Should evolution be taught in schools?
-
Human skulls were found in Castenedolo and Olmo in Italy. Another human skull was found in California – in the mid to late 1800s. All three were dug out from the Pliocene deposits. As claimed by the evolutionists, only ape-man skulls should be in that layer since humans were not evolved yet during that period.
So, again, they had to find reasons or rather excuses in order to NOT admit that the theory of evolution was wrong. -
My name is Ti, Seoti
I can manipulate fire. -
BlasphemyOriginally posted by Phorum Noob:Many religion (including Christanity) were actually inspired from paganism and older religions.
http://zeitgeistmovie.com/
-
From http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC112.htmlOriginally posted by googoomuck:Human skulls were found in Castenedolo and Olmo in Italy. Another human skull was found in California – in the mid to late 1800s. All three were dug out from the Pliocene deposits. As claimed by the evolutionists, only ape-man skulls should be in that layer since humans were not evolved yet during that period.
So, again, they had to find reasons or rather excuses in order to NOT admit that the theory of evolution was wrong.
The Castendolo bones belong to skeletons of several men, women, and children. They are a recent burial in Pliocene sediments, evidenced by the fact that other fossils but not the human bones were impregnated with salt.
The Olmo skull is from upper Pleistocene gravel, placing it in the Upper Paleolithic (Stone Age) period. It is not out of place.
The Calaveras skull was a deliberate hoax and was immediately recognized as such by scientists (Conrad 1982).
But of course, you think that scientists just made up stuff to invalidate this evidence.
Why do you think scientists would do that? If such a discovery were true, wouldn't scientists be excited? Do you not think that there are tens of thousands of scientists out there who would be overjoyed to blow evolutionary theory out of the water? It's at a minimum, a nobel prize, and the scientist would be set for life. And this is just secular scientists. Many scientists believe in god as well, except that they compartmentalize their faith and their work. Don't you think they would be overjoyed if there was real evidence?
This is a problem with Creationists. They have so little evidence that they have to cling weakly to what little evidence they think they have. So even when their evidence has been debunked, they still cling dearly to it.
Michael Behe, for example, still keeps harping on the bacterial flagellum as irreducibly complex even though there have been so many studies that show how it evolved from the Type III secretory system. -
Exactly. If it's not buried there in recent times, then it's a hoax. Or if nobody else witnessed the discovery, it would have been destroyed because the discovery did not fit into the theory of evolution, just like the prehistoric fish discovery, the concept of stasis was used to defend the theory of evolution. If a living is proved to have evolved, the theory is correct. If a living thing is discovered to have not evolved, the theory is also correct, except this is no longer evolution.Originally posted by Phaze:From http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC112.html
The Castendolo bones belong to skeletons of several men, women, and children. They are a recent burial in Pliocene sediments, evidenced by the fact that other fossils but not the human bones were impregnated with salt.
The Olmo skull is from upper Pleistocene gravel, placing it in the Upper Paleolithic (Stone Age) period. It is not out of place.
The Calaveras skull was a deliberate hoax and was immediately recognized as such by scientists (Conrad 1982).
But of course, you think that scientists just made up stuff to invalidate this evidence.
Why do you think scientists would do that? If such a discovery were true, wouldn't scientists be excited? Do you not think that there are tens of thousands of scientists out there who would be overjoyed to blow evolutionary theory out of the water? It's at a minimum, a nobel prize, and the scientist would be set for life. And this is just secular scientists. Many scientists believe in god as well, except that they compartmentalize their faith and their work. Don't you think they would be overjoyed if there was real evidence?
This is a problem with Creationists. They have so little evidence that they have to cling weakly to what little evidence they think they have. So even when their evidence has been debunked, they still cling dearly to it.
Michael Behe, for example, still keeps harping on the bacterial flagellum as irreducibly complex even though there have been so many studies that show how it evolved from the Type III secretory system.
Since the Coelacanth, a lot more new unrecorded new animals and plants have been discovered everywhere. The more recent ones are the Chinese Hynobiidaes and the Laotian rodents, discovered in 2006. More living fossils thought to be long extinct will suddenly appear in time to keep the evolutionists busy rewriting the theory.
