Should evolution be taught in schools?
-
Damned Scientologists.Originally posted by Jamie Zawinski:apart from creationism and evolution, there are a few other theories on how life began on earth, for example extraterrestial origin. -
The article basically says that religion and science can co-exist as long as religion accepts scientific evidence. Astrophysics can enlarge your view of God. That's basically saying that let astrophysics shape your view of god, not the other way round.Originally posted by googoomuck: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 article also says that pretty much everyone accepts that evolution occurs. But some choose to believe that god designed evolution to work the way it does. However, they accept the evidence for evolution.
Creationism is not given equal time in science education simply because it's not science!
Evolution is a scientific theory.
Creationism does not make any testable predictions and is not falsifiable.
Should we teach in church how science contradicts the bible? Or present the arguments for the non-existence of God in church?
But let's for the sake of argument, say that Creationism should be given equal time. Which version of creation? Should we teach about Apsu and Tiamat? Or perhaps Ame-no-Minaka-Nushi-no-Mikoto, Takami-Musubi-no-Mikoto, and Kammi-Musubi-no-Mikoto? Or perhaps we should teach about Ymir? Who get's equal time?
Even if we just stick to modern western Creationism, there's Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism.
And even within Old Earth Creationism there's around 5:
1. Theistic Evolution - this is the position officially endorsed by the Catholic Church (though recently the Pope and some other high Chuch officials made statements contradicting that position). Theistic evolution accepts modern science and scientific evidence except that they say "goddidit". This position is compatible with science except, as mentioned before, the claim that "goddidit" is not a scientific one.
2. Evolutionary Creationism - Very similar to theistic evolution. The difference is that they believe that at some point during our evolution, god mankind a spiritual awakening. The first creature to receive this spiritual awakening would be Adam.
3. Progressive Creationism - (This is where we start to diverge from scientific evidence.) This is the view supported by the website Answers in Creation. They believe that god intervened to create different "kinds" of animals over millions of years. So dinosaurs did live millions of years in the past, but god performed a special creation for humans and certain modern animals. So there's no biological link between man and earlier life forms.
4. Day Age Creationism - This is the Jehovah's Witness' view. There were 6 actual days of creation. However, they did not occur together. So day one was the creation of the universe. Day 2 was billions of years after that, so on so forth.
5. Gap Creationism - God created the heaven's and the Earth of the first day, billions of years ago. Then there was a long gap where pretty much nothing happened. Then billions of years later, god created even everything else.
Young Earth Creationism
1. Omphalism - This view accepts all scientific evidence, except that they believe all the scientific evidence is false. The universe looks like it's billions of years old, but it isn't really. God just made it look that way. Geologic evidence is also designed by god to make us thing the world is billions of years old.
2. Modern Young Earth Creationism - This group basically holds the bible as the literal truth and make up their own science to support their beliefs. This view is completely iincompatible with science. -
In the Q&A session [with the Dali Lama] it was asked what would be done in Buddhism if science was to disprove some part of the religion. He said this has already happened and Buddhism has adapted to fit the known world as opposed to every single other religion which fights against science Buddhism embraces science as they are both seeking the truth, there should be no discrepancies.
http://whydontyou.tumblr.com/post/15318378 -
For a long time, when many religious people were not so curious, they accepted the theory of evolution without thinking through. Not anymore.
Whenever a new discovery cannot be explained by the natural selection, the evolutionists would come up with new ideas, coin new terms to cling on to the theory of evolution. How does one expect these people to accept the frequent changes or addition to the wishy-washy theory? They have no problem discarding the theory because they still have their belief in creation to fall back on.
Creationist scientists learned and practiced science in exactly the same way that evolutionist scientists do. Agree?
When I think about this, some thoughts come to my mind. The laws of physics enable spacecrafts to fly round trips without getting lost and ensure that the satellites stay in their orbits in space There are architects, aerospace engineers, aircraft pilots, ship navigators, astronauts and other professionals that have to learn science - especially physics and astronomy - in order to earn their living. I wonder how many of them believe that man and apes share a common ancestor.
Some day, when scientific observation or experiments turn up more solid evidence and the theory evolution falls apart, creation theory still stands. -
How can you accept modern cars? How do you expect people to accept cars when car designers are so wishy washy that they keep changing engine designs.Originally posted by googoomuck:For a long time, when many religious people were not so curious, they accepted the theory of evolution without thinking through. Not anymore.
