Evolutionism vs Creationism

[Illogical 1126]

Oh my god. I would burn that book in front of the classroom.

lol god

Edited December 29, 2012 by Illogical

[Goldentongue 3616]

What's pseudoscience? Earth orbiting around the sun was pseudoscience at one point in time, Earth being round was pseudoscience at one point in time.

Are you defending poor scientific understanding with more poor scientific understanding? These things were never "pseudoscience", they were at one point simply beyond the scope of scientific understanding. Their discovery was made a lot longer ago than you likely believe. To claim the same comparison can be made between understanding fossil records versus the story of a talking snake in a garden is fallacious.

It doesn't hurt intelligent children to be given all the facts and deciding for themselves what they think is more reasonable. It only hurts dumb ones who are scared of opposing theories.

The only ideas involving facts are scientific laws and theories such as evolution. Anything else is a fictional story generated as an explanation for what couldn't be understood thousands of years ago. To teach any of the hundreds upon hundreds of ancient creation stories as having a shred of truth is dishonest and deceitful to children expecting to be provided an honest education.

[Dyscivist 5686]

Personally, I'm agnostic. I can't be bothered to make claims to know what we don't know.

Agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. They are answers to two different questions. The reason a lot of atheists are upset by people claiming to be agnostic is because they don't know what they're talking about.

Atheism also isn't making a claim about God's existence. It is making a claim about your personal belief in God's existence.

Do you believe in God? If so, you're a theist. If not, you're an atheist.

Do you believe we can ever know with 100% certainty that God exists or does not exist? If so, you're gnostic. If not, you're agnostic.

I, for example, am an agnostic atheist.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Dyscivist

[DarkPredator 1193]

"Do you believe in God?"

Is belief a decision or a feeling?

If it's a decision, then I'm neither theist or atheist (I'm agnostic)

If it's a feeling, then some moments I'm theist, some moments I'm atheist.

"Do you believe we can ever know with 100% certainty that God exists or does not exist?"

If nothing exists after we die... then no, it seems that most ppl die without knowing 100%.

If somehow we exist after we die here on earth, then its possible given enough time that maybe we could find out.

Isn't this how an agnostic thinks? Nothing definitive about things that are supernatural?

To me agnostic is equivalent to saying I dont fucking know.

[Goldentongue 3616]

"Do you believe in God?"

Is belief a decision or a feeling?

If it's a decision, then I'm neither theist or atheist (I'm agnostic)

If it's a feeling, then some moments I'm theist, some moments I'm atheist.

"Do you believe we can ever know with 100% certainty that God exists or does not exist?"

If nothing exists after we die... then no, it seems that most ppl die without knowing 100%.

If somehow we exist after we die here on earth, then its possible given enough time that maybe we could find out.

Isn't this how an agnostic thinks? Nothing definitive about things that are supernatural?

To me agnostic is equivalent to saying I dont fucking know.

It's really hard to take anything you say seriously when you show you have good communication skills but insist on calling us "ppl".

[KGameLover1 1306]

ITT: Tortoise being worse than christians.

So instead of exposing children too all theories, you think they should just be taught the one that you agree with right?

I think we have a Fatscist here.

QFT

As a Christian, Evolution is what I 'believe' in, doesn't have to be so black or white though. Even then, schools shouldn't teach Creationism as Science, but public schools should still teach about World Religion and belief systems, etc.

good for you for being strong about what you believe in.

My dad is a strong christian. He's also a PHD physicist working in the field with lasers. He believes in the evolution of species over time. He also believes that God breathed the soul into humans at a certain point, and thats where humans in the bible start off. He looks at a lot of the bible as metaphors.

Some people unify their beliefs by picking and choosing what they believe. If someone chooses to believe in evolution, that doesnt mean they believe exactly what everyone else who believes in evolution believes. And some christians would like to deny, but besides the main tenets of christianity, its very open to intrepretation while remaining true to the basics.

Personally, I'm agnostic. I can't be bothered to make claims to know what we don't know. A lot of ppl, especially atheists, hate agnosticism for some reason. I don't really get it.

Also QFT; if you look at evolution, not everyone believes the same; both Christians and non-Christians don't think it's teh same with the Bible though.

Also, I don't get why agnostics are hated either. I guess it's because they're just impatient/thinking "GET OFF THE FENCE AND MAKE A FUCKING DECISION" or something.