Like I say, they are now looking at the stars for clues to support their theory. -
hoaxOriginally posted by googoomuck:Human skulls were found in Castenedolo and Olmo in Italy. Another human skull was found in California – in the mid to late 1800s. All three were dug out from the Pliocene deposits. As claimed by the evolutionists, only ape-man skulls should be in that layer since humans were not evolved yet during that period.
So, again, they had to find reasons or rather excuses in order to NOT admit that the theory of evolution was wrong.
-
if you know enough, you'll realise that all religions are one form of paganism or anotherOriginally posted by Jem777:Blasphemy -
creationism is just like UFO, many claims but all hoaxOriginally posted by googoomuck:Exactly. If it's not buried there in recent times, then it's a hoax. Or if nobody else witnessed the discovery, it would have been destroyed because the discovery did not fit into the theory of evolution, just like the prehistoric fish discovery, the concept of stasis was used to defend the theory of evolution. If a living is proved to have evolved, the theory is correct. If a living thing is discovered to have not evolved, the theory is also correct, except this is no longer evolution.
Since the Coelacanth, a lot more new unrecorded new animals and plants have been discovered everywhere. The more recent ones are the Chinese Hynobiidaes and the Laotian rodents, discovered in 2006. More living fossils thought to be long extinct will suddenly appear in time to keep the evolutionists busy rewriting the theory.
Like I say, they are now looking at the stars for clues to support their theory. -
I refuse to accept the theory that my ancestors were apes. If you believe that your ancestors evolved from apes, raise your hand or give an affirmative reply.Originally posted by Jamie Zawinski:creationism is just like UFO, many claims but all hoax
....and the missing link to prove that the apes' gradual transition to humans is still missing. -
*closes ear* nyeh nyeh nyeh.Originally posted by Jamie Zawinski:if you know enough, you'll realise that all religions are one form of paganism or another -
I believe it. Rather that than some book.Originally posted by googoomuck:I refuse to accept the theory that my ancestors were apes. If you believe that your ancestors evolved from apes, raise your hand or give an affirmative reply.
....and the missing link to prove that the apes' gradual transition to humans is still missing. -
If creationism is to be taught in schools, then so should evolution. It's either both or none, so that pupils can be exposed to different ideologies and be allowed to decide for themselves, without a particular bias.
Well how about teaching the flying spahgetti theorem on how lives come about ? Oh.. maybe we can teach the egytians idea on how lives come about too. How about the Maya civilisation idea or the panggu and nu wa or the scientology theory too. Then we r in a class of mythology and fairy talesExactly. If it's not buried there in recent times, then it's a hoax. Or if nobody else witnessed the discovery, it would have been destroyed because the discovery did not fit into the theory of evolution, just like the prehistoric fish discovery, the concept of stasis was used to defend the theory of evolution. .
U see, if I got an evidence to throw away evolution, I will be the first to expose it. Why ? It is because I will be named as one of the greatest scientist and my name will be passed down for eternity ! All scientist will hailed me as a lengendary character because I found the real truth. The fact is, they can't. Nobody will wanna destroy any evidence tat debunked evolution because tat is stupid and silly and waste their chance of being famous and successful.If a living is proved to have evolved, the theory is correct. If a living thing is discovered to have not evolved, the theory is also correct, except this is no longer evolution
As said already, if the animal can survive in the environment well, they do not need to evolve. If it aren't spoil, why fix it
It still fit perfectly fine with the idea of the fittest survive and natural selection.I refuse to accept the theory that my ancestors were apes. If you believe that your ancestors evolved from apes, raise your hand or give an affirmative reply
u know there r japanese who refuse to believe their ancestors kill a lot of people in WW2. U r the same as them right ? Refuse to believe in the truth but instead believe in something u like to believe. If my ancestors r ape like, then I believe in it whether I like it or not. If I am poor, I have to belieev I am poor and accept facts instead of stubbornly believe I am rich when I am not -
Creationism is NOT a Scientific theory and should never be taught side-by-side with Evolution. That has already been settled in the US way back although some of the more backward thinking schools refuses to change.
Creationism can alternatively be taught under 'religion' or 'mythology'.