Whenever a new discovery cannot be explained by the natural selection, the evolutionists would come up with new ideas, coin new terms to cling on to the theory of evolution. How does one expect these people to accept the frequent changes or addition to the wishy-washy theory? They have no problem discarding the theory because they still have their belief in creation to fall back on.
How can we make transistors out of silicon now? Those wishy-washy scientists should have stuck to vacuum tubes.
B
Science changes because science follows the evidence. Theories adapt and change with new evidence. Science isn't dogmatic. That's the power of science. Science recognizes reality for what it is.Creationist scientists learned and practiced science in exactly the same way that evolutionist scientists do. Agree?
Depends on what you mean by creation scientists. Which version? If it's theistic evolutionists or omphalists, yes they practice science the same way.
But Young Earth Creationists? A very few of them have real science degrees. Very few. But they don't practice science the same way. They have let dogma overrule science.
Furthermore, you will find that very few have biology related degrees. Most are physicists, engineers, mathematicians and doctors. You can almost count on one hand the number of biologists, astronomers, and geologists.
It's very simple. Go look at the publication record of Michael Behe and Guillermo Gonzalez. Check their recent publication records in reputable peer-reviewed science journals. Look at "Dr" Kent Hovind - his "PhD" comes from an unaccredited diploma mill.When I think about this, some thoughts come to my mind. The laws of physics enable spacecrafts to fly round trips without getting lost and ensure that the satellites stay in their orbits in space There are architects, aerospace engineers, aircraft pilots, ship navigators, astronauts and other professionals that have to learn science - especially physics and astronomy - in order to earn their living. I wonder how many of them believe that man and apes share a common ancestor.
Does an expertise in physics or astronomy automatically make one an expert in evolutionary biology as well? Would you trust an evolutionary biologist to calculate the fuel burn rate of a spacecraft and how much angular momentum it would gain?
Would an astronomer know about the vast amounts of evidence, from different areas of biology that support evolutionary theory? Would a mathematician understand the numerous fields of biology, eg. the study of ERVs, that would not exist if not for evolutionary theory?
Creationism is not a science! It makes no testable predictions. Creationism says "God made us the way we are". Why do we have an appendix? God put it there. Why do whales have vestigial limbs? Well, God put it there. Why do we men have nipples? Well, coz god decided men should be able to have their nipples sucked as well. Er... okay. Put another way, creationism has not a single piece of evidence, not a single consistent theory that supports creation by a supernatural being. They only have what they believe is evidence that contradicts evolution.Some day, when scientific observation or experiments turn up more solid evidence and the theory evolution falls apart, creation theory still stands.
Creation theory does not stand. In fact, there's no creation theory. There's only opposition to evolutionary theory.
Once again, which creation theory? And at this point, if you think there's no solid evidence for evolution, nothing will convince you. What evidence is there that could convince you? Any evidence that could be presented to you, you would just say, "it's not enough."
During the Dover trial, Michael Behe was shown over 50 peer-reviewed articles that detailed the evolution of the bacterial flagellum. He said it was not enough evidence.
Behe, under cross examination, also conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred"
More quotes form the Dover trial:
"ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that “irreducibly complex” systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich."
Behe's 3 favorite examples of irreducible complexity.
"Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor BeheÂ’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex." -
Interestingly, Darwin was a Christian.
One got to take into note a particular phenomenon is europe during the last few centuries.
If u r not christians, u r prosecuted. U r outlawed, taken all your prossessions, treated like an idiot, outcast by society and even killed or tortured. Smart people just go through the notion instead of being blacklisted
For googoomuck, he argue exactly like a creationist
He never rebut any points made by other people or answer any questions made by opponents. They just talk and talk and give big words, fake conclusions without showing evidence or sources. When asked about his comments on why there r many fossils showing ape become more man like, he is silent. When shown why the word "theory" represent the highest truth representation in science, he remain silent. Then he just pop out one day and question the word "theory" again. In fact, for his way or argument, he don't need to read wat other people replied back. And I guess tat is wat he exactly did -
If scientists find a skull and with the help of an artist’s impression say “this is your ancestor”, you’ll buy the story? How naïve can one get?Originally posted by stupidissmart:One got to take into note a particular phenomenon is europe during the last few centuries.
