapt to their surroundings. I do, however, do not understand how complex organisms just happen to be existing on a planet that has just he right criteria for life as we know it.

Why do we need the origins to talk about the process? If I tell you a plane is flying, do you find it impossible to believe without knowing where it comes from? If I tell you I walked across town, do you find it impossible to believe without knowing where I live? If I explain to you how a car runs, do you need to know how the engine was designed and built in order to process it?

And you're wrong on one very important point the planet does not have the right criteria for life as we know it... life has adapted to fit the environment that is present on this planet.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

I can confirm this is accurate.

SCORE!
Also, can anyone explain to me the difference between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution? Both rely upon the same mechanic, as far as I know, and both have sinilar results, albeit on different scales.

[DuThaal Craftworld]

How can you go around talking about "how we go there" without trying to explain where we came from? Those LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE ODDS that you people keep trying to avoid. Supposedly random elements (carbon, hydrogen, etc.) form together just exactly to form a single celled organism. Then after "millions" of years some single-celled organisms realized it would be cool to work together and became multicellular organisms. The after "billions" of years humans happen to be here after mutating and changing... Can someone please explain this?

I do not doubt that organisms have to adapt to their surroundings. I do, however, do not understand how complex organisms just happen to be existing on a planet that has just he right criteria for life as we know it.

First off, Amino acids say hi.
And then trillions of years of accidental trial and error says hi.
And the billions of hears of RNA changing into DNA and then single celled organisms and then into multicellular organisms says hi.
And then the fact that at the very least it's a better explanation then 'CUZ DA LAWD' days hi.