Inteligent Design & Darwinism in Schools

Seath wrote:So you are basically saying that there is no god

I'm saying I see no logical justification to believe in one.

Seath wrote: what if everything was designed by god to happen as it has? what if god altered all the variables to make everything happen as it has?

Well then I'd say "Aw shucks, I was fooled"

ReconToaster wrote:

Seath wrote:So you are basically saying that there is no god

I'm saying I see no logical justification to believe in one.

Seath wrote: what if everything was designed by god to happen as it has? what if god altered all the variables to make everything happen as it has?

Well then I'd say "Aw shucks, I was fooled"

Then you dont believe in a god.
So why keep the concept of ID from even being mentioned in schools? Just because of your opinion?

Seath wrote:Then you dont believe in a god.
So why keep the concept of ID from even being mentioned in schools? Just because of your opinion?

You're right, I don't, but that's not relevant. I don't want Intelligent Design to be taught in school because I see absolutely no evidence to support it, aside from lack of explanation otherwise.

"What if" scenarios are not sound enough to qualify as text book material.

evolution is technically a what if too, it has not been proven true yet

Also, so you are saying it shouldn;t even be touched? Cuz whats that telling everyone is that there is no such thing as ID, a notion I myself as well as many others disagree with.

Seath wrote:evolution is technically a what if too, it has not been proven true yet

But the difference is that is has at least a hint of actual evidence behind it. How definitively it is taught is another matter altogether, which often varies from place to place.

Also, so you are saying it shouldn;t even be touched? Cuz whats that telling everyone is that there is no such thing as ID, a notion I myself as well as many others disagree with.

If you want to say "Some people blindly subscribe to the belief in a god," I'm fine with that. If you want to actually take it seriously and teach it as a legitimate theory in our schools, I've got a big problem.

There is nothing telling people that there is absolutely no Intelligent Design, but there is also nothing even suggesting that there is such a thing, aside from current lack of an otherwise definitive explanation.

There is not even a hint of factual support for the idea. In my mind, that means that it has not reached anywhere near the validity required to be taught in schools.

This is not about me saying there is no god, this is about me saying that we should not be teaching ideas with no scientific backing in SCIENCE class.

KristallNacht wrote:yup, pretty much, rot lol

It's weird that I live in California and i get the most realistic, impartial education I've ever heard of, despite the fact people seem to think California teaches all kids that gays are cool and god doesn't exist.

Lord Pheonix wrote:My Highshcool barely even covered it, and when we did our teacher rushed through it because she didn't want to get into this kinda shit lol



She taught the way the school said, but did a VERY brief review of the other sides cause she wanted to teach it fair.

Nifty.

ReconToaster wrote: But it tells us that everything in the Universe is moving outward from a central point which, last time I checked, is frequently to result of an explosion.

I think the most entertaining thing about watching you debate, Recon, is that you ignore half my points, pick out the ones that, out of context, make me look bad, and only quote those. So I'll reiterate. Red shift does not prove that nothing simply exploded for no reason. Christians don't necessarily take issue with the big bang as an event as much as with the big bang as happening all on its own. In simple terms (that you hopefully won't skip over in your next response), there are at least a decent number of us Christians that believe that God caused the big bang. So no, red shift does not magically disprove religion. It evidences an explosion, but since Christians take issue with why there was an explosion, not that there was an explosion, red shift makes perfect sense with either view point.

ReconToaster wrote: Sounds to me like a BIG fucking cop-out. Can't figure out how the universe began? Lets throw in a magical being, void of all scientific jurisdiction, capable of doing ANYTHING. You've got a real sound theory there rot.

There you go again, Recon, ignoring half of what I wrote. So let me reiterate, again. To make any sense at all, both science and religion rely on the concept of something having existed infinitely from before time. The difference is that such a thing contradicts science, so science requires something that it can't have. It's lactose intolerant but it needs milk to survive. You can call God a giant cop out if you'd like, but since there is no scientific way anything could just always have been for no reason other than because it was, I don't foresee science as coming up with anything better in the future. Normally, a cop out implies that you have a better answer, but don't want to give it. Since there is no way to form a better answer, God would then not be a cop out.

ReconToaster wrote: The point I was getting at is that while science is based off of tangible evidence that is available to us today, the only evidence for intelligent design that Civ can seem to muster up is a 2,000 year old guy for whom the extent of his existence is debatable.

I personally agree that Jesus wasn't the best argument for Civ to use in a debate about creationism vs macro evolution, but I also doubt his existence is actually debatable. I mean, for a man who didn't exist, he sure did proliferate through quite a bit of historical documents. For his very existence to have been some kind of conspiracy, it would have to have been bigger than any other suggested conspiracy in history, combined. Anyone suggesting that a man as well documented as Jesus never existed is about as sane as those that suggest the holocaust never happened. There is clear documentation that it did.

ReconToaster wrote: Put me on the list with NT. Only Micro evolution is taught as absolute fact in most schools...

Well lucky you. I wasn't so fortunate.

ReconToaster wrote: Great, so we can stop basing arguments for god off of disproving scientific theory?

You see, I'm not forming arguments to prove God exists. I am simply saying that scientific theory is not perfect and should not be taught, especially in the lower levels of schools, as such. You see, some are trying to use science to prove God doesn't exist through its scientific theory, and I am simply pointing out that they haven't.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:RT, don't get mad just because you cant disprove the idea f there being a god.