If u r not christians, u r prosecuted. U r outlawed, taken all your prossessions, treated like an idiot, outcast by society and even killed or tortured. Smart people just go through the notion instead of being blacklisted
For googoomuck, he argue exactly like a creationist
He never rebut any points made by other people or answer any questions made by opponents. They just talk and talk and give big words, fake conclusions without showing evidence or sources. When asked about his comments on why there r many fossils showing ape become more man like, he is silent. When shown why the word "theory" represent the highest truth representation in science, he remain silent. Then he just pop out one day and question the word "theory" again. In fact, for his way or argument, he don't need to read wat other people replied back. And I guess tat is wat he exactly did
DonÂ’t make a monkey or rather an ape out of man. The missing link is still missing. Keep on digging and exploring the space. The money is going to stop coming if they donÂ’t come up with solid evidence.
Meanwhile living fossils are discovered and that must have ‘intrigued’ the scientists but so far there’s no media coverage of the study of the Laotian rodents or the Chinese Hynobiidaes. Both species are discovered in 2006. If the results of the study don’t fit into the theory, you can expect that you won’t hear anymore about these new discoveries. -
evolution can be witnessed in days, weeks, months... my dad's one of those obsessed christians, he's a local preacher, he reads the bible every night etc etc but he still decrys those who promote creationism because he realises that whatever the bible says that actually evolution is happening right now just as it has done throughout the lifespan of this planet - how do creationists explain the timeline of skeletal evidence for evolution of humans let alone the evolution that happens every day in nature? whether you believe it's driven by chance, natural selection or god you can't logically deny evolution... it's just... someone drag me out of this please lol i think i might explode at the thought of it being seriously denied so much lol
-
Scientists now suggest that modern people are descended from chimp-human hybrids. So, that makes man a bastard.
Obviously, itÂ’s suggesting that previous theories be discarded if this new theory is proved correct. The news article was written in 2006.
Human Ancestors May Have Interbred With Chimpanzees
So, make up your mind what you want to learn about the evolution of humans.
This is the evolution of the theory of evolution. -
everyday there are new discoveries la. i won't be too certain about what they put in those textbooks yet
-
Eew fornicating with a chimp. Great going ancestors.Originally posted by googoomuck:Scientists now suggest that modern people are descended from chimp-human hybrids. So, that makes man a bastard.
Obviously, itÂ’s suggesting that previous theories be discarded if this new theory is proved correct. The news article was written in 2006.
Human Ancestors May Have Interbred With Chimpanzees
So, make up your mind what you want to learn about the evolution of humans.
This is the evolution of the theory of evolution. -
is it really so different to what bridgette wilson does?Originally posted by Jem777:Eew fornicating with a chimp. Great going ancestors. -
If scientists find a skull and with the help of an artist’s impression say “this is your ancestor”, you’ll buy the story? How naïve can one get?
Talking about naive, I find tat it is more funny people believe in a book just because they say it is true.
About your point on "artist impression", frankly speaking I don't know wat is the things u r trying to say. If u look at the skulls of the fossils found on early men, u cannot tell tat there is a difference ? U can't tell tat their jawbones r more protruding while the part holding the brain r getting smaller as we go back in time. I thought even kids can tell the differenceDonÂ’t make a monkey or rather an ape out of man. The missing link is still missing. Keep on digging and exploring the space. The money is going to stop coming if they donÂ’t come up with solid evidence.
The missing link is found. They found many fossils from the past till now. Did u even see the video phaze had posted before
The evolutionist can found u 100 billion fossils showing gradual progression and u still will not be satisfiedMeanwhile living fossils are discovered and that must have ‘intrigued’ the scientists but so far there’s no media coverage of the study of the Laotian rodents or the Chinese Hynobiidaes. Both species are discovered in 2006. If the results of the study don’t fit into the theory, you can expect that you won’t hear anymore about these new discoveries.
Wat do u mean by no media coverage Actually, wat is the big hoo haa about tis 2 species ? They never prove evolution to be wrong but it fact proves tat the evolutionist come out wth very accurate assessment from fossils.Scientists now suggest that modern people are descended from chimp-human hybrids. So, that makes man a bastard.
Did u even read your article yourself Inside there is no line saying tat evolution is wrong. There is also no line saying tat we r descended from chimp-human hybrid. They say our ancestors, which is 1.2 million years ago, which is still not fully human, have descendents with chimpanzees but they died out and extinct in time. If u had seen the video from phaze on evolution before, it already told tat species which r very close to each other can interbreed, and tat is predicted in evolution theory. In fact the article emphasis evolution and use it to explain the phenomenon. -
-
Evolutionists twist and turn the evidence to fit into the theory. If the evidence does not fit, throw away the evidence.
Every finding is a controversy. Nothing is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Want to learn the theory of evolution? Students are advised to keep an open mind.
