PhillyKev 0 #101 June 15, 2004 QuoteCreation is also a theory and should just as equally be taught in school. Which theory of creation should be taught in schools? Asatru Baha'i Buddhism Caodaism Celtic Druidism Chewa religion Christianism Confucianism Deism Druzes Efrain Society E. Link Falun Dafa Islam Ijaw and Ibo Ifa Hinduism Hoodoo E. Link Jainism Judaism Kemetic Kongo religion Luminism Maasai religion Norse Nuer religion Oromo religion Rastafarian Romuva Sabaean Mandeans Santeria Shona Sikhism Shintoism Taoism Tswana religion Yezidism Yoruba Voodoo Zoroastrianism Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #102 June 15, 2004 So you can prove evolution scientifically and, therefore, it isn't just a "theory?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #103 June 15, 2004 I don't have a problem with teaching other versions of creation personally. I just don't think evolution should be taught as baseline fact when it is a theory like the rest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #104 June 15, 2004 >Evolution is a theory and should be taught as such in school. >Creation is also a theory and should just as equally be taught in school. Evolution is a theory that you can prove with a jar of fruit flies or a culture of bacteria. Creationism is a religious belief with no proof whatsoever (other than, of course, "you gotta have faith!!") Teaching them both is like teaching that electricity is caused by the flow of electrons, and also that it is caused by a genie who you must worship with rubber gloves lest he smite you. Hey, they both _might_ be true, right? >Let the students take from each and make up his/her own minds. An editorial in Scientific American had a good solution to this. Let each state teach whatever they choose; also, let each college have different criteria for admissions based on states. That way they can decide whether they want students who are taught religious myths instead of science. Which can work out; kids from creationist schools can become liberal arts majors, and kids from science schools can become engineers and doctors. That way you don't have doctors who don't believe in antibiotic resistance. By the same token, having a professor of literature believe that all women were created from a man's rib isn't going to kill anyone in surgery because of his odd beliefs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #105 June 15, 2004 QuoteEvolution is a theory that you can prove with a jar of fruit flies or a culture of bacteria. Creationism is a religious belief with no proof whatsoever (other than, of course, "you gotta have faith!!") Teaching them both is like teaching that electricity is caused by the flow of electrons, and also that it is caused by a genie who you must worship with rubber gloves lest he smite you. Hey, they both _might_ be true, right? Please Billvon...try to remain serious without references to genies and the like. I believe the evidence could apply to both theories. Sticking to "The Big Bang", one could think that it was caused by either God or just "some force" that appeared out of no place or time (potential energy as PhillyKev put it in another thread that came out of nowhere). You could describe the development of the universe as either being laid out with purpose and design or just falling into place at random. You could argue that evolution is a random process that just happened or you might think that it is a tool invented by a creator and used for a purpose. Evolution is a “theory.” If you’ve got it solved, you might want to call somebody so they can write you up in a book and give you some money or something. >Let the students take from each and make up his/her own minds. What's wrong with putting the information out and letting intelligent students make up their own minds? I know that goes against the liberal way of thinking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #106 June 15, 2004 how does the theory of creation account for the fossil record? The way I was taught evolution was "this is the idea that we have right now that explains and accounts for all the evidence we have found to date." It wasn't presented as absolute fact, it was presented as a best current idea that may or may not be refuted by additional evidence at a later time. Right now, as far as I know, there is no concrete evidence AGAINST evolution. The same cannot be said for creation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #107 June 15, 2004 QuoteSo you can prove evolution scientifically and, therefore, it isn't just a "theory?" From dictionary.com Quote the·o·ry 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. ... 6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. Scientists use definition one when speaking of theory, laymen use definition six. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,587 #108 June 15, 2004 The difference between the two in each case is that the more-scientifically-accepted theory doesn't require that one postulate a creator. It only goes as far as it goes, and accepts that some questions can't be answered right now. Which is how science works. Assume the least that you can, and build a theory around it. Test it. Try again. In math (which is far closer to religion from my point of view ), there are always postulates, and you have to pick the right ones out of the air. