Creationism vs. Evolution in School

[Hodori]

So, why aren't the fundamental forces exploding in the said vacuum (space) right now? I'm not trying to argue, I am simply confused on the matter.

I'm not an astrophysicist, so I could very likely be wrong, but space isn't actually a vacuum. From my understanding, it has insufficient atmosphere and could for practical purposes be considered a vacuum, but there's still matter in what appears to be empty space.

[Aina Lani]

1. It's a singularity, not a "super molecule".
2. Vacuums are inherently unstable.

So, why aren't the fundamental forces exploding in the said vacuum (space) right now? I'm not trying to argue, I am simply confused on the matter.

Vacuums are unstable because they tend to be filled immediately, due to their being lots of matter about. Outer space doesn't explode at random; it still exists as a (near) vacuum because it is very big, and forces like gravity keep the matter in it in clumps (like galaxies and planets), instead of letting it spread evenly.
In other words, the fact that vacuums are unstable is not particularly relevant at the moment.

(I am not an expert in this field, so if there is something important that I have missed, please point it out (not that you wouldn't anyway))

[Individuality-ness]

Because forces cancel. Gravity is strong enough to keep objects from randomly flying into a vacuum, and many theories of dark matter argue most of what we see as empty space is not empty. But this is a well off topic discussion that is best hashed elsewhere.

If forces cancel, then why didn't the "singularity" remain stable? It all drags back to the main discussion, really.

Wikipedia is your friend.

[Need a Name]

potato potato let's call the whole thing off

[Enadail]

Because forces cancel. Gravity is strong enough to keep objects from randomly flying into a vacuum, and many theories of dark matter argue most of what we see as empty space is not empty. But this is a well off topic discussion that is best hashed elsewhere.

If forces cancel, then why didn't the "singularity" remain stable? It all drags back to the main discussion, really.

The forces exist now, They didn't exist at the point of the singularity, as far as we can tell.

[Enadail]

God damnit, you don't read anything people write to you, do you?

THERE WAS NO BEFORE WITH DOGS. Dogs are domesticated wolfs. They exist because humans bred them. They did not go off places, because they did not exist.

And even assuming what you said is true, you just described evolution.

you knew what i meant, yes read that, but you guys knew what i was talking about so there was now point to change it

No, no one knows what the hell you meant, you don't even know what you meant, because you just described evolution.

[Need a Name]

they both shouldn't be taught in schools there is evidence for both. the end agreed?

[Need a Name]

you knew what i meant, yes read that, but you guys knew what i was talking about so there was now point to change it

No, no one knows what the hell you meant, you don't even know what you meant, because you just described evolution.

no i didn't, evolution, is when whole races change

[Engerland]

We shouldn't lie to the kids, creationism.

Just kidding, evolution obviously

[Oceasia]

they both shouldn't be taught in schools there is evidence for both. the end agreed?

Probably not?

[Enadail]

they both shouldn't be taught in schools there is evidence for both. the end agreed?

No, there is no evidence for creationism.

[Great Nepal]

1. It's a singularity, not a "super molecule".
2. Vacuums are inherently unstable.

So, why aren't the fundamental forces exploding in the said vacuum (space) right now? I'm not trying to argue, I am simply confused on the matter.

Space isn't absolute vacuum as I understand, its either that or probability is very low as per uncertainty principle.

[Need a Name]

We shouldn't lie to the kids, creationism.

Just kidding, evolution obviously

are actually on my side or what?

[Need a Name]

they both shouldn't be taught in schools there is evidence for both. the end agreed?

No, there is no evidence for creationism.

yes there is, you just choose to ignore it

[Engerland]

they both shouldn't be taught in schools there is evidence for both. the end agreed?

So what's the evidence for creationism again?

[Need a Name]

We shouldn't lie to the kids, creationism.

Just kidding, evolution obviously

are actually on my side or what?

stupid side quote AHH!!

[Great Nepal]

No, there is no evidence for creationism.

yes there is, you just choose to ignore it

As I recall, you have provided grand total of zero sources.

[Aina Lani]

they both shouldn't be taught in schools there is evidence for both. the end agreed?

Except that evolution is accepted as fact in the scientific community and is important to a modern understanding of biology and medicine, while creationism has no non-religious support that is not easily debunked, and as such is purely religious and should only be taught if it is acceptable for religion to be taught in schools.

[Engerland]

We shouldn't lie to the kids, creationism.

Just kidding, evolution obviously

are actually on my side or what?

Sorry, no.

[Enadail]

No, no one knows what the hell you meant, you don't even know what you meant, because you just described evolution.

no i didn't, evolution, is when whole races change

No, its not. Again, you have no idea what evolution says. First, race is not a term that can be used in this discussion. You're looking for species. And yes, evolution is the process by which species change, but its also the process by which a species adapts to its environment. Just like walking is the process by which I go 100ft across the street to get a sandwich, but its also the process I use to go 2 miles to exercise.

[Need a Name]

they both shouldn't be taught in schools there is evidence for both. the end agreed?

So what's the evidence for creationism again?

some animals need every part survive and with evolution they wouldn't be alive

[Lemanrussland]

they both shouldn't be taught in schools there is evidence for both. the end agreed?

No. Creationism shouldn't be taught in schools. Evolution should be taught in schools.

The end.

[Individuality-ness]

they both shouldn't be taught in schools there is evidence for both. the end agreed?

Evolution:

Sure.

Speaking of which, I've been meaning to sig that or put it in my factbook for future reference.

Right. Tallyho.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/ ... tents.html
http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolu ... /live.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 0/lines_01
http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... _tiktaalik
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_01
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... history_23
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... history_16
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidenc ... lution.htm
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/cours ... dence.html
http://www.imls.uzh.ch/research/noll/pu ... 73_785.pdf
http://www.cell.com/developmental-cell/ ... 0703003253
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/scien ... .html?_r=1
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/91/3/221
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1006000526
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5746/287
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/molb.ws.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 331a0.html
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 050603.php
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 071801.php
http://www.scripps.edu/newsandviews/e_20060327/evo.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://scienceray.com/biology/zoology/a ... maritimus/
http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/ ... vation.pdf
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... l#atavisms

Creationism:


Your point?

[Need a Name]

no i didn't, evolution, is when whole races change

No, its not. Again, you have no idea what evolution says. First, race is not a term that can be used in this discussion. You're looking for species. And yes, evolution is the process by which species change, but its also the process by which a species adapts to its environment. Just like walking is the process by which I go 100ft across the street to get a sandwich, but its also the process I use to go 2 miles to exercise.

i meant species

[Enadail]

So what's the evidence for creationism again?

some animals need every part survive and with evolution they wouldn't be alive

That's not a sentence. What does that even mean?