How do you know god didn't cause the big bang? Last I checked, something like that could hav e drastic effect on time, and could turn seven billion or seven trillion years into seven days in some cases.

lol

Im just saying, you can't actually prove that god doesn't exist(or does for that matter) so you cant go around and teach "there is no such thing as ID, only evolution" in schools.

More to the point, the Bible does mention that God doesn't perceive time the same way we do.

Lord Pheonix wrote:but its SCIENCE class. They teach stuff and theorize, not just say "God did it" and move on.

I'm sure if I wasn't so lazy, I could do a little research and find scientific merit in creationism. I'm not saying that they should simply say "God did it" and move on. I believe I outlined how I think both should be presented in an earlier post.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:Im saying they should briefly touch on both.
In classes today its not "This is a theory" its "This is the fact"

looka t your average textbook and thats about what it says

Indeed.

Onyxknight wrote:Well i sated many times both are intertwined since i belive god (or whatever you want to call him) that he put the bacterira and other germs in this universe and helped push them along to become what they have today.

Yes, but you see, this sort of intelligent design isn't much different that macro evolution. If they teach macro evolution, they are also teaching intelligent design without mentioning God, which I think is perfectly acceptable. Perhaps if they do mention creationism, they can also mention that some believe in a mix of the two.

ReconToaster wrote: I'm not trying to disprove the possibility of there being a god, I'm trying to refute Intelligent Design as a logical conclusion given today's evidence. Lack of evidence is not evidence for the existence of a god.

Technically speaking, intelligent design would work off of the same evidence as macro evolution, since, from what I can tell, it is a God-caused-macro-evolution sort of theory. That aside, I pointed out one piece of evidence for creationism that I could think of off the top of my head: the Cambrian Explosion. I noticed that part of my post wasn't quoted or responded to, so I'll assume you missed that bit.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:So you are basically saying that there is no god
what if everything was designed by god to happen as it has? what if god altered all the variables to make everything happen as it has?

Erm...no...that isn't what he's saying...he just said quite the opposite.

ReconToaster wrote: I'm saying I see no logical justification to believe in one.

I'm too lazy to go over the whole win-win vs win-lose and win-lose vs lose-lose thingy I did the last time we had a religious debate, so before I do, do you remember that? If not, I'll go over it again.

ReconToaster wrote: Well then I'd say "Aw shucks, I was fooled"

For some reason, I don't think those will be your exact thoughts.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:Then you dont believe in a god.
So why keep the concept of ID from even being mentioned in schools? Just because of your opinion?

Erm...I could have told you that. And I think his point was more that there isn't enough scientific evidence to support creationism (I'm assuming that's what you mean). I'm too lazy to research, but I provided one piece of evidence, which was promptly ignored.

ReconToaster wrote: You're right, I don't, but that's not relevant. I don't want Intelligent Design to be taught in school because I see absolutely no evidence to support it, aside from lack of explanation otherwise.

"What if" scenarios are not sound enough to qualify as text book material.

Technically speaking, macro evolution is a bit of a what if itself. Both sides do have evidence. And, technically speaking, since macro evolution and creationism are just about opposites, evidence against macro evolution would be evidence for creationism.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:evolution is technically a what if too, it has not been proven true yet

Also, so you are saying it shouldn;t even be touched? Cuz whats that telling everyone is that there is no such thing as ID, a notion I myself as well as many others disagree with.

Indeed.

ReconToaster wrote: But the difference is that is has at least a hint of actual evidence behind it. How definitively it is taught is another matter altogether, which often varies from place to place.

Both have evidence, though you seem to ignore the parts of my posts that are not favorable to your point of view and can't be taken out of context. And it shouldn't vary from place to place.

ReconToaster wrote: If you want to say "Some people blindly subscribe to the belief in a god," I'm fine with that. If you want to actually take it seriously and teach it as a legitimate theory in our schools, I've got a big problem.

There is nothing telling people that there is absolutely no Intelligent Design, but there is also nothing even suggesting that there is such a thing, aside from current lack of an otherwise definitive explanation.

There is not even a hint of factual support for the idea. In my mind, that means that it has not reached anywhere near the validity required to be taught in schools.

This is not about me saying there is no god, this is about me saying that we should not be teaching ideas with no scientific backing in SCIENCE class.

Which is why I offered scientific evidence for creationism that I could think of off the top of my head. Without even looking into it, I could think of something. To believe that there is absolutely no scientific evidence of creationism is a tad ignorant. It certainly isn't conclusive or without a doubt, but neither is macro evolution, which is my point. Both are not conclusive, both have some evidence, both should be touched on.

So... many... posts...
*runs into rots first giant wall of text*

ReconToaster wrote:Evolution was never intended to explain how life began, it was put in place to attempt to explain how life progressed. The only people claiming to know how life began are those of religion, and they base their idea on books, not scientific findings.

Yet Darwin wrote an interesting book titled The Origin of Species.

ReconToaster wrote:The fact that we cannot yet explain the origins of life does not mean that Creationism/Intelligent Designs MUST BE TRUE.

Stop trying to make me sound like an ass, I never said that.

ReconToaster wrote:I thought this wasn't about religion Civ.

This isn't. You wanted evidence, so I gave you it.

ReconToaster wrote:Thing is, in order to use submit "Jesus" as evidence, you must first find evidence that he ever existed in the first place.

Bible, plenty of records. The pope started the AD calender for him. He existed, that we know.

ReconToaster wrote:The only historians of the time to reference Jesus have either been proven a false source, or have simply referred to a "Christus" or "anointed one."

Its funny how you don't consider anything with something religious in it to be historical. Is the bible not a historical document? The gospels are still records of accounts.