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #109 June 15, 2004 >I believe the evidence could apply to both theories. Sticking to "The Big > Bang", one could think that it was caused by either God or just "some >force" that appeared out of no place or time (potential energy as PhillyKev > put it in another thread that came out of nowhere). Uh, the bible doesn't talk about the Big Bang. It talks about god creating the earth first, THEN creating light and energy. You might decide to ignore some parts of the bible and accept others, but Pajarito's Theory of Creationism is a personal theory you subscribe to, not any sort of basis for a science curriculum. However, it would be a good topic to discuss in a theology class. >Evolution is a “theory.” If you’ve got it solved, you might want to call > somebody so they can write you up in a book and give you some money >or something. Darwin already did that. It's a tool now; we use it to create crops we like. We also fight it sometimes; antibiotic drug resistance and evolution of insects to resist certain insecticides for example. If you really believe in creationism over evolution you might want to write a book to prove those things don't happen. If you could do that you'd never have to work a day in your life again. >What's wrong with putting the information out and letting intelligent >students make up their own minds? Absolutely nothing! I had as much religious training as I had training in biology. Even though I went to a catholic high school, the school was smart enough to realize that evolution was a science and creationism belonged in religious studies. >I know that goes against the liberal way of thinking. Liberal: 1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. 2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. I'm all for teaching evolution in biology and creationism in religious studies. No problem at all there; like you said, let em make up their own minds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #110 June 15, 2004 Quotehow does the theory of creation account for the fossil record? Again, I'm not saying I know all the answers. I, however, believe that God created and environment for us to exist in which includes what is time and space. I think he can control and use it however he wants. I'm not discounting elements of the evolutionary process or the "young or old" Earth theories. I just believe God is at the foundation and all of these theories build from there. No one knows for sure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #111 June 15, 2004 QuoteThe difference between the two in each case is that the more-scientifically-accepted theory doesn't require that one postulate a creator. No, you're right! It requires that you postulate a random force that appeared out of nothing to start a process that occurs completely on its own. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #112 June 15, 2004 QuoteEvolution is a theory and should be taught as such in school. Creation is also a theory and should just as equally be taught in school. Let the students take from each and make up his/her own minds. Evolution has real world examples to prove the theory. We have seen the continuance of evolution in the modern day. It is only a theory because we don't have a time machine. Creation is a story, that someone has decided to lable a theory, and claim it's just a valid, because "you cant disprove it". By that logic I can say with out a doubt your great-great-great grandparents didn't exist. Your previous generations mutated from wild buffalo. All because you never met them and can't prove to me they existed.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,587 #113 June 15, 2004 QuoteIt requires that you postulate a random force that appeared out of nothing to start a process that occurs completely on its own. No, the difference is that in the theories that don't postulate a creator, there generally isn't anything stated about the nature of what started (if that's the right word) the big bang etc. It's just left there, hanging, tantalizing. If you can't test it, leave it out. Someone else might have another, better, or more provable idea. Or else they get to look like an idiot with an explanation that doesn't hold up (think cold fusion). Faith can be wrapped around science, but only by believers. Scientists should have evidence to back up their theories, and they should leave alone the parts that they can't fit in. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #114 June 15, 2004 QuoteNo, you're right! It requires that you postulate a random force that appeared out of nothing to start a process that occurs completely on its own. Gee, something that happens every second on a nuclear level.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #115 June 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe difference between the two in each case is that the more-scientifically-accepted theory doesn't require that one postulate a creator. No, you're right! It requires that you postulate a random force that appeared out of nothing to start a process that occurs completely on its own. Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the beginning - just what has been happening since. QuoteSo you can prove evolution scientifically and, therefore, it isn't just a "theory?" The burden of proof to make a theory a scientific law is rather steep. The theory would have to be all encompassing, with no contradictions. We can try to validate it with species that have a very short lifespan, but extending it to animals such as ourselves is still a leap. I'm not convinced that all surviving mutations are beneficial - some creatures can endure with negative ones - sharks have been on top of their food chain for millions of years. Humans could be deevolving at this point - the more successful individuals tend to have smaller families. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #116 June 15, 2004 QuoteUh, the bible doesn't talk about the Big Bang. It talks about god creating the earth first, THEN creating light and energy. You might decide to ignore some parts of the bible and accept others, but Pajarito's Theory of Creationism is a personal theory you subscribe to, not any sort of basis for a science curriculum. However, it would be a good topic to discuss in a theology class. Uh, you’re right. The Bible doesn’t say the words “Big Bang.” It talks about God creating the “heavens and the Earth.” It’s also not just my personal theory. QuoteDarwin already did that. It's a tool now; we use it to create crops we like. We also fight it sometimes; antibiotic drug resistance and evolution of insects to resist certain insecticides for example. If you really believe in creationism over evolution you might want to write a book to prove those things don't happen. If you could do that you'd never have to work a day in your life again. You’re obviously not listening to what I’m saying Billvon. As I’ve said before, I’m not discounting elements of what you’re talking about. I’m just saying that’s not the “end all be all” of the way it is. We don’t have it all figured out and it should be taught as such. I do believe totally in creation but I am not saying that there aren’t elements of evolution (if that’s what you want to call it) in the process. QuoteAbsolutely nothing! I had as much religious training as I had training in biology. Even though I went to a catholic high school, the school was smart enough to realize that evolution was a science and creationism belonged in religious studies. I’m sorry I’m not as smart as you because you, like many others here, went to Catholic School and was turned against your faith. QuoteI'm all for teaching evolution in biology and creationism in religious studies. No problem at all there; like you said, let em make up their own minds. That’s great…but kids don’t get taught anything but evolution as their basis in the public system. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #117 June 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteNo, you're right! It requires that you postulate a random force that appeared out of nothing to start a process that occurs completely on its own. Gee, something that happens every second on a nuclear level. Dude, nothing "just happens" whatever level you're on. By the way, are you a nuclear physicist as well as a skydiving instructor? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #118 June 15, 2004 QuoteDude, nothing "just happens" whatever level you're on. Shit does.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #119 June 15, 2004 I like lettuce. It makes sandwiches all crispy and stuff. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #120 June 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteNo, you're right! It requires that you postulate a random force that appeared out of nothing to start a process that occurs completely on its own. Gee, something that happens every second on a nuclear level. You must not have a very good understanding of nuclear physics. Nothing appears out of nothing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #121 June 15, 2004 QuoteI just believe God is at the foundation and all of these theories build from there. No one knows for sure. I believe you may be right. But how do you rationalize christian dogma with that belief? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #122 June 15, 2004 QuoteI like lettuce. It makes sandwiches all crispy and stuff. Yes but sandwiches (or as I prefer "samiches" ) don't just happen. They "evolve" from bread, lettuce, meats and cheeses, other vegitables, and occasionaly some mythical substance called "Miracle Whip". The even better ones "evolve" from jars or Peanut Butter, and Strawberry Jelly.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #123 June 15, 2004 QuoteYes but sandwiches (or as I prefer "samiches" ) don't just happen. They "evolve" from bread, lettuce, meats and cheeses, other vegitables, and occasionaly some mythical substance called "Miracle Whip". The even better ones "evolve" from jars or Peanut Butter, and Strawberry Jelly. Sandwiches may become whole under a process of evolving to their perfect form as the ingredients come together. But I put them together and direct the final form that the sandwich will take. Therefore, I am "THE SAMICH GOD"!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #124 June 15, 2004 My apologies to my more neclear inclined friends. Now define the "nothing" prior to the big bang. My point was that the "nothing in this statement is simply the unexplained. QuoteIt requires that you postulate a random force that appeared out of nothing to start a process that occurs completely on its own. Random occurences happen. I believe that statement been paraphrased into a bumper sticker.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #125 June 15, 2004 QuoteDude, nothing "just happens" whatever level you're on. By the way, are you a nuclear physicist as well as a skydiving instructor? Being a nuclear physicist is not a pre-requsite of being a skydiving instructor. In fact it's probably a hinderance, as the one I've met recently is an asshole who knows everything already.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