Controversial Human Ancestor Gets Major Facelift
Quote:
So troublesome was the skull that famed paleo-anthropologist Richard Leakey, the leader of the team that discovered it, once told reporters: "Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of early man. It simply fits no models of human beginnings."
These words came out of the mouth of a famous evolutionist. -
At least they are willing to change their theories based on EVIDENCE not crack pot ideas or blind faith.
Yes, evolution still needs work but it is still based on observable facts and evidence and is going almost constant updates as new things are found. Can you tell me the same for creationist theory? -
The complexity of the laws of physics are simply mind boggling. Isn't it reasonable to say that the human minds are just simply not intelligent enough to understand the purpose of the creator of the universe? There's no blind faith in true science or the spacecrafts would have lost in space, never to return to earth.Originally posted by Alvin.Yeoh:At least they are willing to change their theories based on EVIDENCE not crack pot ideas or blind faith.
Yes, evolution still needs work but it is still based on observable facts and evidence and is going almost constant updates as new things are found. Can you tell me the same for creationist theory?
It will be more practical for true scientists to spend all their energies on discovering the secrets of this creation to find cures for diseases instead of looking for clues to explain evolution. -
it's always man's dream to search for the truth, especially the origins of the universe, and life.Originally posted by googoomuck:The complexity of the laws of physics are simply mind boggling. Isn't it reasonable to say that the human minds are just simply not intelligent enough to understand the purpose of the creator of the universe? There's no blind faith in true science or the spacecrafts would have lost in space, never to return to earth.
It will be more practical for true scientists to spend all their energies on discovering the secrets of this creation to find cures for diseases instead of looking for clues to explain evolution.
even if ultimately, we found out that there's really a creator, we would embrace it with joy.
but the situation now is that all the current religions in the world are man-made, and these bullshit aka holy books do not explain anything except confusing us more.
in my opinion, it's more likely that this creator, if he really exist, just created the universe and then gone to sleep forever. -
Originally posted by Jamie Zawinski:
in my opinion, it's more likely that this creator, if he really exist, just created the universe and then gone to sleep forever.
-
you heard of pangu?Originally posted by Ser~pent: -
The Pangu legendOriginally posted by Jamie Zawinski:you heard of pangu?
In the beginning there was nothing in the universe except a formless chaos. However this chaos began to coalesce into a cosmic egg for eighteen thousand years. Within it, the perfectly opposed principles of yin and yang became balanced and Pangu emerged (or woke up) from the egg. Pangu is usually depicted as a primitive, hairy giant with horns on his head (like the Greek Pan) and clad in furs. Pangu set about the task of creating the world: he separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (murky Yin) and the Sky (clear Yang). To keep them separated, Pangu stood between them and pushed up the Sky. This task took eighteen thousand years, with each day the sky grew ten feet higher, the Earth ten feet wider, and Pangu ten feet taller. In some versions of the story, Pangu is aided in this task by the four most prominent beasts, namely the Turtle, the Qilin, the Phoenix, and the Dragon.
After the eighteen thousand years had elapsed, Pangu was laid to rest. His breath became the wind; his voice the thunder; left eye the sun and right eye the moon; his body became the mountains and extremes of the world; his blood formed rivers; his muscles the fertile lands; his facial hair the stars and milky way; his fur the bushes and forests; his bones the valuable minerals; his bone marrows sacred diamonds; his sweat fell as rain; and the fleas on his fur carried by the wind became human beings all over the world. The distance from Earth and Sky at the end of the 18,000 years would have been 65,700,000 feet, or over 12,443 miles
Tao tao dao veri confusing -
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1470.html
In the last few years, an increasing number of scientists have been classifying this skull as Homo rudolfensis. (If 1470 is related to the newly-discovered fossil WT 40000 (Kenyanthropus platyops) to which it has some claimed resemblances, it may eventually be reassigned to the genus Kenyanthropus.)
Creationists seem to be fairly evenly divided on whether 1470 is an ape or a human. Originally, Gish (1979) thought it human, then later (1985) decided it was an ape. Lubenow's (1992) opinion that it was a human seemed to be gaining ground in the early 1990's, but more recently other creationists such as Mehlert (1996) and Hartwig-Scherer have decided that it is just a large-brained ape.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rudolfensis
In March 2007, a team led by Timothy Bromage, an anthropologist at New York University, reconstructed the skull of KNM-ER 1470. The new construction looks very ape-like and the cranial capacity based on the new construction is downsized from 752 cubic centimeters to about 526 cc. Bromage said his teamÂ’s reconstruction includes biological principles not known at the time of the skullÂ’s discovery, which state that a mammalÂ’s eyes, ears and mouth must be in precise relationships relative to one anotherEvolutionists twist and turn the evidence to fit into the theory. If the evidence does not fit, throw away the evidence.