ReconToaster wrote:I'm not saying the guy never existed, but you'd think someone with such a strong following would have gathered a bit of attention.

He did, but news didn't spread as fast back then. After all, the printing press wouldn't be invented for another 1500 years.

ReconToaster wrote:The thing about science is that it questions itself. No real scientist would ever present a theory (Macro Evolution, Big bang) as absolute fact. Religious organizations on the other hand close their gates and dismiss any argument that does not translate well to their beliefs.

Yet my pastor believes in evolution... funny how that works. Religion doesn't shun evolution; in fact, religion embraces evolution with open arms. Hence theistic evolution.

ReconToaster wrote:You can't ridicule science for not having an absolute answer to the origins of life, as the ID assumption is no more than a cop-out, an evasion of the scientific method.

Evasion of the scientific method? Science doesn't allow for the supernatural as an answer. You cannot prove ID with science as science itself will no longer allow the idea as even a possibility.

Do you deny ID as a possible answer? If not, then don't you agree that it should be accepted in the education system as a possible answer, though not presented as fact? That is, after all, what this is about. It's not ID vs Darwinism, it's about weather they should be taught or accepted in schools. When I say Darwinism, I do not mean evolution, I am talking about his theory of how life began.

LP wrote:Thats another theory all together as this is EVOLUTION, not how it began. If it was it would be God Vs Big Bang, not DESIGN VS DARWANISM you stupid twat.

The intelligent designer would be God, no? This isn't about evolution. Darwinism is not just evolution.

Before I continue, I'd just like to say that I agree with what Rot says
At least, on the first post... I haven't read the second one yet.

ReconToaster wrote:But it tells us that everything in the Universe is moving outward from a central point which, last time I checked, is frequently to result of an explosion.

Must everything go boom?

ReconToaster wrote:Sounds to me like a BIG fucking cop-out. Can't figure out how the universe began? Lets throw in a magical being, void of all scientific jurisdiction, capable of doing ANYTHING. You've got a real sound theory there rot.

Better than nothing.

ReconToaster wrote:The point I was getting at is that while science is based off of tangible evidence that is available to us today, the only evidence for intelligent design that Civ can seem to muster up is a 2,000 year old guy for whom the extent of his existence is debatable.

Please, give me some of this evidence.

ReconToaster wrote:but its SCIENCE class. They teach stuff and theorize, not just say "God did it" and move on.

I'm not suggesting this happen. I'm suggesting that the schools, when talking about the origin of life, at least mention that this could be the result of a common creator if they are also going to present the Darwinian side.

ReconToaster wrote:I'm not trying to disprove the possibility of there being a god, I'm trying to refute Intelligent Design as a logical conclusion given today's evidence. Lack of evidence is not evidence for the existence of a god.

So because something lacks evidence, it's illogical?

ReconToaster wrote:I'm saying I see no logical justification to believe in one.

I don't need to justify my beliefs so long as they don't contradict what we have found to be true repeated times.

ReconToaster wrote:You're right, I don't, but that's not relevant. I don't want Intelligent Design to be taught in school because I see absolutely no evidence to support it, aside from lack of explanation otherwise.

"What if" scenarios are not sound enough to qualify as text book material.

What if nothing exploded into everything?
What if everything came together into a little dot, spun really fast, and flung out into entire solar systems?
What if there was the perfect combination of elements and energy arranged in the perfect manor in order to create life?

On the contrary, I find "what if" and "why" to be the perfect questions for science to operate.

ReconToaster wrote:But the difference is that is has at least a hint of actual evidence behind it. How definitively it is taught is another matter altogether, which often varies from place to place.

So because ID has less evidence (mainly because this evidence cannot be obtained due to science itself), it is illogical?

ReconToaster wrote:If you want to say "Some people blindly subscribe to the belief in a god," I'm fine with that. If you want to actually take it seriously and teach it as a legitimate theory in our schools, I've got a big problem.

I love how you have to make it insulting in order to accept it. And is it not legitimate? Every theory is legitimate until disproven.

ReconToaster wrote:There is nothing telling people that there is absolutely no Intelligent Design, but there is also nothing even suggesting that there is such a thing, aside from current lack of an otherwise definitive explanation.

Well, that and stories that have survived thousands of years of speculation out of shear faith. If the faith has lasted this long, then it must have been pretty strong to begin with.

ReconToaster wrote:There is not even a hint of factual support for the idea. In my mind, that means that it has not reached anywhere near the validity required to be taught in schools.

Not even a hint? I wouldn't go that far. The entire idea of ID is based upon similarities in our world, supporting the idea that there was a common creator.

ReconToaster wrote:This is not about me saying there is no god, this is about me saying that we should not be teaching ideas with no scientific backing in SCIENCE class.

Then macro evolution should be taken out. You can have all of the evidence in the world, but it wont do any good until it is proven.

Rot does so much better at this than I...

You can expect a reply at 12:00 PM Eastern...

My exams end at 12... and I'll be stuck at school.

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Too many posts and too much reading for a debate I didn't want to get into






im out for sheer lack of caring






and just to be clear: I believe in what I believe, I could care less about what others believe or don't believe in. This is why I don't like to debate as peoples opinions are there own damn buisness and I keep mine to myself.

I feel no need to preach or even talk about what I believe in as it is what I believe and no debate will likely ever change that as beliefs are not something one just ups and changes after hearing a few points that most are close minded to actually taking in and honestly thinking about when most are just trying to find a way to spin what they just heard against their opponent for the sake of the debate.