[Toxygen 1885]

Everytime you dipshits get into a pissing contest about religion I remember who I hate in this community.

[Goldentongue 3616]

I just realized Tortoise called it "Evolutionism". This thread was doomed from the beginning.

[KGameLover1 1306]

Everytime you dipshits get into a pissing contest about religion I remember who I hate in this community.

this... why do we even talk about religion and shit. it's a gaming forum not a debate site ffs

I just realized Tortoise called it "Evolutionism". This thread was doomed from the beginning.

hahahahahahahaha <3 you Goldentongue.

Edited December 29, 2012 by That Guy Named KGame

[fatb0y 1337]

What's pseudoscience? Earth orbiting around the sun was pseudoscience at one point in time, Earth being round was pseudoscience at one point in time.

Are you defending poor scientific understanding with more poor scientific understanding? These things were never "pseudoscience", they were at one point simply beyond the scope of scientific understanding. Their discovery was made a lot longer ago than you likely believe. To claim the same comparison can be made between understanding fossil records versus the story of a talking snake in a garden is fallacious.

It doesn't hurt intelligent children to be given all the facts and deciding for themselves what they think is more reasonable. It only hurts dumb ones who are scared of opposing theories.

The only ideas involving facts are scientific laws and theories such as evolution. Anything else is a fictional story generated as an explanation for what couldn't be understood thousands of years ago. To teach any of the hundreds upon hundreds of ancient creation stories as having a shred of truth is dishonest and deceitful to children expecting to be provided an honest education.

The creationist teaching doesn't necessarily try to disprove evolution. It fills in a blank that evolution doesn't even address. Science in general, begins with theory and evolves with fact finding and finally proofing. Evolutionary biologists, as I remember from a few years back, generally believe that life is spontaneous and occurs randomly given the right conditions. For evolution to hold true, we must be the descendants of some original cell, some form of primitive single celled life form that just appeared one day with no rhyme or reason.

Evolution doesn't explain where this cell came from, not really. It presupposes this cell and moves on from there. Creationism, like the more scientific theory, doesn't offer much in terms of an explanations. they BOTH come down to "poof, you are now alive" .

Am I saying creationism is right, no, but with no other explanation why not tell kids about it. Hopefully some kids are smart enough to think that they can come up with a better explanation.

Edited December 29, 2012 by fatb0y

[Dyscivist 5686]

some form of primitive single celled life form that just appeared one day with no rhyme or reason.

A characterization of anything in nature as happening with no rhyme or reason is completely silly, and no one claims that to be the case unless they're retarded or strawmanning someone else.

Look into abiogenesis.

[BeauutifulChaos 902]

What's pseudoscience? Earth orbiting around the sun was pseudoscience at one point in time, Earth being round was pseudoscience at one point in time.

Are you defending poor scientific understanding with more poor scientific understanding? These things were never "pseudoscience", they were at one point simply beyond the scope of scientific understanding. Their discovery was made a lot longer ago than you likely believe. To claim the same comparison can be made between understanding fossil records versus the story of a talking snake in a garden is fallacious.

It doesn't hurt intelligent children to be given all the facts and deciding for themselves what they think is more reasonable. It only hurts dumb ones who are scared of opposing theories.

The only ideas involving facts are scientific laws and theories such as evolution. Anything else is a fictional story generated as an explanation for what couldn't be understood thousands of years ago. To teach any of the hundreds upon hundreds of ancient creation stories as having a shred of truth is dishonest and deceitful to children expecting to be provided an honest education.

The creationist teaching doesn't necessarily try to disprove evolution. It fills in a blank that evolution doesn't even address. Science in general, begins with theory and evolves with fact finding and finally proofing. Evolutionary biologists, as I remember from a few years back, generally believe that life is spontaneous and occurs randomly given the right conditions. For evolution to hold true, we must be the descendants of some original cell, some form of primitive single celled life form that just appeared one day with no rhyme or reason.

Evolution doesn't explain where this cell came from, not really. It presupposes this cell and moves on from there. Creationism, like the more scientific theory, doesn't offer much in terms of an explanations. they BOTH come down to "poof, you are now alive" .

Am I saying creationism is right, no, but with no other explanation why not tell kids about it. Hopefully some kids are smart enough to think that they can come up with a better explanation.

I agree with this, but in some cases, there is a difference between "telling" kids and forcing it upon them.