No one threw any evidence away Tis skull has been the center of a debate for some time before a conclusion is reached tat it is an ape and the reconstruction is a bit off in the past.The complexity of the laws of physics are simply mind boggling. Isn't it reasonable to say that the human minds are just simply not intelligent enough to understand the purpose of the creator of the universe? There's no blind faith in true science or the spacecrafts would have lost in space, never to return to earth.
Right... Then the physics of aircraft and nuclear power and all science r also mind boggling as well. We should abandoned them and start digging for sweet potatoes and yam to survive. Human mind is just not intelligent, so we should just lie down and wait for judgement dayIt will be more practical for true scientists to spend all their energies on discovering the secrets of this creation to find cures for diseases instead of looking for clues to explain evolution.
Evolution is necessary to discover cures to dieseases. -
Heh. I've given up trying to explain.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1470.html
In the last few years, an increasing number of scientists have been classifying this skull as Homo rudolfensis. (If 1470 is related to the newly-discovered fossil WT 40000 (Kenyanthropus platyops) to which it has some claimed resemblances, it may eventually be reassigned to the genus Kenyanthropus.)
Creationists seem to be fairly evenly divided on whether 1470 is an ape or a human. Originally, Gish (1979) thought it human, then later (1985) decided it was an ape. Lubenow's (1992) opinion that it was a human seemed to be gaining ground in the early 1990's, but more recently other creationists such as Mehlert (1996) and Hartwig-Scherer have decided that it is just a large-brained ape. [/i]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rudolfensis
In March 2007, a team led by Timothy Bromage, an anthropologist at New York University, reconstructed the skull of KNM-ER 1470. The new construction looks very ape-like and the cranial capacity based on the new construction is downsized from 752 cubic centimeters to about 526 cc. Bromage said his teamÂ’s reconstruction includes biological principles not known at the time of the skullÂ’s discovery, which state that a mammalÂ’s eyes, ears and mouth must be in precise relationships relative to one anotherOriginally posted by googoomuck:
Evolutionists twist and turn the evidence to fit into the theory. If the evidence does not fit, throw away the evidence.Originally posted by stupidissmart:
IÂ’ve already quoted what the evolutionist said. They hatched another idea by rearranging the angle of the jaws and bone fragments, gave it another facelift and revised the age of the fossil.
No one threw any evidence away Tis skull has been the center of a debate for some time before a conclusion is reached tat it is an ape and the reconstruction is a bit off in the past.
And no one find their work funny at all? What kind of science is this? Suggestions only. ItÂ’s all guesswork!
Can an evolutionist prove his theory like a true scientist proves his theory by experiments with conclusive results beyond a reasonable doubt?
Some readers donÂ’t go through the history of the posts in this thread. So, I post the quote again
Quote:
So troublesome was the skull that famed paleo-anthropologist Richard Leakey, the leader of the team that discovered it, once told reporters: "Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of early man. It simply fits no models of human beginnings."
Controversial Human Ancestor Gets Major FaceliftOriginally posted by googoomuck:
The complexity of the laws of physics are simply mind boggling. Isn't it reasonable to say that the human minds are just simply not intelligent enough to understand the purpose of the creator of the universe? There's no blind faith in true science or the spacecrafts would have lost in space, never to return to earth.Originally posted by stupidissmart:
I did not say that.
Right... Then the physics of aircraft and nuclear power and all science r also mind boggling as well. We should abandoned them and start digging for sweet potatoes and yam to survive. Human mind is just not intelligent, so we should just lie down and wait for judgement day
Scientists should continue to unlock the secrets of creation for the benefit of humanity.Originally posted by googoomuck:
It will be more practical for true scientists to spend all their energies on discovering the secrets of this creation to find cures for diseases instead of looking for clues to explain evolution.Originally posted by stupidissmart:
I have no comment.
Evolution is necessary to discover cures to dieseases.
I donÂ’t want to think of the logic of evolution theory as an art of being wrong with confidence.
So, IÂ’m for giving creationism and evolution equal time to reach a conclusion. -
I tot evolution is when the x-files guy meet a black dude and they fight aliens.
that also need to taught in school?