So..............peace out

*sigh, you know, I had the thing all typed up at 12 o'clock, just as I said I would. When I went to post it, my log in had timed out (or something) and it made me log back in. I entered my Username and password... hit enter... and chrome decided to freeze on me. In short, I lost a long ass post. I'll try to emulate it as best I can:

Rot wrote: I think the most entertaining thing about watching you debate, Recon, is that you ignore half my points

Rot wrote:There you go again, Recon, ignoring half of what I wrote

Rot wrote: I noticed that part of my post wasn't quoted or responded to

Rot wrote:but I provided one piece of evidence, which was promptly ignored.

Thing is, when it's 1vs3, which is typically how it is, it's somewhat difficult to quote and address every single paragraph in your long ass posts. What I find most entertaining about watching you debate is the way you bitch like a pregnant cow.

To address your argument, I really don't think you've got much there. Unless I'm missing something, the extent of your argument was that, because you don't think that increased oxygen levels could produce an enormous boom in creature variety, Intelligent Design must be the answer as to what caused the Cambrian explosion.

It is as if you are stating that "Evolution" and "Intelligent Design" are the only two possible answers to the development of life. In reality, there are millions of possibilities. Disproving evolution (which you have not done) does not make ID the winner by default.

Rot wrote:red shift does not magically disprove religion. It evidences an explosion, but since Christians take issue with why there was an explosion, not that there was an explosion, red shift makes perfect sense with either view point.

Red shift supports the big bang theory, which is all I intended for my statement to do. I realize that it does not shatter religion, nor was I hoping it would. It does nothing to the argument of intelligent design either. It does, however, put quite a hindrance on creation.

On top of all that, There are many ideas as to how the big bang occurred, one of them involving multiple universes. Admittedly, many (if not all) of these "theories" sound like something out of a sci-fantasy novel. Still, it seems that whenever I mention string theory (which I do not subscribe myself to) to you, you act as if the idea sounds crazy. If you think that Intelligent Design should be covered in schools, then you damn well better agree that every one of those crazy Big bang beginning theories be taught.

What I am arguing is that we should keep the topics covered extensively in science classes limited only to theories that are supported most by evidence at hand. This is not about me saying that there is no god, it's about me saying that evolution, however full of holes as it may be, is the best thing we've got just now. I'm glad that you at least understand what I'm trying to get across.

Rot wrote:To make any sense at all, both science and religion rely on the concept of something having existed infinitely from before time. The difference is that such a thing contradicts science

While I do think the concept of absolute "scientific law" completely contradicts the meaning of science, I think you're misinterpreting their purpose.

The "laws" of science are not meant to be applied to the entirety of all that is unknown. They were established in order to help us understand and study the place in the world in which we reside. There very well may be a Dimension wherein the laws of physics and science can be bent, or completely broken, but they are not yet known to us.

The laws are meant to govern the Einsteinian universe in which we reside, nothing more.

You are also making the mistake once more of addressing science as if it were a religion. While I respect the laws of science under most circumstances, I do not hail Newton every morning for his discoveries.

Rot wrote:Anyone suggesting that a man as well documented as Jesus never existed is about as sane as those that suggest the holocaust never happened. There is clear documentation that it did.

We have pictures of the holocaust at its prime, predating the release of photoshop. I've never come across a picture of Jesus hangin' with his disciples. What I'm arguing is not that he did not exist, but that the extent of his existence is debatable. While I can believe that there was some guy who rallied the poor and caused an uprising in Rome, I find it a tad bit difficult to believe that some guy walked on water and rose from the dead like some kind of zombie easter bunny.

Rot wrote:Technically speaking, macro evolution is a bit of a what if itself. Both sides do have evidence. And, technically speaking, since macro evolution and creationism are just about opposites, evidence against macro evolution would be evidence for creationism.

Again, there are far more possibilities than just the two that we are discussing here. Refuting one does not confirm the other. If I disproved intelligent design, that would not definitively prove evolution to be true, it would only defeat one of its MANY obstacles.

Rot wrote:I'm too lazy to go over the whole win-win vs win-lose and win-lose vs lose-lose thingy I did the last time we had a religious debate, so before I do, do you remember that? If not, I'll go over it again.

I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say.

Civ wrote:Yet Darwin wrote an interesting book titled The Origin of Species.

The keyword in your statement is "Species." His book attempts to explain how life on Earth evolved into our species, not how life itself came to be.

Civ wrote:Its funny how you don't consider anything with something religious in it to be historical. Is the bible not a historical document? The gospels are still records of accounts.

I don't often accept religious documentation to be historically relevant because it's very hard to distinguish fact from fiction. While the bible does offer some believable and likely accurate information from its era, It also speaks of Angels, talking snakes, and space ghosts... I'd put a smiley here, but I enforce a strict personal limit of 2 per post.

Civ wrote: On the contrary, I find "what if" and "why" to be the perfect questions for science to operate.

I agree, but those questions typically have to have a bit of backing before they can be taught in schools.

Civ wrote:Not even a hint? I wouldn't go that far. The entire idea of ID is based upon similarities in our world, supporting the idea that there was a common creator.

Can you supply me with one similarity that could not be supported by the fact that all things in the perceivable natural world developed under similar circumstances?

Civ wrote:So because ID has less evidence, it is illogical?

No, but it shouldn't be taught in schools.

Im just saying evlution shouldn;t be taught as solid fact, and that ID should at least be mentioned alongside it.