Edited December 29, 2012 by BeauutifulChaos

[Dyscivist 5686]

I just can't believe that something as diverse and monolithic as the universe could have been created from pure nothing.

Who's proposing that? If anything, that's more of a religious idea than a naturalistic one.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Dyscivist

[Goldentongue 3616]

The creationist teaching doesn't necessarily try to disprove evolution. It fills in a blank that evolution doesn't even address. Science in general, begins with theory and evolves with fact finding and finally proofing. Evolutionary biologists, as I remember from a few years back, generally believe that life is spontaneous and occurs randomly given the right conditions. For evolution to hold true, we must be the descendants of some original cell, some form of primitive single celled life form that just appeared one day with no rhyme or reason.

Evolution doesn't explain where this cell came from, not really. It presupposes this cell and moves on from there. Creationism, like the more scientific theory, doesn't offer much in terms of an explanations. they BOTH come down to "poof, you are now alive" .

Am I saying creationism is right, no, but with no other explanation why not tell kids about it. Hopefully some kids are smart enough to think that they can come up with a better explanation.

Even assuming that we can't explain the origins of a single celled organism (we can), why would you teach a magical non-scientific explanation to fill in the gap? There's a lot of natural phenomena that we don't fully understand yet, but never in the course of human history has the supernatural been the correct answer to the inexplicable. And even if we decided to go the route of the supernatural, which of the hundreds of all equally ridiculous creation stories generated in the past thousands of years do you suggest we teach? All of them? Some of them? The ones whose followers were the best at conquering new territories?

Then again, this entire discussion would be irrelevant if you followed Dyscivist's very simple suggestion that you spend five minutes educating yourself about abiogenesis and learn about protein synthesis from inorganic matter.

[DarkPredator 1193]

It's really hard to take anything you say seriously when you show you have good communication skills but insist on calling us "ppl".

I think of you as a lioness and I imagine most threads on this forum as patches of long grass in the savanah, we stroll along talking away, not a care in the world, imagining life is a safe place, and then BAM, you pounce on a run on sentence.

[Dojima 7619]

Agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. They are answers to two different questions.

Atheism also isn't making a claim about God's existence. It is making a claim about your personal belief in God's existence.

It's possible to argue this, but the majority of atheists don't seem to display that notion.

[Jewinator 5000 750]

As a Christian,

Hey blob, highfive

there aren't many of us here

Edited December 29, 2012 by Jewinator 5000

[KGameLover1 1306]

As a Christian,

Hey blob, highfive

there aren't many of us here

Yes there are...

Just in hiding...

[Dyscivist 5686]

As a Christian,

Hey blob, highfive

there aren't many of us here

[media=]

Wrong.

Opinion has nothing to do with accepting or denying reality. Scientific and historical truths are not subjective.

Scientific truths are objective. Historical 'truths' are heavily open to interpretation in most instances.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Dyscivist

[ElectronicDrug 7496]

There's no way evolution created something as gorgeous as my dick.

[Oreo 2073]

Might as well hop in with a post on my beliefs.

Evolution is 99.99% likely to be how the world itself has come to be over the millions of years it's been around. Creationism is flawed in many ways and is an extremely unreliable way of explaining the creation of the world. Now could we say that there is a higher being that set in motion, lets say the big bang? Possibly, it is also possible that there isn't and somehow something was created from essentially nothing. However, we each have our own opinions and rationale for events, so to each his own. Personally I believe that there was something that set in motion events to create what we have now and that evolution has played a large part in our development. Do I feel as if whatever it was interferes in our world anymore? I do not.

[DarkPredator 1193]

EDIT: IAMTHEWORSTKINDOFPERSON

Edited December 29, 2012 by DarkPredator

[Sketchmaticx 3170]

tl;dr thread, but people aren't taught this in the normal public school

i'm in mississippi and not even taught this shit

[Oreo 2073]

tl;dr thread, but people aren't taught this in the normal public school

i'm in mississippi and not even taught this shit

^

Stuff like this was ruled unconstitutional back in '87.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard

[kevinbotz 143]

tl;dr thread, but people aren't taught this in the normal public school

i'm in mississippi and not even taught this shit

^

Stuff like this was ruled unconstitutional back in '87.

http://en.wikipedia....ds_v._Aguillard

And ruled against again in 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District