What I feel is that children should not be taught religion until they are more mature. THey should first be taught Critical thinking skills and skepticism and then decide on and choose the religion that they are drawn to on their own will without any brainwashing during their more innocent years. -
The notion that science and religion are irreconcilable centers in large part on the issue of evolution. Charles Darwin, in his 1859 book The Origin of Species, explained that the myriad species inhabiting Earth were a result of repeated evolutionary branching from common ancestors.
Many scientists supposedly believe that all life is accidental, a random crash of molecules that magically produced flowers, horses and humans - a scenario as unlikely as a tornado in a junkyard assembling a 747.
Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind.
Even IF the theory of evolution eventually succeeds in proving the ‘how’ of evolution, it’s only a half page proof. There’s still the question of ‘why’.
Some of history's greatest scientific minds, including Albert Einstein, were convinced there is intelligent life behind the universe. Too bad that as human beings, their lives on earth is short.
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein -
Creationists, why did god create the humans?
-
evolutionism must be taught, because the final evolution of man is god.
-
Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind.
Tis is a very very very old argument made by creationist at least 3 times in tis thread and they refuse to comment on the reply nor able to read and understand the reply. The word theory, in scientific committee, is already considered as the highest possible form of truth.
I give an example. If god come out, and prove creationist without a doubt, it can only reach the status of theory as well. There is no higher form of truth other than theory from the scientific viewEven IF the theory of evolution eventually succeeds in proving the ‘how’ of evolution, it’s only a half page proof. There’s still the question of ‘why’.
The "why" is simply given from the viewpoint of evolution as well. The fittest can reproduce better and tat make them exist. The weakest die off. Tat is why being with changes tat make them better to environment can pass down their line and affect the future.
If u talk about "why" from a "purpose" or "religious" point of view, then u r asking the wrong question. I might as well ask why do men sh!t or why do men have wet dreams and there is no "purposeful" reason as well -
According to the creationist view, God produced humans fully formed, with no previous related species.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Tis is a very very very old argument made by creationist at least 3 times in tis thread and they refuse to comment on the reply nor able to read and understand the reply. The word theory, in scientific committee, is already considered as the highest possible form of truth.
I give an example. If god come out, and prove creationist without a doubt, it can only reach the status of theory as well. There is no higher form of truth other than theory from the scientific view
The "why" is simply given from the viewpoint of evolution as well. The fittest can reproduce better and tat make them exist. The weakest die off. Tat is why being with changes tat make them better to environment can pass down their line and affect the future.
If u talk about "why" from a "purpose" or "religious" point of view, then u r asking the wrong question. I might as well ask why do men sh!t or why do men have wet dreams and there is no "purposeful" reason as well
The very, very old argument is still valid today with the discovery of many living fossils that have not evolved..
The survival of the fittest or natural selection is not absolute - human beings can intervene in natural selection so that a species will not become extinct.
Stephen Hawkings should be dead at birth because he's not fit but as humans, we are capable of giving the weak a boost to survive with the fit, regardless of humans or other animals.
The creationism vs evolution debate is tied in a stalemate, whatever the score is.
As scientists and astronomers look deeper into the universe for answers, they now generally agree that evolution and religion can co-exist; and they said this in 2004.
The question now is who are those who still disagree? -
According to the creationist view, God produced humans fully formed, with no previous related species.
Please explain to me the fossils showing a lot of transition from ape like creature to men. Is it suddenly there is a species tat become more and more human like then suddenly extinct then another species pop out tat look more like human then suddenly extinct again, and it happen a few hundreds to thousands of times ? There r many (few hundreds to thousands) fossils showing men to have evolved from ape like creatures. Explain
The very, very old argument is still valid today with the discovery of many living fossils that have not evolved..The survival of the fittest or natural selection is not absolute - human beings can intervene in natural selection so that a species will not become extinct.
Obviously we r talking about nature here, not human intervention.Stephen Hawkings should be dead at birth because he's not fit but as humans, we are capable of giving the weak a boost to survive with the fit, regardless of humans or other animals.
U need to know tat "fit" is not equal to strength. Co ck roach is weaker than tiger but obviously they r fitter because they have no problem of being extinct. It is ability to survive in the given environment. Stephen Hawkings is a good survivor because his intellectual makes him "fit" to adapt to societyThe creationism vs evolution debate is tied in a stalemate, whatever the score is.