ReconToaster wrote:*sigh, you know, I had the thing all typed up at 12 o'clock, just as I said I would. When I went to post it, my log in had timed out (or something) and it made me log back in. I entered my Username and password... hit enter... and chrome decided to freeze on me. In short, I lost a long ass post. I'll try to emulate it as best I can:

Man, I know how that feels.

ReconToaster wrote: Thing is, when it's 1vs3, which is typically how it is, it's somewhat difficult to quote and address every single paragraph in your long ass posts. What I find most entertaining about watching you debate is the way you bitch like a pregnant cow.

The thing is, you quote little fragments of those arguments. If you just quoted and responded to the entire paragraph rather than a half a sentence in the paragraph, it wouldn't look like you dodged all of my points.

ReconToaster wrote: To address your argument, I really don't think you've got much there. Unless I'm missing something, the extent of your argument was that, because you don't think that increased oxygen levels could produce an enormous boom in creature variety, Intelligent Design must be the answer as to what caused the Cambrian explosion.

It is as if you are stating that "Evolution" and "Intelligent Design" are the only two possible answers to the development of life. In reality, there are millions of possibilities. Disproving evolution (which you have not done) does not make ID the winner by default.

But you see, I am not saying that since the Cambrian Explosion doesn't support evolution, it therefore supports creationism. I am saying that because there was this sort of boom in which we went from almost no fossil record to a very very large one, that this supports creationism, since that is the sort of thing you'd expect to see from creationism. My point about snow ball earth was simply to say that creationism isn't the only thing the Cambrian Explosion would support.

ReconToaster wrote: Red shift supports the big bang theory, which is all I intended for my statement to do. I realize that it does not shatter religion, nor was I hoping it would. It does nothing to the argument of intelligent design either. It does, however, put quite a hindrance on creation.

I don't see how the big bang theory hinders creationism, since for it to work, something has to have always existed, and a higher being happens to fit that sort of description.

ReconToaster wrote: On top of all that, There are many ideas as to how the big bang occurred, one of them involving multiple universes. Admittedly, many (if not all) of these "theories" sound like something out of a sci-fantasy novel. Still, it seems that whenever I mention string theory (which I do not subscribe myself to) to you, you act as if the idea sounds crazy. If you think that Intelligent Design should be covered in schools, then you damn well better agree that every one of those crazy Big bang beginning theories be taught.

Quite the contrary. I actually subscribe to String Theory myself. However, not even String Theory explains why these billions upon trillions of parallel universes have just always existed, which is necessary for the strings that make up the fiber and hold these universes together to vibrate and cause a gigantic explosion. And I wouldn't mind if some of the major theories behind the big bang theory, such as String Theory, be taught in school. I had to learn about String Theory outside of school, after all, which made me sad.

ReconToaster wrote: What I am arguing is that we should keep the topics covered extensively in science classes limited only to theories that are supported most by evidence at hand. This is not about me saying that there is no god, it's about me saying that evolution, however full of holes as it may be, is the best thing we've got just now. I'm glad that you at least understand what I'm trying to get across.

And that is fair enough. The problem is that, in many high schools today, my own included, at the teacher's discretion, macro evolution is being taught as absolute fact, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. If nothing else, I would like the class to focus on macro evolution, but for it to be required that the teacher mention that macro evolution is neither fact, nor the only halfway plausible theory behind the origin and advancement of species.

ReconToaster wrote: While I do think the concept of absolute "scientific law" completely contradicts the meaning of science, I think you're misinterpreting their purpose.

The "laws" of science are not meant to be applied to the entirety of all that is unknown. They were established in order to help us understand and study the place in the world in which we reside. There very well may be a Dimension wherein the laws of physics and science can be bent, or completely broken, but they are not yet known to us.

The laws are meant to govern the Einsteinian universe in which we reside, nothing more.

You are also making the mistake once more of addressing science as if it were a religion. While I respect the laws of science under most circumstances, I do not hail Newton every morning for his discoveries.

I actually wasn't talking about this at all. I was simply stating that, as far as science is concerned, something cannot have just always existed for no reason. Science requires a reason. That's what fuels science, finding reasons. And since we are currently talking about something simple having always existed, there cannot be a cause, since a cause comes either before or at the same time as an effect, but the effect in question has no beginning. This is where science runs into a wall trying to explain the big bang theory. No matter how detailed we get about it, we have to assume that, at some point, something has just always existed.

ReconToaster wrote: We have pictures of the holocaust at its prime, predating the release of photoshop. I've never come across a picture of Jesus hangin' with his disciples. What I'm arguing is not that he did not exist, but that the extent of his existence is debatable. While I can believe that there was some guy who rallied the poor and caused an uprising in Rome, I find it a tad bit difficult to believe that some guy walked on water and rose from the dead like some kind of zombie easter bunny.

I think what Civ was trying to say is that, if Jesus existed, and people wrote about him having performed these great miracles almost immediately after his death, then people claiming all his miracles are fake is about on the same level as people claiming that all the evidence for macro evolution is common coincidence. Whether he rose from the dead is certainly arguable, since witnesses were few and he only allegedly stayed 33 days on Earth, and that his body was actually different to some degree than his old one, his prior miracles are not as arguable. The guy drew crowds that were barely fathomable, and there were a lot of witnesses to his healing miracles and those sort.

ReconToaster wrote: Again, there are far more possibilities than just the two that we are discussing here. Refuting one does not confirm the other. If I disproved intelligent design, that would not definitively prove evolution to be true, it would only defeat one of its MANY obstacles.

Yes, but my point was you said creationism has no place in the classroom because it is a what if. If I can prove that, if nothing else, macro evolution is on the same standing as creationism, then both would have a place in the classroom. By disproving macro evolution, I don't prove creationism; I don't have to. I just have to prove that creationism deserves a place in the classroom like macro evolution does.

ReconToaster wrote: I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say.

I feel like a preacher saying it, since this point abandons either issue and simply goes with a win-loss system, but here it is.

Let's assume you are an atheist. If you are right, there is nothing after death. In this case, we'll call this a lose situation, since that means death is the end, which kinda sucks. So, if you're right, I lose, but so do you. Now, if I'm right, I'm going to Heaven. So I win. But you're going to Hell, which is also a lose situation. So, in atheism vs religion, I am in a win-lose situation, but you are in a lose-lose situation. The only thing you gain from being right is bragging rights, which don't exactly mean shit if there isn't any sort of afterlife anyway.

Now, let's assume you are an agnostic. And let's also assume that, as an agnostic, you have a mild belief in a higher being and believe that we're all going to Heaven (for an agnostic that doesn't believe in an afterlife, see the above paragraph). So, if you're right and there's an upper being who doesn't care what we do, and we're all going into a paradise-like afterlife, then you win, but so do I. Now, if I'm right, we again run into me in Heaven and you in Hell, which is obviously a win for me and a lose for you. Thus, with agnosticism vs religion, I am in a win-win situation, but you are in a win-lose situation. Even if you're right, you don't exactly get bragging rights, since you simply chose to ride the fence and declare that there isn't enough evidence either way.

Therefore, in just considering one's afterlife, being religious puts one in a safer position. The main benefit of choosing the other side is simply to be right, which we can all agree is a vain desire (a nice one to have, but vain nonetheless). Obviously, it isn't quite that simple, since in life, choosing the path of religion often means you'll face persecution (at least, the Bible teaches that since the world hated Jesus, so to will they hate His followers), but in the most simplest form, it is better to be religious and wrong than atheistic/agnostic and right, since in both view points, we all get the same treatment anyway.

ReconToaster wrote: The keyword in your statement is "Species." His book attempts to explain how life on Earth evolved into our species, not how life itself came to be.

Fair enough. I had thought Darwinism had covered origin of life, too, but I can't be certain.

ReconToaster wrote: I don't often accept religious documentation to be historically relevant because it's very hard to distinguish fact from fiction. While the bible does offer some believable and likely accurate information from its era, It also speaks of Angels, talking snakes, and space ghosts... I'd put a smiley here, but I enforce a strict personal limit of 2 per post.

And that's fair enough. But then, everyone wrote off the Norse Sagas about traveling to a new land across the Atlantic as fiction, since it involved dragons and the like, but we found Viking settlements along the coast of Newfoundland, Greenland, and Iceland.

ReconToaster wrote: I agree, but those questions typically have to have a bit of backing before they can be taught in schools.

Fair enough. I suppose I'll have to get up off my lazy ass and do a little research. I know there is scientific evidence out there that supports creationism, I just don't know what it is yet.

ReconToaster wrote: Can you supply me with one similarity that could not be supported by the fact that all things in the perceivable natural world developed under similar circumstances?

Perhaps it is the differences we should focus on, then? But really, just looking at life itself is not evidence enough of either side. Though I do find it highly unlikely that things turn out the way they did, because there are so many star systems out there, I suppose in the view of macro evolution, it was bound to happen somewhere, and that somewhere would be the only place for us to argue about whether or not it happened. We aren't lucky, because no one else even had a chance. However, if you drop Scrabble pieces onto the floor, I doubt they'll ever land to form a word more than six letters long.

ReconToaster wrote: No, but it shouldn't be taught in schools.

Which is where we differ. Since both macro evolution and creationism have holes they need to work through, are both what ifs, and are the two most subscribed to beliefs, I think both should get a mention in schools. I believe the focus should be on macro evolution, since it is much more scientific, but what I want to stress is that macro evolution should never be taught as fact, and a way to ensure this is that creationism and possibly other theories get a brief cameo.

My teacher taught us Evolution, but said it was only a theroy, but it is the best supported.

Wow... Rot seems to have answered that 10x better than I ever could have... again... so I'll just see what Recon does now.

Rot wrote:If you just quoted and responded to the entire paragraph

But then I couldn't take your statements out of context...

Rot wrote:I had to learn about String Theory outside of school, after all, which made me sad.

Yeah, so did I. I think theories like this would be great to have taught in advanced classes, but, from the looks of my class mates in my PESS9 class... I really don't think they're quite simple enough to be taught to the average student. I personally would love a class like that.

Rot wrote:I am saying that because there was this sort of boom in which we went from almost no fossil record to a very very large one, that this supports creationism, since that is the sort of thing you'd expect to see from creationism.

Indeed, things suddenly appearing would be what you'd expect, but must we really give up on the quest for answers and settle with "god did it?" Hell, we could have been seeded by ancient aliens... that'd be a whole lot cooler.

Rot wrote:I don't see how the big bang theory hinders creationism, since for it to work, something has to have always existed, and a higher being happens to fit that sort of description.

The big bang theory tells us that an explosion of particles caused the formation of the universe, and eventually our individual galaxy, solar system, and own personal planet. The theory tells us that this formation took place over billions/trillions of years. Creationism proposes 7 days.

Also, if you take enough pride in the fossil record to base your ideas, in part, on the Cambrian explosion, then must you also agree that, as the fossil record leads us to believe, this all happened 530 million years ago?