Show me the link. My impression is tat the religious people concede tat evolution is a fact, and tat make it co exist from the viewpoint of evolution
As scientists and astronomers look deeper into the universe for answers, they now generally agree that evolution and religion can co-exist; and they said this in 2004. -
Strawman. The problem here is that your creationist mind holds on to the image of God taking atoms and molecules and fashioning it into flowers, horses, and humans. Because of that image of "creation", you also think that evolution works the same way except that it's random. You think that evolution pulled atoms and molecules out of the air to create flowers, horses and humans.Originally posted by googoomuck:Many scientists supposedly believe that all life is accidental, a random crash of molecules that magically produced flowers, horses and humans - a scenario as unlikely as a tornado in a junkyard assembling a 747.
You need to let go of that image. Evolution is not random; it's quite the opposite in fact. And as another poster said before, evolution does not make any statement about how life began - that's abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the study of how life began. One theory is that a random crash of molecules resulted in the first organic molecules that were able to pass on their characteristics.Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind.
Once again, this is a misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is as opposed to the popular usage of the word "theory". In popular usage, "theory" means "a guess" or "an opinion".
A scientific theory however is a "mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation."
You are correct to say that with any theory, one should keep an open mind. But your mind should still be open based on the evidence. Your mind should not be open to the point where your brains fall out.Even IF the theory of evolution eventually succeeds in proving the ‘how’ of evolution, it’s only a half page proof. There’s still the question of ‘why’.
Why does there have to be a why? Besides, science makes no comment about the "why" of evolution. As for the "how", the mechanism of evolution has already been well established. There is controversy over abiogenesis and we can only assign probabilities to how life began as we can't exactly go back and see the exact moment that life began.Some of history's greatest scientific minds, including Albert Einstein, were convinced there is intelligent life behind the universe. Too bad that as human beings, their lives on earth is short.
For many scientists, their idea of god is different from the lay person. For other scientists, they believe in god but they compartmentalize it from their science.
It doesn't really matter what scientists believe as long as they don't allow it to interfere with their science. Having said that, Albert Einstein did not believe in an intelligent creator."Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein
This argument can go on forever. So I will say that even if Einstein did believe a an intelligent creator, it is nothing like the christian god. Furthermore, people are the product of their times. In the past, almost everyone was a religious person. As we learn more and increase in knowledge, we find more evidence that the god hypothesis is not only unnecessary, it is most certainly wrong.
[/b] -
there is nothing wrong to be taught evolution..
understanding a theory or concept does not denote forced belief in it. -
Well it really depends on what religion and your specific religious views - and that was said mostly to appease the religious.Originally posted by googoomuck:As scientists and astronomers look deeper into the universe for answers, they now generally agree that evolution and religion can co-exist; and they said this in 2004.
The question now is who are those who still disagree?
Evolution can co-exists with religion, as long as the religion does not contradict evidence.
If you say, "I accept scientific evidence and I feel that god made it that way," well, there's no problem. You are perfectly free to believe that god did it. Someone else is perfectly free to believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it. Others may think the Barfing Hippopotamus did it.
Young Earth Creationism, for example, is not compatible with science.
If you believe that the Genesis account is a literal description of creation, your views are not compatible with science.
If you believe that Genesis is an allegorical myth, your views are compatible. -
apart from creationism and evolution, there are a few other theories on how life began on earth, for example extraterrestial origin.
evolution is evident even in modern life, microorganisms evolved at a speed observable by humans. -
National Geographic News is known to have given more time to evolution theory. In fairness, creationism and evolution should be given equal time.
The link:
Evolution and Religion Can Coexist, Scientists Say -
The "God" which these Scientists (such as Einstein or Hawkins) quoted is very different from the personal Gods believe in religions such as Christanity and Islam...etc...
Interestingly, Darwin was a Christian.
The Pantheist "God" is a naturalistic, non-personal (i.e. don't have some human-like personality/emotions as we know it) God. It is a poetic re-expression of the Universe (or rather, what and all that exists) and that we are all but a part of this "God".
It is the naturalistic Pantheist God. Which is compatible with certain forms of Zen/Chan Philosophy in regards to the world (i.e. we are not separated from our surroundings)...and doesn't contridicts Physical laws.
http://www.pantheism.net[/b]