Rot wrote:By disproving macro evolution, I don't prove creationism; I don't have to. I just have to prove that creationism deserves a place in the classroom like macro evolution does.

I understand. Still, I think that some of the importance of teaching Darwinism lies in the context of what else is being taught. Darwinism gives us a possible answer as to how human life developed on Earth without breaking the rules of the laws of science (which undoubtedly rule our Einsteinian Universe,) which are so emphasized in Middle/High school curriculum.

Rot wrote: If nothing else, I would like the class to focus on macro evolution, but for it to be required that the teacher mention that macro evolution is neither fact, nor the only halfway plausible theory behind the origin and advancement of species.

Very well said Rot. I agree.

Rot wrote:I was simply stating that, as far as science is concerned, something cannot have just always existed for no reason. Science requires a reason. That's what fuels science, finding reasons.

That's exactly the point I was trying to address in my post. Conservation of Matter, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, is relevant only to our Einsteinian Universe. Whether or not it is true elsewhere is too far out of our jurisdiction to determine.

Rot wrote:I feel like a preacher saying it, since this point abandons either issue and simply goes with a win-loss system, but here it is...

Oh, that kind of a win/loss analysis.... and this is where the hell scare tactic / heaven reward tactic really shows its face.

The fact that I wouldn't be able to rub your face in defeat were I to be right is pretty irrelevant, as I would be dead, and would feel no desire to do so.

Rot wrote:the Bible teaches that since the world hated Jesus, so to will they hate His followers

That is, until his followers become the most prominent religion on the face of the Earth, and all others become a minority. Whose the bully now eh'?

Rot wrote:And that's fair enough. But then, everyone wrote off the Norse Sagas about traveling to a new land across the Atlantic as fiction, since it involved dragons and the like, but we found Viking settlements along the coast of Newfoundland, Greenland, and Iceland.

Your right, kinda like historical fiction.

I guess I'd relate it to reading a Dan Brown book. The Illuminati did exist, but was the extent of their existence as prominent as he describes in "Angels & Demons?"

Rot wrote: However, if you drop Scrabble pieces onto the floor, I doubt they'll ever land to form a word more than six letters long.

Now imagine dropping a Google-plex scrabble pieces on the floor. You imagine you'd get the same results?

Rot wrote:what I want to stress is that macro evolution should never be taught as fact

I agree. In response to the rest of the paragraph, see above. I think more complex theories could be covered in more advanced classes, and that, as you said, Macro Evolution should be the focus, as it follows the rules that are so stressed at that level of learning.

Civ wrote:Wow... Rot seems to have answered that 10x better than I ever could have... again... so I'll just see what Recon does now.

Leaving it to others to fight your battles?

Damn it all. The same thing that happened to Recon just happened to me. My luck for not selecting auto log in. I'm at school, so I didn't want it to always log in...

The general idea was that Recon and I are beginning to see eye to eye with some more in depth looks at the Bible to see how it fits against science, primarily on the idea of not taking Genesis's seven days as literal days. I also went briefly into the professy of seven churches in Revelation, commenting that we are currently in what Bible scholars call the Laodicean Age, where much of the church has lost sight of faith in order to make its market share. I'll go through and rewrite it later, I guess.

Rot wrote:The same thing that happened to Recon just happened to me. My luck for not selecting auto log in. I'm at school, so I didn't want it to always log in...

Yeah, I was at a friend's house. Sorry man...

I'll wait for you to get the intended post in before I reply

ReconToaster wrote: But then I couldn't take your statements out of context...

ReconToaster wrote: Yeah, so did I. I think theories like this would be great to have taught in advanced classes, but, from the looks of my class mates in my PESS9 class... I really don't think they're quite simple enough to be taught to the average student. I personally would love a class like that.

I suppose you're right, but even in honors physics, it only got a single mention. There was a teacher who would do a lecture about an advanced topic once a year, but the only time I saw him before graduation, he did special relativity.

ReconToaster wrote: Indeed, things suddenly appearing would be what you'd expect, but must we really give up on the quest for answers and settle with "god did it?" Hell, we could have been seeded by ancient aliens... that'd be a whole lot cooler.

If it makes you feel better, you can always think of God as a being that exists in more than one dimension, since omnipotence suggests that, at the very least, he exists in the sixth dimension, but omnipresence suggests in the tenth dimension. So in a way, God is an alien, sort of.

ReconToaster wrote: The big bang theory tells us that an explosion of particles caused the formation of the universe, and eventually our individual galaxy, solar system, and own personal planet. The theory tells us that this formation took place over billions/trillions of years. Creationism proposes 7 days.

Also, if you take enough pride in the fossil record to base your ideas, in part, on the Cambrian explosion, then must you also agree that, as the fossil record leads us to believe, this all happened 530 million years ago?

You see, not all of us believe in a literal seven days. Let's look at the first chapter of Genesis. First, before anythign else, including the seven days, it states that in the beginning, God creates the heavens and the earth, and that everything is dark and empty. Having done this, on the first day, God creates light. On the second day, he creates atmosphere (more literally, a layer to seperate planet from vacuum). On the third day, he seperates land from water (the Bible says that he groups all the land together, which fits with the Pangea super continent theory). On the fourth day, it says that he puts lights into the sky (referring to the atmosphere) to govern day and night and to help tell time. On the fifth day, he creates sea creatures, and then avian. On the sixth day, he creates land creatures, and then humans. And then, on the seventh day, he takes a break. Now, if you were to ignore the days as being literal and just take this as an overview of creation, the only thing that really doesn't fit with the big bang theory and macro evolution is the fourth day, the "creation" of the sun, moon, and stars. Personally, from the way it is worded, I think it is more that he clears the atmosphere so that the sun, moon, and stars are clearly visible from the surface of Earth, since it says he puts lights in the sky, specifically referring to the atmosphere. Otherwise, we have the beginning, which is cold and dark (there are a decent number of scientists that believe that the very first stages of the big bang were cold, and that all the heat came later), then, stars form, providing light. Once Sol has formed, Earth is formed, and eventually the crust solidifies and oceans form. The atmosphere becomes more stable and volcanic activity begins to slow (and, notably, this is likely when the moon forms). Then, life in the water forms, followed by life in the skies/on the ground. And finally, after all this, humans come about. The big difference here is that, whereas macro evolution says that the sea creatures then turned into the land creatures, creationism would be more like there were sea creatures, and then God created land creatures. Though, frankly, God could have used macro evolution. I think it is more than coincidence that the way that men thousands of years ago described the creation of the universe and our planet happens to coincide with the actual path that the formation of the universe and our planet took.

ReconToaster wrote: I understand. Still, I think that some of the importance of teaching Darwinism lies in the context of what else is being taught. Darwinism gives us a possible answer as to how human life developed on Earth without breaking the rules of the laws of science (which undoubtedly rule our Einsteinian Universe,) which are so emphasized in Middle/High school curriculum.

And that's fair enough. I just want to ensure that darwinism is never taught as fact. By introducing a brief mention of creationism or even intelligent design, it is ensured that macro evolution is not taught as the only possibility.

ReconToaster wrote: Very well said Rot. I agree.

Thanks. I'm glad that we're beginning to see eye to eye.

ReconToaster wrote: That's exactly the point I was trying to address in my post. Conservation of Matter, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, is relevant only to our Einsteinian Universe. Whether or not it is true elsewhere is too far out of our jurisdiction to determine.

Fair enough. But remember that our universe, like all the other parallel universes of String theory, must also have simply existed since the beginning of time for the whole vibrating-strings-hitting-each-other theory to work.

ReconToaster wrote: Oh, that kind of a win/loss analysis.... and this is where the hell scare tactic / heaven reward tactic really shows its face.

The fact that I wouldn't be able to rub your face in defeat were I to be right is pretty irrelevant, as I would be dead, and would feel no desire to do so.

Well that's part of the point. The only benefit of being an atheist is the notion that you might be right during life. Because atheists and Christians get equal treatment upon death according to the atheists, neither of us wins if you're right, but I win and you certainly don't if you're wrong. Bragging rights aside, Hell sucks. I mean, even as a Christian, the notion that people I know personally will end up there is a frightening prospect.

ReconToaster wrote: That is, until his followers become the most prominent religion on the face of the Earth, and all others become a minority. Whose the bully now eh'?

Quite the contrary, actually. Most Bible scholars agree that today is what we call the Laodicean Age. In Revelation, before the whole Tribulation prophecies, there is a small prophecy known as the Seven Churches or Seven Letters prophecy. Basically, it lists seven churches that actually existed at that time in different regions, and talks about their qualities and detriments. While there seems to be no pattern to how he lists the churches when you look at regions, it seems clear that the each church represents an age of the Christian church as a whole. The final church listed is the Church of Laodicea, which is described as lukewarm and being spewed from the mouth of God. It would seem that the Church of Laodicea abandoned faith in order to pursue wealth. And in this day and age, with mega churches avoiding all the touchy subjects in order to get their market share, I'd say it's a rather accurate description. While self-professing Christians might be very common, so few of them actually understand what it means to be a Christian that I really doubt all of them are going to Heaven.

ReconToaster wrote: Your right, kinda like historical fiction.

I guess I'd relate it to reading a Dan Brown book. The Illuminati did exist, but was the extent of their existence as prominent as he describes in "Angels & Demons?"

Indeed. The Bible is definitely historically accurate. The debatable part is juts how accurate.

ReconToaster wrote: Now imagine dropping a Google-plex scrabble pieces on the floor. You imagine you'd get the same results?

The chances of a six letter word landing with all of the pieces in a line and all the letters facing the right direction, with no other letters on top of them, is so astronomically high that at a Google-Plex of pieces, you're still pushing the odds. But in this analogy, Earth isn't a six letter word. It's probably more like a twelve letter word.

ReconToaster wrote: I agree. In response to the rest of the paragraph, see above. I think more complex theories could be covered in more advanced classes, and that, as you said, Macro Evolution should be the focus, as it follows the rules that are so stressed at that level of learning.

Just as long as they make it clear that it is a theory, I'm fine.

ReconToaster wrote: Leaving it to others to fight your battles?

I think that the origins of the world via Flying Spaghetti Monster should be taught it schools as fact.

I agree with BBJynne.

The science classes should also teach that global warming exists and is caused by lack of pirates.

KristallNacht wrote:I agree with BBJynne.

The science classes should also teach that global warming exists and is caused by lack of pirates.

I third this motion.

Here's an idea, how about neither are actually taught? If someone really wants to know, they can go read a book. Otherwise, it doesn't really pertain to anything about how cells divide, how elements are combined, or how the Romans became so powerful. It doesn't really add much to anything, Earth's past is just a little branch of science of its own and isn't important in understanding how the world works today.

If neither was taught then the children wont know about it and WONT be interested because they never have heard of it

If they ever watch TV or read a book they would hear or see about it BEFORE they even got to Bio classes that teach it.